From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 00:58:17 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:58:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] .com/.net/.edu signed and DS records in the root Message-ID: .com/net/edu cryptographically signed and records inserted inthe rootzone, progress on a real IG can be seen at: http://scoreboard.verisignlabs.com/count-trace.png -- 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: Matt Larson Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:05 PM Subject: [Dnssec-deployment] Final step of .com DNSSEC deployment To: dnssec-deployment at dnssec-deployment.org As part of the deployment of DNSSEC in .com, the zone has been signed and in a "deliberately unvalidatable" state for several weeks.  Late last week the .com key material was unobscured and the actual keys have been visible in the zone since March 24. The final step in the deployment was publishing the .com zone's DS record in the root zone. I am pleased to report that the root zone including a DS record for .com was published at approximately 1500 UTC today, March 31. Matt Larson, on behalf of the many people at Verisign who made this deployment possible ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 07:53:20 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:23:20 +0430 Subject: [governance] .com/.net/.edu signed and DS records in the root In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: McTim, I'm sorry, but on behalf of those in the list who are not engineers and haven't fully understood what this means (maybe it's just me...), I'd like to ask you to explain it a little. Best, Ivar Hartmann On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 09:28, McTim wrote: > .com/net/edu cryptographically signed and records inserted inthe > rootzone, progress on a real IG can be seen at: > > http://scoreboard.verisignlabs.com/count-trace.png > > > -- > 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: Matt Larson > Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:05 PM > Subject: [Dnssec-deployment] Final step of .com DNSSEC deployment > To: dnssec-deployment at dnssec-deployment.org > > > As part of the deployment of DNSSEC in .com, the zone has been signed > and in a "deliberately unvalidatable" state for several weeks. Late > last week the .com key material was unobscured and the actual keys > have been visible in the zone since March 24. > > The final step in the deployment was publishing the .com zone's DS > record in the root zone. > > I am pleased to report that the root zone including a DS record for > .com was published at approximately 1500 UTC today, March 31. > > Matt Larson, on behalf of the many people at Verisign who made this > deployment possible > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Apr 1 08:25:49 2011 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:25:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <4D925954.9000100@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4D95C44D.7020000@wzb.eu> On 30.03.2011 21:13, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Jeanette and all, > > Your e-mail is short, and yet, provides so much food for discussion. I > envy your conciseness! :) Thank you, Maciel, I guess I was just tired :-) > > > Actually, I don't want to decide this question. I would prefer to > look at these issues as a process rather than a binary decision. > > > There are occasions we do need to make a decision. In the WG, either we > would take by the hand the task of writting the report or we would leave > it to the Secretariat. I was only referring to the issue of outcomes. Since I did not follow that meeting, I cannot assess the significance of the authorship of the drafting report. > We have faced the issue of formal outcome versus no outcome at all > over several years. Both options have support from strong groups. > The way out of such constellations is evolution not an either/or > constellation. > > > In my opinion we are not witnessing the same debate taking place over > the years. The debate has changed, in an evolutionary manner, I would > say. Three years ago there were those who would argue for strong > recommendation from the IGF, even binding. Today, this option is out of > the table. No stakeholder group defended anything like that in the WG. > In general terms, we are between "no change" and "outcomes that reflect > converging views and alternative policy options". There is no > deliberation involved, as all different views would be reflected. This > is change and evolution, in my view. Shouldn´t the ones that want "no > outcomes" take a step towards the point of convergence and equilibrium? Yes, no doubt, they should. And I fought for such an approach on the MAG - to no avail. Still, if formal paths towards tackling the issue of outcomes are blocked there remain informal paths such as experimenting with outcomes on the regional and national level. What is more, formal rules can always be reinterpreted over time. > > > What I would have liked to see is an experimental approach where > each annual IGF meeting will try out new versions of reporting > taking on board the experiences from regional and national IGFs. > > > Certainly, that would be interesting, I strongly support that idea as > well. But it does not exclude any of the approaches above. > > In my view, it would have been sufficient if the CSTD WG would have > endorsed such an open process. > > > Honestly, I think that this would be quite little for an expert WG to > propose as the main improvement to the IGF, Actually, right now I would be happy if we don't lose what we have achieved over the past 5 years. The original mandate provides so much space for evolution. In my view, the bottleneck isn't the mandate, the bottleneck is the composition of the MAG! and this would not address > the concern expressed in the report of the Secretary-general, which > served as base for the convening of the WG in the first place. Don't we all agree that the concerns of the SG are more about the multistakeholder approach as such than the concrete structure of the IGF? The wording is part of a language game that should be treated as such. jeanette > > > jeanette > > > Best wishes, > > Marília > > > > And then perhaps, if we really > > must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to > suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose > planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard > work we could have got some good results from the WG. > > It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society > advocate on IG > and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our > mind. Can a > multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed > stuff > on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with > relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - > from an > IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do > so. This > process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for > IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, > developing > background material around each, WG then helps plan the process > at the > IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate > feeder > workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF > before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi > stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages > or 10 on > key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' > clear policy > paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my > understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this > is the > only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy > making. > And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of > India's > proposal. > > Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who > opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, > Wolfgang > when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on > 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by > this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF. > > I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be > more > comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative > multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have > clear > political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the > moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the > secretariat > at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would > we then > change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or > alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more > clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were > not put > there by a particular country whose political positions we generally > agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) > whose > political opinions we were much against. This is purely > hypothetical, > put putting real countries and real people in this imagined > situation > will greatly help make clear what I am driving at. > > I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main > issues > that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition > and IGF > funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in > Annriette's > and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue > which was > the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to > determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's > meeting. > Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must > most of > all be informed by this issue. > > Parminder > > > On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Dear all > > I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear > after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to > reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The > whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of > this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question. > > I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an > unworkable environment which does not allow the production > of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be > surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned > failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole > direction and to discredite the innovative forms of > multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for > governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: > "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as > governments - are different and have other working methods. > So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) > agendas into an international dialogue." > > A second scenario could be, that this is another step in > what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined > "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". > In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If > Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals > which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF > Working Group and if Nairobi becomes an "outstanding > success", this will make life much more difficult for the > governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to > change the direction. > > What are the options now for civil society? > > Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, > lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what > the governments will do. > > Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who > have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of > the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the > aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with > recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be > discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee > of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011. > > Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting > procedure for an alternative report, inviting other > non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to > join the process. The report could be presented via a > friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in > Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could > have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the > title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve > multistakeholder collaboration". > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 08:27:41 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 15:27:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: .com/.net/.edu signed and DS records in the root In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: the meaning depends on your perspective. For me it means that website owners can add a bit of security to their DNS records, so that man in the middle and cache poisoning can be prevented. For milton and brendan, it ,eans centralisation of control over the DNS. Am on my phone today, so cant write a dissertation, but googgle "dnssec" for more info. Rgds, mctim On 4/1/11, Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote: > McTim, > I'm sorry, but on behalf of those in the list who are not engineers and > haven't fully understood what this means (maybe it's just me...), I'd like > to ask you to explain it a little. > Best, > Ivar Hartmann > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 09:28, McTim wrote: > >> .com/net/edu cryptographically signed and records inserted inthe >> rootzone, progress on a real IG can be seen at: >> >> http://scoreboard.verisignlabs.com/count-trace.png >> >> >> -- >> 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: Matt Larson >> Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:05 PM >> Subject: [Dnssec-deployment] Final step of .com DNSSEC deployment >> To: dnssec-deployment at dnssec-deployment.org >> >> >> As part of the deployment of DNSSEC in .com, the zone has been signed >> and in a "deliberately unvalidatable" state for several weeks. Late >> last week the .com key material was unobscured and the actual keys >> have been visible in the zone since March 24. >> >> The final step in the deployment was publishing the .com zone's DS >> record in the root zone. >> >> I am pleased to report that the root zone including a DS record for >> .com was published at approximately 1500 UTC today, March 31. >> >> Matt Larson, on behalf of the many people at Verisign who made this >> deployment possible >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Apr 1 08:35:29 2011 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 14:35:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: .com/.net/.edu signed and DS records in the root In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110401123529.GA29729@nic.fr> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 04:23:20PM +0430, Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote a message of 160 lines which said: > I'm sorry, but on behalf of those in the list who are not engineers > and haven't fully understood what this means (maybe it's just > me...), I'd like to ask you to explain it a little. I just checked and the Wikipedia entry on it is quite good (although very US-centric in the Deployment section). Pay special attention to the sections Overview and Deployment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions Using Google to search "dnssec" is of course a very bad idea: you can find anything, from the good to the bad, or, simply, to the very technical and difficult to read. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 08:53:31 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:23:31 +0430 Subject: [governance] Re: .com/.net/.edu signed and DS records in the root In-Reply-To: <20110401123529.GA29729@nic.fr> References: <20110401123529.GA29729@nic.fr> Message-ID: Thanks Stephane and McTim! On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 17:05, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 04:23:20PM +0430, > Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote > a message of 160 lines which said: > > > I'm sorry, but on behalf of those in the list who are not engineers > > and haven't fully understood what this means (maybe it's just > > me...), I'd like to ask you to explain it a little. > > I just checked and the Wikipedia entry on it is quite good (although > very US-centric in the Deployment section). Pay special attention to > the sections Overview and Deployment. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions > > Using Google to search "dnssec" is of course a very bad idea: you can > find anything, from the good to the bad, or, simply, to the very > technical and difficult to read. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Apr 1 23:35:11 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 11:35:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC-sponsored IGF workshop proposals Message-ID: This thread is to discuss proposals for workshops for the Nairobi meeting for the IGF. This year there are feeder workshops which are those relating to the main themes and sub-themes of the meeting, and other workshops. The overall theme of the meeting is "Internet as a catalyst for change: access, development, freedoms and innovation", and the main themes under this are: Internet governance for development (IG4D) Emerging Issues Managing critical Internet resources Security, openness and privacy Access and diversity Taking stock and the way forward The criteria for this year's workshops are listed here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011. IGC members may, of course, propose workshops without the imprimatur of the IGC and are encouraged to do so. However, there may be workshops that would have extra value coming from the IGC as the main global civil society forum on Internet governance issues. As a reminder of the workshops we held last year, they were "Innovative Internet Governance Ideas and Approaches - An Open Discussion Space," "Transnational (or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy", and "Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015". For workshops to be proposed this year, we will need to identify one or more people who will be responsible for coordinating it, which will not necessarily be either of the IGC co-coordinators. One workshop idea that I want to throw in for discussion is the rather straightforwardly (if not confrontingly) titled: "Planning for a new multi-stakeholder Internet governance council". The idea behind it is to provide a session in which to discuss hypothetical new high-level multi-stakeholder arrangements for enhanced cooperation and for conducting exercises like the review of the IGF, as recently but unsuccessfully attempted by the CSTD working group. Please post your suggestions here. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 05:39:35 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:39:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Confirmation of Registration - WSIS Forum 2011, Geneva, 16-20 May 2011 - ID [1089821] In-Reply-To: <201104011816.UAA0000084377@coral.itu.ch> References: <201104011816.UAA0000084377@coral.itu.ch> Message-ID: Hello everyone, I would absolutely not take you precious time. My record at the WSIS Forum 2011 was accepted. Locally, I still can not find a partner to facilitate my participation in this forum. Would there be someone who might one paternaire that might set me a care to join this forum? I ask your indulgence, this is the first time I made ​​such a concern. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914 email : b.schombe at gmail.com blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/4/1 > *CONFIRMATION OF REGISTRATION* > > * * > > *WSIS Forum 2011* > > *Geneva, 16-20 May 2011* > > > > > > > > Dear *Mr Baudouin Schombe*, > > > > You have been registered to participate in the WSIS Forum 2011 to be held > at ILO in Geneva from 16 to 20 May 2011. > > > > *Your registration identification (ID) number to be quoted at all timesis: > *1089821* * > > > > Please note that in order to receive your identity badge, this confirmation > e-mail must be carried with you and presented to the badging desk, together > with your ID card or passport. > > > > *On-site badging:* > > * * > > *From Monday 16 May to Friday 20 May 2011 * > > Badging desks will be located at Door 1 (PORTE 1) of the *International > Labour Organization (ILO) > *(4 route des Morillons - CH-1211 Genève 22 –Switzerland)* > Open hours*: 08:30-12:00 and 13:30-17:00 hours. > > On *Monday 16 May*, badging desks will open *at 7:30 hours*. > > *On Friday 13 May 2011 (afternoon) ONLY:* > > Badging desks will exceptionnally be opened at *International > Telecommunication Union (ITU) *(Monbrillant building – 2, rue de Varembé – > CH-1220 GENEVA) from *14:00 to 17:00 hours*. > > Participants, especially if they are based in Geneva, are strongly > advised to come and collect their badges on Friday afternoon at ITU. > > ************ > > > > *IMPORTANT : *Please note that WSIS Forum 2011 will be held at: > > * * > > *International Labour Organization (ILO) - Conference Centre* > > 4 route des Morillons > CH-1211 Genève 22 > Switzerland > > > > ************ > Visa assistance > > > > Please note that citizens of some countries are required to obtain a visa > in order to enter and spend any time in Switzerland. The visa must be > requested at least three (3) weeks before the date of beginning of the > meeting and obtained from the office (embassy or consulate) representing > Switzerland in your country or, if there is no such office in your country, > from the one that is closest to the country of departure. > > > > If problems are encountered, the Union can, *at the official request of > the administration or entity you represent*, approach the competent Swiss > authorities in order to facilitate delivery of the visa but only within the > stipulated deadline. Any such official request must specify *the name and > function, date of birth, number, date of issue and expiry of passport, of > the person for whom the visa is requested* and should be submitted to the > ITU Secretariat by fax to No. *+41 22 730 6627*. Request, signed by a > responsible officer, must be accompanied by photocopy of passport. > > > > The secretariat will be unable to assist with *incomplete requests *and/or > * requests received after 15 April 2011. * > > * * > > We would like to take this opportunity to remind you that remote > participation to WSIS Forum 2011 is also possible. Details can be found at > the ITu website at: > http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/About/RemoteParticipation.aspx > > > > ************ > *Hotel accommodation* > > Information concerning hotel accommodation in Geneva can be found at the > following website address: http://www.itu.int/travel/ > > > > *For further information please contact:* > > *ITU Secretariat by e-mail at *SG-registration at itu.int > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Mon Apr 4 06:10:47 2011 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:10:47 +0600 Subject: [governance] Re: Confirmation of Registration - WSIS Forum 2011, Geneva, 16-20 May 2011 - ID [1089821] References: <201104011816.UAA0000084377@coral.itu.ch> Message-ID: <5DF47EA57E1A408880612336432B4321@BNNRCLAPTOP1> Dear SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) Thank you very much for your nice mail regarding UN WSIS Forum 2011 Geneva, 16-20 May 201. We are also same boat like you regarding funding. With best wishes, 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: Baudouin SCHOMBE To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 3:39 PM Subject: [governance] Re: Confirmation of Registration - WSIS Forum 2011, Geneva, 16-20 May 2011 - ID [1089821] Hello everyone, I would absolutely not take you precious time. My record at the WSIS Forum 2011 was accepted. Locally, I still can not find a partner to facilitate my participation in this forum. Would there be someone who might one paternaire that might set me a care to join this forum? I ask your indulgence, this is the first time I made ​​such a concern. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914 email : b.schombe at gmail.com blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/4/1 CONFIRMATION OF REGISTRATION WSIS Forum 2011 Geneva, 16-20 May 2011 Dear Mr Baudouin Schombe, You have been registered to participate in the WSIS Forum 2011 to be held at ILO in Geneva from 16 to 20 May 2011. Your registration identification (ID) number to be quoted at all times is: 1089821 Please note that in order to receive your identity badge, this confirmation e-mail must be carried with you and presented to the badging desk, together with your ID card or passport. On-site badging: From Monday 16 May to Friday 20 May 2011 Badging desks will be located at Door 1 (PORTE 1) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) (4 route des Morillons - CH-1211 Genève 22 –Switzerland) Open hours: 08:30-12:00 and 13:30-17:00 hours. On Monday 16 May, badging desks will open at 7:30 hours. On Friday 13 May 2011 (afternoon) ONLY: Badging desks will exceptionnally be opened at International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (Monbrillant building – 2, rue de Varembé – CH-1220 GENEVA) from 14:00 to 17:00 hours. Participants, especially if they are based in Geneva, are strongly advised to come and collect their badges on Friday afternoon at ITU. ************ IMPORTANT : Please note that WSIS Forum 2011 will be held at: International Labour Organization (ILO) - Conference Centre 4 route des Morillons CH-1211 Genève 22 Switzerland ************ Visa assistance Please note that citizens of some countries are required to obtain a visa in order to enter and spend any time in Switzerland. The visa must be requested at least three (3) weeks before the date of beginning of the meeting and obtained from the office (embassy or consulate) representing Switzerland in your country or, if there is no such office in your country, from the one that is closest to the country of departure. If problems are encountered, the Union can, at the official request of the administration or entity you represent, approach the competent Swiss authorities in order to facilitate delivery of the visa but only within the stipulated deadline. Any such official request must specify the name and function, date of birth, number, date of issue and expiry of passport, of the person for whom the visa is requested and should be submitted to the ITU Secretariat by fax to No. +41 22 730 6627. Request, signed by a responsible officer, must be accompanied by photocopy of passport. The secretariat will be unable to assist with incomplete requests and/or requests received after 15 April 2011. We would like to take this opportunity to remind you that remote participation to WSIS Forum 2011 is also possible. Details can be found at the ITu website at: http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/About/RemoteParticipation.aspx ************ Hotel accommodation Information concerning hotel accommodation in Geneva can be found at the following website address: http://www.itu.int/travel/ For further information please contact: ITU Secretariat by e-mail at SG-registration at itu.int ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Mon Apr 4 06:58:38 2011 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:58:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] CFP: First International Workshop on Securing Services on the Cloud (IWSSC 2011) Message-ID: <019601cbf2b7$40668a70$c1339f50$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] *************** CALL FOR PAPERS *************** FIRST INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON SECURING SERVICES ON THE CLOUD IWSSC 2011 Held in conjunction with the 5th International Conference on Network and System Security (NSS 2011) September 6-8, 2011, Milan, Italy - http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/iwssc2011 IWSSC 2011 BACKGROUND AND GOALS The ongoing merge between Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) and the Cloud computation paradigm provides a new environment fostering the integration of services located within company boundaries with those on the Cloud. An increasing number of organizations implement their business processes and applications via runtime composition of services made available on the Cloud by external suppliers. This scenario is changing the traditional view of security introducing new service security risks and threats, and requires re-thinking of current development, testing, and verification methodologies. IWSSC 2011 aims to address the security issues related to the deployment of services on the Cloud, along with evaluating their impact on traditional security solutions for software and network systems. The workshop seeks submissions from academia and industry presenting novel research on all theoretical and practical aspects of security of services implemented on the Cloud, as well as experimental studies in Cloud infrastructures, the implementation of services, and lessons learned. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * Security in Cloud services * Software verification in critical services * Static code analysis of software services * Test-based verification of services * Authentication and access control on the Cloud * Challenges in moving critical systems to the Cloud * Cybercrime and cyberterrorism on the Cloud * Communication confidentiality and integrity * Data security and privacy on the Cloud * Formal methods for the Cloud * Homeland security * Information assurance and trust management * Intrusion detection on the Cloud * Model-based validation of services * Orchestration and choreography * RESTful service security * SOAP security * Security certification of services * Security metrics on the Cloud * Security models and architectures * Security patterns for the Cloud * Security protocols on the Cloud IMPORTANT DATES Paper submission due: June 1, 2011 (midnight Samoa time) Notification to authors: July 11, 2011 Camera-ready due: July 21, 2011 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Submissions must not substantially overlap papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or conference/workshop with proceedings. Each submission should be at most 8 pages in total including bibliography and well-marked appendices, and should follow the IEEE 8.5" x 11" Two-Column Format. Submissions are to be made to the submission web site (http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=iwssc2011). Only pdf files will be accepted. Submissions not meeting these guidelines risk rejection without consideration of their merits. Authors of accepted papers must guarantee that their papers will be presented at the workshop. At least one author of each accepted paper is required to register with the main conference and present the paper. Accepted papers at the workshops will be published in the conference proceedings and in the IEEE digital library. IWSSC 2011 COMMITTEES AND CHAIRS Program Chairs * Claudio A. Ardagna, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Publicity Chair * Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Publication Chair * Giovanni Livraga, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Program Committee * Marco Aimar, Opera21, Italy * Marco Anisetti, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Luis Soares Barbosa, Universidade do Minho, Portugal * Michele Bezzi, SAP, France * Simona Brugnoni, Telecom Italia, Italy * Marco Casassa Mont, HP Labs, UK * Richard Chbeir, Universite de Bourgogne, France * Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Telecom Bretagne, France * Sergio Di Martino, Universita' di Napoli Federico II, Italy * Tharam Dillon, Curtin University of Technology, Australia * Eduardo Fernandez, Florida Atlantic University, USA * Nils Gruschka, NEC Laboratories Europe, Germany * Sigi Guergens, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany * Paul Hofmann, SAP Labs - Palo Alto, USA * Hejiao Huang, Harbin Institute of Technology, China * Renato Iannella, Semantic Identity, Australia * Meiko Jensen, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany * Giovanni Livraga, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Luigi Lo Iacono, European University of Applied Sciences, Germany * Antonio Mana, Universidad de Malaga, Spain * Renato Menicocci, Fondanzione Ugo Bordoni, Italy * Domenico Presenza, Engineering, Italy * Jorg Schwenk, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany * George Spanoudakis, City University of London, UK * Yanjiang Yang, Institute for Infocomm Research, Singapore TO BE COMPLETED This call for papers and additional information about the conference can be found at http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/iwssc2011 Program chairs can be contacted at iwssc2011 at unimi.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Mon Apr 4 08:07:37 2011 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:07:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Re: Confirmation of Registration - WSIS Forum 2011, Geneva, 16-20 May 2011 - ID [1089821] Message-ID: <716280.29603.qm@web29503.mail.ird.yahoo.com> What do you mean by Partner to facilitate your attendance. What exactly do you need?  
  • 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
________________________________ From: Baudouin SCHOMBE To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Monday, 4 April 2011, 10:39 Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Confirmation of Registration - WSIS Forum 2011, Geneva, 16-20 May 2011 - ID [1089821] Hello everyone, I would absolutely not take you precious time. My record at the WSIS Forum 2011 was accepted. Locally, I still can not find a partner to facilitate my participation in this forum. Would there be someone who might one paternaire that might set me a care to join this forum? I ask your indulgence, this is the first time I made ​​such a concern. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)  ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)   Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914 email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net   2011/4/1 CONFIRMATION OF REGISTRATION >  >WSIS Forum 2011 >Geneva, 16-20 May 2011 >  >  >  >Dear Mr Baudouin Schombe, >  >You have been registered to participate in the WSIS Forum 2011 to be held at ILO in Geneva from 16 to 20 May 2011. >  >Your registration identification (ID) numberto be quoted at all times is:  1089821 >  >Please note that in order to receive your identity badge, this confirmation e-mail must be carried with you and presented to the badging desk, together with your ID card or passport. >  >On-site badging: >  >From Monday 16 Mayto Friday 20 May 2011 >Badging desks will be located at Door 1 (PORTE 1) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) >(4 route des Morillons - CH-1211 Genève 22 –Switzerland) >Open hours: 08:30-12:00 and 13:30-17:00 hours. >On Monday 16 May, badging desks will open at 7:30 hours.  >On Friday 13 May 2011 (afternoon) ONLY: >Badging desks will exceptionnally be opened at International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (Monbrillant building – 2, rue de Varembé – CH-1220 GENEVA) from 14:00 to 17:00 hours. > Participants, especially if they are based in Geneva, are strongly advised to come and collect their badges on Friday afternoon at ITU. > ************ >  >IMPORTANT :Please note that WSIS Forum 2011 will be held at: >  >International Labour Organization (ILO) - Conference Centre >4 route des Morillons >CH-1211 Genève 22 >Switzerland >  >************ >  >Visa assistance >  >Please note that citizens of some countries are required to obtain a visa in order to enter and spend any time in Switzerland. The visa must be requested at least three (3) weeks before the date of beginning of the meeting and obtained from the office (embassy or consulate) representing Switzerland in your country or, if there is no such office in your country, from the one that is closest to the country of departure. >  >If problems are encountered, the Union can, at the official request of the administration or entity you represent, approach the competent Swiss authorities in order to facilitate delivery of the visa but only within the stipulated deadline. Any such official request must specify the name and function, date of birth, number, date of issue and expiry of passport, of the person for whom the visa is requested and should be submitted to the ITU Secretariat by fax to No. +41 22 730 6627. Request, signed by a responsible officer, must be accompanied by photocopy of passport. >  >The secretariat will be unable to assist with incomplete requests and/orrequests received after 15 April 2011. >  >We would like to take this opportunity to remind you that remote participation to WSIS Forum 2011 is also possible. Details can be found at the ITu website at: http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/About/RemoteParticipation.aspx >  >************ >Hotel accommodation >Information concerning hotel accommodation in Geneva can be found at the following website address: http://www.itu.int/travel/ >  >For further information please contact: >ITU Secretariat by e-mail at SG-registration at itu.int >  ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 09:23:25 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:23:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] Reminder: Call for EuroDIG hub registration (please help disseminate) Message-ID: (Sorry for any cross-postings) This a quick remind of the opportunity to organize hubs for the EuroDIG 2011. Online support and training will be offered by DiploFoundation fellows. The Pan-European dialogue on Internet governance* (EuroDIG) *will take place on 30-31 May in Belgrade, Serbia. The programme of the meeting is available here, and will discuss issues such as privacy and anonymity, freedom of speech, digital literacy, emerging internet services and business models*, *to name just a few. *What are the Hubs?* The hubs are local meetings that take place in parallel with the main meeting. People can watch the webcast together and send questions (text or video) that will be answered by panelists in EuroDIG. In addition, hub organizers can hold debates to discuss the themes introduced at the EuroDIG, but from a local perspective. There are several advantages in creating a hub: it helps to raise awareness about Internet Governance issues, it fosters networking among participants and community building and it encourages follow-up activities. *To learn more about the hubs and to register a hub, please visit: http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2011/information/remote-participation* * * *If you have any questions, please contact:* * * *Marília Maciel (Diplo Foundation): mmaciel at eurodig.org* *Bernard Sadaka (DiploFoundation): bsadaka at eurodig.org* Best regards, Marília Maciel -- www.diplomacy.edu MariliaM at diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 05:22:25 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:22:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Confirmation of Registration - WSIS Forum 2011, Geneva, 16-20 May 2011 - ID [1089821] In-Reply-To: <716280.29603.qm@web29503.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <716280.29603.qm@web29503.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello, a little courtesy Shepherd. This is my problem and you are not obliged to answer. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/4/4 NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS > What do you mean by Partner to facilitate your attendance. What exactly > do you need? > >
  • 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.
  • color="#0000ff">NABHI IS NOT A VISA PROCUREMENT AGENCY NOR IS IT AN > INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY
> > ------------------------------ > *From:* Baudouin SCHOMBE > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Monday, 4 April 2011, 10:39 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: Confirmation of Registration - WSIS Forum > 2011, Geneva, 16-20 May 2011 - ID [1089821] > > Hello everyone, > I would absolutely not take you precious time. My record at the WSIS Forum 2011 > was accepted. Locally, I still can not find a partner to facilitate my > participation in this forum. Would there be someone who might one > paternaire that might set me a care to join this forum? > I ask your indulgence, this is the first time I made ​​such a concern. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) > ACADEMIE DES TIC > *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC > *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE > *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) > *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > 2011/4/1 > > *CONFIRMATION OF REGISTRATION* > * * > *WSIS Forum 2011* > *Geneva, 16-20 May 2011* > > > > Dear *Mr Baudouin Schombe*, > > You have been registered to participate in the WSIS Forum 2011 to be held > at ILO in Geneva from 16 to 20 May 2011. > > *Your registration identification (ID) number to be quoted at all timesis: > *1089821* * > > Please note that in order to receive your identity badge, this confirmation > e-mail must be carried with you and presented to the badging desk, together > with your ID card or passport. > > *On-site badging:* > * * > *From Monday 16 May to Friday 20 May 2011 * > Badging desks will be located at Door 1 (PORTE 1) of the *International > Labour Organization (ILO) > *(4 route des Morillons - CH-1211 Genève 22 –Switzerland)* > Open hours*: 08:30-12:00 and 13:30-17:00 hours. > On *Monday 16 May*, badging desks will open *at 7:30 hours*. > *On Friday 13 May 2011 (afternoon) ONLY:* > Badging desks will exceptionnally be opened at *International > Telecommunication Union (ITU) *(Monbrillant building – 2, rue de Varembé – > CH-1220 GENEVA) from *14:00 to 17:00 hours*. > Participants, especially if they are based in Geneva, are strongly > advised to come and collect their badges on Friday afternoon at ITU. > ************ > > *IMPORTANT : *Please note that WSIS Forum 2011 will be held at: > * * > *International Labour Organization (ILO) - Conference Centre* > 4 route des Morillons > CH-1211 Genève 22 > Switzerland > > ************ > Visa assistance > > Please note that citizens of some countries are required to obtain a visa > in order to enter and spend any time in Switzerland. The visa must be > requested at least three (3) weeks before the date of beginning of the > meeting and obtained from the office (embassy or consulate) representing > Switzerland in your country or, if there is no such office in your country, > from the one that is closest to the country of departure. > > If problems are encountered, the Union can, *at the official request of > the administration or entity you represent*, approach the competent Swiss > authorities in order to facilitate delivery of the visa but only within the > stipulated deadline. Any such official request must specify *the name and > function, date of birth, number, date of issue and expiry of passport, of > the person for whom the visa is requested* and should be submitted to the > ITU Secretariat by fax to No. *+41 22 730 6627*. Request, signed by a > responsible officer, must be accompanied by photocopy of passport. > > The secretariat will be unable to assist with *incomplete requests *and/or > * requests received after 15 April 2011. * > * * > We would like to take this opportunity to remind you that remote > participation to WSIS Forum 2011 is also possible. Details can be found at > the ITu website at: > http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/About/RemoteParticipation.aspx > > ************ > *Hotel accommodation* > Information concerning hotel accommodation in Geneva can be found at the > following website address: http://www.itu.int/travel/ > > *For further information please contact:* > *ITU Secretariat by e-mail at *SG-registration at itu.int > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chloe at itforchange.net Tue Apr 5 07:26:50 2011 From: chloe at itforchange.net (Chloe) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:56:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Public Software bulletin - April 2011 Message-ID: <4D9AFC7A.6010208@itforchange.net> Font Public Software for the Public Sector www.public-software.in Public Software News April 2011 IN THIS ISSUE Within the Government <#WITHIN_THE_GOVERNMENT> . MHRD directive to explore open source options <#MHRD_directive> . <#Assam>Broadband for all village panchayats by 2012 <#Broadband><#Assam> . International Centre for FOSS in Kochi <#Kochi> Within other public institutions <#WITHIN_OTHER_PUBLIC_INSTITUTIONS> . CDAC releases BOSS Linux <#CDAC> <#CeTIT> Education <#EDUCATION> . Microsoft to provide software to college students <#Microsoft> International <#INTERNATIONAL> . Cuba migrating to open software <#Cuba> . Estonian ministry saves millions with open software <#Estonia> . Open Document Formats official in Latvia <#Latvia> . Internet Governance in the aftermath of WikiLeaks<#Wikileaks> WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT *MHRD issues directive to explore open source options *- The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) has directed educational institutions to explore open source alternatives before adopting proprietary software. Click here to read the full text of the directive. *Broadband for all village *panchayats*by 2012 *- All 250,000 panchayats in the country will receive public connectivity by mid-2012. The broadband connections will be provided by the government and managed by local government institutions. Read more. International Centre for FOSS in Kochi -The centre aims to provide technical assistance in using FOSS in government functions, while also acting as a research centre. Read more. WITHIN OTHER PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS *CDAC releases BOSS Linux *- **The BOSS GNU/Linux Desktop Ver 4.0 contains several updates in major applications, as well as support for 22 Indian languages. This release by CDAC (Centre for Development of Advanced Computing) , a government agency, is indicative of a shift in recognising public software as an entitlement that is to be provided by the state. Click here to read the release notes. EDUCATION Microsoft to provide software to college students- Proprietary software majors Microsoft and Autodesk have signed an MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) to provide their software to college students. The move is of concern, because students will now be provided with just a single proprietary software product to learn a concept. Publicly owned alternatives such as QCAD also enable the students to study, modify and share the software. A Right to Information (RTI) request for details of the MoU was refused. Read more. INTERNATIONAL Cuba migrating to open source Linux and Open Office - The government of Cuba has set a strategic goal in 2011 to migrate most of its computers to open source software. Read more. *Estonian ministry saves millions by using open software *- **The Estonian Environment Ministry has saved millions of euros over the past ten years by using OpenOffice.org, says Meelis Merilo, the head of the IT department at the Ministry. Read more. ** Open Document Formats (.ODF) now officially accepted in Latvia In November, India became one of the first countries to adopt open standards in e-governance. Other countries seem to be following the lead, as a Latvian government official announced that beginning January, all government departments in Latvia must accept documents and submissions in the open format .ODF. Read more. Internet Governance in the aftermath of WikiLeaks This piece examines the political decisions that led to the removal of WikiLeaks from Amazon, EasyDNS and PayPal/Visa. Many national governments have begun to switch to open source software as a way to reduce their dependence on US-developed software. Read more. Back to the top <#ISSUE> Public Software Website - www.public-software.in Follow us on Twitter @publicsoftware To subscribe, unsubscribe or send us your feedback: PS-Bulletin-owner at public-software.in -- *Chloé Zollman* Knowledge and Communication Associate IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.net Skype id: chloezollman Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 Have you heard about the CITIGEN programme? Visit www.gender-IS-citizenship.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 5 10:59:18 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:59:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Parminder: I have scanned the Indian proposal and it seems (surprisingly to me) like a very good one. The issue of "outcomes," which I analyzed at length in my book, is one that separates IGF "hawks" and "doves" from the beginning. If you look at the original proposal for the structure of IGF that we made at IGP, or Jeremy Malcolm's book, there has always been support within civil society "hawks" for a stronger institutional development of IGF based on bottom up working groups and some kind of recommendations. Accordingly, there has always been a potential alliance between civil society hawks and developing country hawks, as long as the IGF is institutionalized along a non-intergovernmental, multistakeholder lines. I think what our friends in US business circles, ISOC and the technical community need to understand is that by preventing the IGF from making real (nonbinding) statements or recommendations they are crippling it, and driving the more open and democratic developing countries into an alliance with the more authoritarian developing countries. --MM From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:28 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? Dear All I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what I think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements. "I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." " Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be constructed here. It is a predictable script with predictable villains - of course, those developing countries, who else. A UN meeting on any IG issue perhaps need not even happen for this 'result' and 'analysis' of it to be produced :) . I keep hoping however that we would open our minds to look beyond this predictable response that we seem to remain stuck in. Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already predisposed to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note that developing countries had been seeking early and greater number of meetings of the WG since late last December, a request that was not heeded. Why would they want more meetings if they always wanted this WG to fail as it finally did? Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if it, some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of that meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing countries wanted a multistakeholder drafting group to work between the two meetings to come up with a draft with which the second meeting could start. Everyone knew that was the only way to produce a report within the 2 days of the WG meeting that were left when the group reassembled. A multi-stakeholder drafting group was proposed with about the same ratio as the overall WG - 5 gov members and 5 non gov members. However, on civil society's prompting some developing countries (lead here by Brazil) proposed that civil society can have 3 members instead of the originally proposed one becuase they represent greater diversity of views, with one member of business, one of tech comminuty etc. Business and tech community, and then some major devloping countries, said a clear no to this proposal to expanded civil society membership of the proposed drafting group. Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a drafting group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech community and major developed countries also seemed to be supporting this position (without their support it wont have carried). Here I will stop and pose this question to ourselves, as civil society, because this question is also important in terms of the most central substantive issue concerning IGF improvements that become the key point on which disagreement could not be closed out, whereby the WG failed to prepare any recs. Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder working group based processes to produce key substantive documents in the IG space, or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an activity? (If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we are vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding substantive improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and specific on this. I think the question is clear and direct enough.) In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of the first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an incisive comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other (developing) government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder drafting group, some major non-government stakeholders were opposing it. No one responded, of course. Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to this paradox. Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the real differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still think with some deft managing we could still have come out with something substantial, but on that later.) There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes, MAG selection (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding. Among these, the make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this issue could have been agreed upon we would have got a very good report, and that would really have been a substantial step forward for the IGF, and for global IG. Without looking throughly at what happened around this central issue we cannot get the right picture of the WG proceedings. Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal ( enclosed ) made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was not acceptable to developed countries. This, in my view, was the real issue because of which the WG process broke down. So before we start assessing what really happened and who is at fault, let us, each of us, and if possible, collectively, form an opinion if this proposal is fine by us, and the right way to go ahead. If it is the right way to go ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be blamed for WG failure, not those who proposed it, and those who supported it. There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on the table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times. I specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the way to get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of producing what is being called as 'messages', and also to explain how this process would be different from the Chairman's summary, and a shorter bulletted Chairman's summary, already being prepared at present. I never got a clear reply, which if it was put on table would have constituted a specific outcomes related proposal. Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the main contestation at the WG we are on. And then perhaps, if we really must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard work we could have got some good results from the WG. It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making. And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's proposal. Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF. I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put there by a particular country whose political positions we generally agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical, put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation will greatly help make clear what I am driving at. I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting. Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of all be informed by this issue. Parminder On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Dear all I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question. I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction. What are the options now for civil society? Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do. Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011. Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration". Best wishes wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 13:18:02 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:18:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Washington DC GigaNet program Message-ID: Forwarding as it might of interest! Ivar ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller Date: Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:41 The program for the GigaNet regional workshop in Washington is out! Assistant Secretary for Commerce Lawrence Strickling will keynote our event and we have an excellent program of both policy panels May 5 and academic papers May 6. You can see the event website here: http://www.amiando.com/GigaNET-DC-2011.html If you are in the area and plan to attend, please pre-register so we know how many people to expect. You can register on the site. Please also spread word of the event through your networks. Regards, Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 13:32:58 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 23:02:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <4D925954.9000100@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > You made, as usual, a very detailed, thoughtful and passionate statement. I > believe you raised very valid questions - at least in the eyes of a > non-participant in the WG exercise. > > However, like Jeanette, I am always cautious when I spot the emergence of > too rigid either/or alternatives, that risk tending towards: "which side are > you on" ? and rapidly : "there is a right side and a wrong side, and > unfortunately my interlocutors happen to be on the wrong side" :-) We've > seen where this can lead in history. So let's pause for a second when doing > the post-mortem of the WG. > > There is indeed an important issue regarding the concept of working groups > (multi-stakeholder) and the role of secretariats. But they are not > necessarily antagonistic: good secretariat is needed for efficient working > groups and secretariat without community input rapidly means capture. > If the report of workshop deliberations / summary IGF deliberations have to truly reflect the mood of the IGF, the very process of generating the report/summary has to be a process so open and transparent as the process in tune with the openness of the IGF. This can also be a participative, collaborative process - a wikipedialike or at least a wiki process of collaborative summarization. You have mentioned the possibility of capture in a situation where Secretariat acts without community input. Argumentatively speaking, the reverse could also be true, without checks and balances in the community process. What if a workshop is proposed by an Interest Group with a Chair of the workshop sympathetic to that Interest and acts alone to produce a summary or a set of recommendations in the best interest of the Interest Group? >From within the IGF community, the reports and recommendation need to arise as a participative process that could include a Secretariat. The report needs to be a transparent and accessible document open to edits and comments during and after the process of summarization. As a permanent reference the deliberations of all debates have to remain on record as transcripts, video records together with the presentations on screen during the debate more in the nature of a recorded abode meeting. Sivasubramanian M So the debate can be a little bit more nuanced. > > Marilia made a very balanced and useful analysis, highlighting weakness in > the chairmanship of the group (obvious and expected from the onset, I must > say) and distributing responsibilities quite evenly. In particular she > rightly pointed the absence of real direct and trustful interaction among > the participants and the resurgence of typical drafting practices (square > brackets). The fact that some participants may have come from the missions > in Geneva (instead of having been participants in the IGF) certainly made a > - not surprising - difference: same cause same effects as the PrepCom 1 of > the first phase of the WSIS, the CSTD meetings, and the recent ECOSOC > discussions. > > In any case, the lines are moving among groups and homogeneity is not the > norm any more. That is one thing I take from Parminder's comments. We must > therefore all avoid keeping old frameworks of reference to interpret > proposals by one actor or the other according to the preconceived idea of > what they "naturally are going to propose", irrespective of what is actually > in their text. It would be interesting in that respect to use anonymous > contributions: some proposals by India would certainly have looked different > in the eyes of many participants if nobody had known where they came from. > Who would dare to try the exercise ? > > The task ahead of us is not to reinforce oppositions or to hatch unbalanced > compromises, but to identify non-zero-sum solutions: I cannot believe there > is no way to move forward. The question now is: what is the right format to > produce constructive interaction ? > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> >> >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> >> >> Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference >>> across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary >>> proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and >>> the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the >>> 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting >>> the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with >>> secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of >>> multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder >>> working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And >>> depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the >>> main contestation at the WG we are on. >>> >> >> Actually, I don't want to decide this question. I would prefer to look at >> these issues as a process rather than a binary decision. We have faced the >> issue of formal outcome versus no outcome at all over several years. Both >> options have support from strong groups. The way out of such constellations >> is evolution not an either/or constellation. What I would have liked to see >> is an experimental approach where each annual IGF meeting will try out new >> versions of reporting taking on board the experiences from regional and >> national IGFs. >> In my view, it would have been sufficient if the CSTD WG would have >> endorsed such an open process. >> >> jeanette >> >> >> >> >> >> And then perhaps, if we really >> >>> must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to >>> suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose >>> planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard >>> work we could have got some good results from the WG. >>> >>> It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG >>> and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a >>> multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff >>> on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with >>> relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an >>> IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This >>> process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for >>> IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing >>> background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the >>> IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder >>> workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF >>> before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi >>> stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on >>> key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy >>> paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my >>> understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the >>> only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making. >>> And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's >>> proposal. >>> >>> Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who >>> opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang >>> when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on >>> 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by >>> this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF. >>> >>> I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more >>> comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative >>> multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear >>> political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the >>> moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat >>> at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then >>> change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or >>> alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more >>> clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put >>> there by a particular country whose political positions we generally >>> agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose >>> political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical, >>> put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation >>> will greatly help make clear what I am driving at. >>> >>> I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues >>> that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF >>> funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's >>> and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was >>> the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to >>> determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting. >>> Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of >>> all be informed by this issue. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the >>>> Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result >>>> within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch >>>> and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question. >>>> >>>> I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable >>>> environment which does not allow the production of anything which is >>>> meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. >>>> Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole >>>> direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder >>>> collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the >>>> group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as >>>> governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone >>>> when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international >>>> dialogue." >>>> >>>> A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill >>>> Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a >>>> process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the >>>> Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals >>>> which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and >>>> if Nairobi becomes an "outstanding success", this will make life much more >>>> difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA >>>> to change the direction. >>>> >>>> What are the options now for civil society? >>>> >>>> Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the >>>> failure of the process and watch what the governments will do. >>>> >>>> Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in >>>> the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group >>>> until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim >>>> paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be >>>> discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, >>>> which starts in early October 2011. >>>> >>>> Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an >>>> alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and >>>> friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via >>>> a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the >>>> eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open >>>> multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to >>>> improve multistakeholder collaboration". >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> wolfgang >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lists at privaterra.org Tue Apr 5 13:55:41 2011 From: lists at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:55:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Circumvention Tools and Methods: A Comprehensive Review Message-ID: http://goo.gl/mnGmC Freedom House invites you to the official launch of Internet Circumvention Tools and Methods: A Comprehensive Review Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:00pm- 2:00pm Freedom House 1301 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC, 20036 Lunch will be provided As the recent shift in political landscape within the Middle East has shown, the Internet is increasingly influencing the way that citizens around the world gather and distribute information. While these changes occur, it is vital that people are aware of how to protect themselves online and how to access information, news, and facts, when the Internet is censored. While there are sites that recognize the effectiveness of circumvention tools, there are none that assess the effectiveness of circumvention tools systematically. Freedom House has used its expertise and relationships with leading academic experts on information technology security, censorship, and software development to conduct a systematic assessment of how censorship circumvention tools perform in practice inside the countries they are designed to serve. Freedom House’s Internet Freedom Project Director, Robert Guerra, will join major report contributors Cormac Callanan, director of Ireland-based Aconite Internet Solutions with experience in international computer networks and cybercrime, and Hein Dries-Ziekenheimer, the CEO of VIGILO consult, a Netherlands based consultancy specializing in Internet enforcement, cybercrime, and IT law, to discuss the findings of the report and its implications in the world of Internet privacy and censorship circumvention. The event will be broadcast live over the Internet. A link to the broadcast will be sent out prior to the beginning of the event. If you are interested in attending the event (in person and/or virtually), please RSVP - Details here : http://goo.gl/mnGmC ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 17:51:22 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:51:22 -0600 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Personally I agree with Milton, Miguel On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder: > > I have scanned the Indian proposal and it seems (surprisingly to me) like a > very good one. The issue of “outcomes,” which I analyzed at length in my > book, is one that separates IGF “hawks” and “doves” from the beginning. If > you look at the original proposal for the structure of IGF that we made at > IGP, or Jeremy Malcolm’s book, there has always been support within civil > society “hawks” for a stronger institutional development of IGF based on > bottom up working groups and some kind of recommendations. Accordingly, > there has always been a potential alliance between civil society hawks and > developing country hawks, as long as the IGF is institutionalized along a > non-intergovernmental, multistakeholder lines. > > > > I think what our friends in US business circles, ISOC and the technical > community need to understand is that by preventing the IGF from making real > (nonbinding) statements or recommendations they are crippling it, and > driving the more open and democratic developing countries into an alliance > with the more authoritarian developing countries. > > > > --MM > > > > *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On > Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:28 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? > > > > Dear All > > I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what I > think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements. > > "I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." " > > Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be constructed > here. It is a predictable script with predictable villains - of course, > those developing countries, who else. A UN meeting on any IG issue perhaps > need not even happen for this 'result' and 'analysis' of it to be produced > :) . I keep hoping however that we would open our minds to look beyond this > predictable response that we seem to remain stuck in. > > Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already predisposed > to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note that developing > countries had been seeking early and greater number of meetings of the WG > since late last December, a request that was not heeded. Why would they want > more meetings if they always wanted this WG to fail as it finally did? > > Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if it, > some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of that > meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing countries wanted a > multistakeholder drafting group to work between the two meetings to come up > with a draft with which the second meeting could start. Everyone knew that > was the only way to produce a report within the 2 days of the WG meeting > that were left when the group reassembled. A multi-stakeholder drafting > group was proposed with about the same ratio as the overall WG - 5 gov > members and 5 non gov members. However, on civil society's prompting some > developing countries (lead here by Brazil) proposed that civil society can > have 3 members instead of the originally proposed one becuase they represent > greater diversity of views, with one member of business, one of tech > comminuty etc. Business and tech community, and then some major devloping > countries, said a clear no to this proposal to expanded civil society > membership of the proposed drafting group. > > Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a drafting > group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech community and > major developed countries also seemed to be supporting this position > (without their support it wont have carried). Here I will stop and pose this > question to ourselves, as civil society, because this question is also > important in terms of the most central substantive issue concerning IGF > improvements that become the key point on which disagreement could not be > closed out, whereby the WG failed to prepare any recs. > > Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder working > group based processes to produce key substantive documents in the IG space, > or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an activity? > > (If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we are > vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding substantive > improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and specific on this. I > think the question is clear and direct enough.) > > In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of the > first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an incisive > comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other (developing) > government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder drafting group, some major > non-government stakeholders were opposing it. No one responded, of course. > Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to this paradox. > > Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the real > differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still think with > some deft managing we could still have come out with something substantial, > but on that later.) > > There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes, MAG selection > (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding. Among these, the > make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this issue could have been agreed > upon we would have got a very good report, and that would really have been a > substantial step forward for the IGF, and for global IG. Without looking > throughly at what happened around this central issue we cannot get the right > picture of the WG proceedings. > > Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal ( enclosed ) > made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was not acceptable to > developed countries. This, in my view, was the real issue because of which > the WG process broke down. So before we start assessing what really happened > and who is at fault, let us, each of us, and if possible, collectively, form > an opinion if this proposal is fine by us, and the right way to go ahead. If > it is the right way to go ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be > blamed for WG failure, not those who proposed it, and those who supported > it. > > There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on the > table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times. I > specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the way to > get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of producing what is > being called as 'messages', and also to explain how this process would be > different from the Chairman's summary, and a shorter bulletted Chairman's > summary, already being prepared at present. I never got a clear reply, which > if it was put on table would have constituted a specific outcomes related > proposal. > > Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference across > the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary > proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and the > present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the 'summing > up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting the report > of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with secretariats > doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of multistakeholderism in > policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder working groups doing it. > That is the core point we must decide. And depending on which way we decide > it we can then know which side of the main contestation at the WG we are on. > And then perhaps, if we really must, we can choose our villains. And if we > indeed are inclined to suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, > then see whose planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more > real hard work we could have got some good results from the WG. > > It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG and > for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a > multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff on > policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with relatively > clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an IGF process that > is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This process starts from > choosing clear and specific policy questions for IGF's consideration, > forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing background material around > each, WG then helps plan the process at the IGF through right format, > speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder workshops, then arrange round > tables on the chosen issue at the IGF before it goes to the plenary, and > then the denouement, the multi stakeholder group brings out a document which > could be 2 pages or 10 on key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with > 'relatively' clear policy paths and options. Things may be difficult > initially, but it is my understanding, and I would like to hear other views, > that this is the only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on > policy making. And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist > of India's proposal. > > Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who opposed > it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang when your > email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on 'friendly > governments', I would like to really know what you mean by this term in the > context of the happenings at the WG on IGF. > > I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more > comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative > multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear > political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the moment > happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat at a > particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then change > our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or alternatively, a > multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more clear, just consider what > if the key secretariat personnel were not put there by a particular country > whose political positions we generally agreed with but by another country > (which could happen any time) whose political opinions we were much against. > This is purely hypothetical, put putting real countries and real people in > this imagined situation will greatly help make clear what I am driving at. > > I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues that > were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF > funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's and > Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was the real > thing around which everything revolved, and which was to determine if > anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting. Our judgments about > what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of all be informed by this > issue. > > Parminder > > > On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Dear all > > I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question. > > > > I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." > > > > A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction. > > > > What are the options now for civil society? > > Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do. > > Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011. > > > > Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration". > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Tue Apr 5 19:28:45 2011 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:28:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Thanks In-Reply-To: <4D9AFC7A.6010208@itforchange.net> References: <4D9AFC7A.6010208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110405192845.9s8f05grkg84k804@www.ciencitec.com> Thanks for you Bulletin. From Lima, Peru Jose F. Callo Romero CEO - ciencitec.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Apr 5 22:17:37 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:17:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 10:59 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder: > > I have scanned the Indian proposal and it seems (surprisingly to me) > like a very good one. The issue of “outcomes,” which I analyzed at > length in my book, is one that separates IGF “hawks” and “doves” from > the beginning. If you look at the original proposal for the structure > of IGF that we made at IGP, or Jeremy Malcolm’s book, there has always > been support within civil society “hawks” for a stronger institutional > development of IGF based on bottom up working groups and some kind of > recommendations. Though I've joked that I prefer to call them "hawks" and "weasels". Yes, it would be a shame if the Indian proposal dies here. Perhaps we could bring it up again in a workshop this year? How about: "A Post-Mortem on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" Perhaps the title is a bit morbid, but such a workshop could be an excellent opportunity to bring back the members of the CSTD Working Group from all stakeholder groups, to discuss the Working Group's (lack of) outcomes candidly. CSTD Working Group members on this list, would you be willing to attend the panel of such a workshop? Remembering that our deadline is only next Friday so we have to finalise our workshop proposals soon (and so far, there are none firmly on the table). -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Apr 5 23:01:57 2011 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] U.S. House of Representatives moves to overturn FCC on Net neutrality Message-ID: U.S. House of Representatives moves to overturn FCC on Net neutrality by by Declan McCullagh for CNET Art. Ref.: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20050971-281.html April 5, 2011 4:50 p.m. PT House Republicans moved today to prevent controversial Net neutrality regulations from taking effect, a move that is likely to invite an eventual confrontation with President Obama. By an almost entirely partisan vote of 241 to 178, the House of Representatives approved procedures for voting on a one-page resolution that says, simply, regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in December "shall have no force or effect." "Congress did not authorize the FCC to regulate in this area," Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), said during this morning's floor debate. "We must reject any rules that it promulgates in this area... It is Congress' responsibility to delegate that authority." Today's vote, which fewer than 10 Democrats supported, comes a day after a federal appeals court said it was too early for Verizon and MetroPCS to sue the FCC to overturn the regulations. The ruling wasn't much of a setback--the lawsuit can be filed again after the agency has formally published the final text of the regulations, which it has not yet done. The vote approved procedures set the previous evening by the House Rules Committee, clearing a way for a final vote on the resolution itself. That may be a bit anti-climatic: the totals are expected to be similar to today's, with perhaps even less support for the FCC. Yesterday the White House issued a rare formal veto threat. "If the president is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution," a statement said. (Obama has not vetoed any legislation since the Republicans gained control of the House.) A resolution of disapproval is a formal process, outlined in the Congressional Review Act, that permits Congress to overturn decisions of federal agencies. It requires both the House and the Senate to vote, and is subject to a presidential veto, but is not subject to a filibuster and only requires 51 votes to clear the Senate. During the House floor discussion, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said that curbing the FCC's regulations will "imperil one of the greatest sources of job creation and innovation in America." Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) said in a statement afterward that the FCC's regulations are "a commonsense approach to preserving the most successful commercial and communications medium in our country's history." (Other House Democrats have released a similar statement.) This is one of those technology topics that has become starkly partisan: During the 2008 campaign, Obama told CNET that "I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality." In February, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that "our new majority in the House is committed to using every tool at our disposal to fight a government takeover of the Internet." On December 23, the FCC released the text of its 194-page document (PDF) with the regulations and accompanying explanations of how broadband providers' business practices will be affected. It had approved them on a 3-2 party line vote two days earlier. Last April, a federal appeals court unceremoniously slapped down the agency's earlier attempt to impose Net neutrality penalties on Comcast after the company temporarily throttled some BitTorrent transfers. The Senate has not yet voted on the resolution of disapproval. A parallel version of the legislation in that chamber has 39 sponsors, close to the majority of supporters required. -30- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 6 09:27:07 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 18:57:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D9C6A2B.9090608@itforchange.net> Hi All Sorry for the long delay, but to finish my report on WG on IGF improvements: I had mentioned that, in my view, there were three key issues on which a possible WG report with recommendations on IGF improvements got stuck; IGF outcomes, selection of MAG members (especially non gov members) and IGF funding. India's contribution had important proposals on all these key issues, which in my view were quite reasonable, as I argue below. My earlier email dealt with the most important of these issues - IGF outcomes. The present one will list some of the key constestations around the other two key issues. _Selection of MAG members:_ This issue for me is very important vis a vis establishing the meaning as well as legitimacy of multistakeholderism. And I hope we can generate an internal debate on the positions different actors took on this issue in the WG, and take otherwise. I quote the relevant parts from India's submission in full in this regard: "The selection of non-government representatives to the MAG has to be made more transparent and democratic/representative to better represent different sections of the society, more so the marginalised. Efforts have to be made to obtain as globally representative a group as possible. At present, there are no specific processes to ensure these imperatives, and the selection process is largely /ad hoc /and mediated by some key global stakeholder bodies, without due transparency about the process followed to ensure that the diversity of interests and views in that particular stakeholder group are duly represented." "We recommend an accountable, transparent and diversified stakeholder selection process for stakeholder representatives. Such a process should demonstrate its connectedness to the full range of diversity within each stakeholder group, especially those from developing countries, and otherwise less represented groups. Each stakeholder group while selecting its representatives should describe the process used in making the selection, and also specifically mention what steps were taken to include a full diversity of views and interests, and less represented groups, including those from developing counties. To get the selection process right is very important for the success of the unique multi-stakeholder experiment in global governance that the IGF represents." "One way of ensuring that specific interests are kept out of MAG is by stipulating that the business sector members should not be representatives of specific private companies, but represent different trade associations like in the areas of telecom, software companies, etc. The technical community members could similarly include representatives from key technical and academic institutions. The selection process for civil society members could be made similarly democratic, with representatives selected by a network of NGOs working in areas associated with Internet policies, thus representing a really broad spectrum of civil society." (quote ends) In addition was also proposed a table indicating a quota based selection from each geographical region so that geographic diversity was ensured. (At the meeting India did say that this was only to serve as a broad guideline, and was meant to stress that concern that there should be enough internal diversity within non gov reps in the MAG, and it should not get dominated by reps from the North.) In the table proposed by India, the total number of MAG members remained more or less the same as present while there was a small increase in the number of gov reps (from 22 to 25), quite large increase in CS reps (7 to 11) and some reduction for business (13 to 9) and tech community reps (13 to 9). As mentioned, India made it clear that all this was open to a reasoned discussion. I find the above proposals quite reasonable. Multistakeholderism is for me a means to ensure that 1) a sufficient and full diversity of legitimate interests are represented in policy making processes 2) the accent has to be on getting in those interests that are otherwise (through other processes of representation) are most likely to be kept out, or under-represented (3) there has to be conscious, deliberate and very strong measures, on an ongoing manner, to ensure that a multistakeholder process is not captured by certain dominant groups, which would defeat the very purpose of multistakeholderism ( in the same as our struggles for more democracy represent our efforts to ensure that the 'governmental' method of representation is not captured) I see the India's proposal completely in keeping with what I take to be as the key tenets and logic of multistakeholderism. And therefore I supported it. However, once again, there was no constructive engagement with this detailed proposal. Business and technical members said that the manner in which 'they' ( theywho? is of course never clear) choose members to represent their stakeholder group should be left to them and no guidelines etc are necessary. I do not agree to this argument. It is setting up multistakeholderism for capture, which is a big problem many democratic governments have with it. Progressive civil society certainly has a big problem with such possibilities of capture of MSism. We ourselves would like to see strong and specific processes towards ensuring that such capture does not take place. As long as we agree on this imperative, what those processes would in fact look like can always be discussed. This was also India's position, and they wanted a discussion on this issue. Here is a clear instance of some developing countries coming forward for doing a constructive engagement with multi-stakeholderism and key non-gov stakeholders shying away. They need to answer why did they do so. Business and technical community while refusing to engage with India's proposal were intent on pushing the 'triage' proposal that had come from the last MAG meeting. As per this proposal a committee of old MAG members will do a kind of triage over recs coming from different stakeholder groups, who would be left to themselves to choose their process of selection of their reps and forwarding the names to this committee, without any further guidelines of openess, transparency diversity, representativeness etc. There are at least two things wrong with this proposal - one, that the old MAG members committee would perpetuate a nincestuous system of inclusion and exclusion which I am not at all comfortable with. Even worse is the proposition that, for instance, business group members will decide on selections from civil society. One can well understand what kind of exclusions and inclusions this will entail. It is important to mention that many of the civil society members of MAG opposed such a system of selection, and for unclear reasons the proposal was taken as adopted by the MAG meeting despite this opposition (Katitiza, Graciela, Fouad, Valeria and others present can vouch for this). The issues that this above debate raises are crucial to engage with for anyone who champions multistakeholderism, and i hope we in IGC can also discuss them throughly here. Let me discuss the IGF funding issue in my next email. Parminder On Tuesday 29 March 2011 11:57 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what I > think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements. > > "I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue."" > > Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be > constructed here. It is a predictable script with predictable villains > - of course, those developing countries, who else. A UN meeting on any > IG issue perhaps need not even happen for this 'result' and 'analysis' > of it to be produced :) . I keep hoping however that we would open our > minds to look beyond this predictable response that we seem to remain > stuck in. > > Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already > predisposed to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note > that developing countries had been seeking early and greater number of > meetings of the WG since late last December, a request that was not > heeded. Why would they want more meetings if they always wanted this > WG to fail as it finally did? > > Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if > it, some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of > that meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing countries > wanted a multistakeholder drafting group to work between the two > meetings to come up with a draft with which the second meeting could > start. Everyone knew that was the only way to produce a report within > the 2 days of the WG meeting that were left when the group > reassembled. A multi-stakeholder drafting group was proposed with > about the same ratio as the overall WG - 5 gov members and 5 non gov > members. However, on civil society's prompting some developing > countries (lead here by Brazil) proposed that civil society can have 3 > members instead of the originally proposed one becuase they represent > greater diversity of views, with one member of business, one of tech > comminuty etc. Business and tech community, and then some major > devloping countries, said a clear no to this proposal to expanded > civil society membership of the proposed drafting group. > > Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a > drafting group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech > community and major developed countries also seemed to be supporting > this position (without their support it wont have carried). Here I > will stop and pose this question to ourselves, as civil society, > because this question is also important in terms of the most central > substantive issue concerning IGF improvements that become the key > point on which disagreement could not be closed out, whereby the WG > failed to prepare any recs. > > Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder > working group based processes to produce key substantive documents in > the IG space, or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an > activity? > > (If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we > are vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding > substantive improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and > specific on this. I think the question is clear and direct enough.) > > In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of > the first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an > incisive comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other > (developing) government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder > drafting group, some major non-government stakeholders were opposing > it. No one responded, of course. Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to > this paradox. > > Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the real > differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still think > with some deft managing we could still have come out with something > substantial, but on that later.) > > There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes, MAG > selection (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding. Among > these, the make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this issue could > have been agreed upon we would have got a very good report, and that > would really have been a substantial step forward for the IGF, and for > global IG. Without looking throughly at what happened around this > central issue we cannot get the right picture of the WG proceedings. > > Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal ( > enclosed ) made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was > not acceptable to developed countries. This, in my view, was the real > issue because of which the WG process broke down. So before we start > assessing what really happened and who is at fault, let us, each of > us, and if possible, collectively, form an opinion if this proposal is > fine by us, and the right way to go ahead. If it is the right way to > go ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be blamed for WG > failure, not those who proposed it, and those who supported it. > > There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on > the table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times. I > specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the way > to get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of producing > what is being called as 'messages', and also to explain how this > process would be different from the Chairman's summary, and a shorter > bulletted Chairman's summary, already being prepared at present. I > never got a clear reply, which if it was put on table would have > constituted a specific outcomes related proposal. > > Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference > across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of > plenary proceedings. So the essential difference between India's > proposal and the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is > about who does the 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that > arose regarding drafting the report of the WG on IGF improvements - > are we more comfortable with secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, > we the evangelists of multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, > support multi stakeholder working groups doing it. That is the core > point we must decide. And depending on which way we decide it we can > then know which side of the main contestation at the WG we are on. And > then perhaps, if we really must, we can choose our villains. And if we > indeed are inclined to suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's > term, then see whose planning it could be. Though I suspect that with > some more real hard work we could have got some good results from the WG. > > It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on > IG and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. > Can a multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed > stuff on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but > with relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - > from an IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do > so. This process starts from choosing clear and specific policy > questions for IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen > issue, developing background material around each, WG then helps plan > the process at the IGF through right format, speakers etc, help > prepare appropriate feeder workshops, then arrange round tables on the > chosen issue at the IGF before it goes to the plenary, and then the > denouement, the multi stakeholder group brings out a document which > could be 2 pages or 10 on key areas of convergence, divergence etc, > with 'relatively' clear policy paths and options. Things may be > difficult initially, but it is my understanding, and I would like to > hear other views, that this is the only real way to go for > multi-stakeholder influence on policy making. And the steps I have > described here were essentially the gist of India's proposal. > > Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who > opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang > when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on > 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by > this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF. > > I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more > comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative > multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear > political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the > moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the > secretariat at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. > Would we then change our view on whether secretariat should do such > stuff or alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am > saying more clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel > were not put there by a particular country whose political positions > we generally agreed with but by another country (which could happen > any time) whose political opinions we were much against. This is > purely hypothetical, put putting real countries and real people in > this imagined situation will greatly help make clear what I am driving > at. > > I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues > that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and > IGF funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in > Annriette's and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes > issue which was the real thing around which everything revolved, and > which was to determine if anything substantial could come out of the > WG's meeting. Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, > must most of all be informed by this issue. > > Parminder > > > On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> Dear all >> >> I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question. >> >> I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." >> >> A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction. >> >> What are the options now for civil society? >> >> Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do. >> >> Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011. >> >> Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration". >> >> Best wishes >> >> wolfgang >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Wed Apr 6 11:26:43 2011 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:26:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] CFP: First International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2011) Message-ID: <014501cbf46f$088f3020$19ad9060$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] *************** CALL FOR PAPERS *************** SIMPDA 2011 First International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis SIMPDA 2011 IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12 http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/SIMPDA2011/ June 29th - July 1st, 2011 Campione d’Italia, Italy With the increasing automation of business processes growing amounts of process become available. This opens no opportunities for business process data analysis, mining and modeling thriving research in this domain. The aim of the IFIP 2.6 - 2.12 First International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to offer a forum where researchers from different communities can share their insights in this new emerging field. The Symposium will feature a number of advanced keynotes illustrating new approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD seminar and selected research and industrial demonstrations. All this in the nice setting of Campione d’Italia, the Italian enclave surrounded by Swiss territory, on the shores of Lake Lugano. Call for Papers The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis offers to researchers and practitioners working in business process data modeling, representation and analysis a unique opportunity to present new approaches and research results. The Symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and scientists in the domain of interest from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 10 pages. Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original contributions, not previously published or under review for publication elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English. Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume with ISBN. Authors of accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium volume IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology Series (http://www.springer.com/series/6102), scheduled for late 2011 (extended papers length is between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15 papers will be selected for the publication after a second round of review. Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to: Topics Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods Data-aware and data-centric approaches Variability and configuration of process models Process simulation and static analysis Process Data Mining Process metadata and semantic reasoning Process patterns and standards Foundations of business process models Security and Privacy aspects Resource management in business process execution Process tracing and monitoring Process change management Business process lifecycle Case Studies and Experience Reports Call for PhD Research Plans The PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their research results. Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an extended abstract describing their research. Submissions are sought relating to any aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions, interaction and design advances, and innovative applications, social implications. SIMPDA PhD award A doctoral award will be recognized by the SIMPDA PhD Jury for the best research plan submitted. Tutored research activities Interested PhD students can apply to carry out pre-symposium tutored research activities. Such activities provide a unique way to identify research questions and will culminate with presentations to be given at the symposium. In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it Call for Demonstrations and Posters Demonstrations showcase innovative technology and applications, allowing you to share your work directly with your colleagues in a high-visibility setting. Demonstration proposals should consist of a title, extended abstract, and contact information for the authors and should not exceed 2 pages. Posters permit presentation of late-breaking results in an informal, interactive manner. Poster proposals should consist of a title, extended abstract, and contact information for the authors, and should not exceed 2 pages. Accepted demonstrations or posters will be displayed at the conference. Abstracts will appear in the proceedings. Keynote Speakers Wil van der Aalst, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands Florian Kerschbaum, SAP, Germany Dragan Gasevic, Athabasca University, Canada Barbara Pernici, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Submissions Contributions to all calls should be submitted electronically to the Symposium management system connecting to http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=simpda2011. At least one author of each accepted paper is expected to participate in the conference and present his/her work. Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceedings volume with ISBN. Authors of accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles in a IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology Series (http://www.springer.com/series/6102), scheduled for late 2011. Extended versions will be selected for publication in the volume after a second review round of review. Organizers Conference Co-Chairs Karl Aberer, EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Tharam Dillon Curtin University of Technology, Australia Steering Committee Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria Lionel Brunie, Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (INSA) de Lyon, France Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Elizabeth Chang, Curtin University, Australia Giuseppina Passiante, Univesrità del Salento, Italy Conference Program Committee Peter Spyns, Vrije Universiteit Brussel - STAR Lab, Belgium Daniele Bonetta, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Switzerland Philippe Cudre-Mauroux, MIT-CSAIL, U.S.A. Maurice Van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands Avigdor Gal, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel Mohand-Said Hacid, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France Angelo Corallo, Università del Salento, Italy Irene Vanderfeesten, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany Farookh Khadeer Hussain, Curtin University, Australia Thomas Risse, University of Berlin, Germany Wolfgang Klas, University of Vienna, Austria Davide Storelli, Università del Salento, Italy Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE Important Dates Paper Submission: May 10, 2011. Submission of PhD Presentations: May 15, 2011. Submission of Demonstration Proposal: May 15, 2011. Notification of Acceptance: June 2, 2011. First International Symposium on Process Data: June 27-29, 2011. Accommodation All conference activities will take place in the municipal casino of Campione d'Italia. Hotel Campione is the closest to the casino. A less expensive option is HOTEL BELLEVUE, Corso Fratelli Fusina 1, Campione d’Italia, Tel. 0041916497566. Venue 1. From Milan Campione can be reached by car following the A9 motorway MILANO-CHIASSO and then the A2 motorway CHIASSO-LUGANO, exit at Bissone Melide. A bus starts at Garibaldi square (the square before the Garibaldi railway station) Dep. time from Milano 15.00/20:30- Dep. from Campione 19:00/00:30/3.00. 2. Form Malpensa Airport Campione can be reached by car or shuttle in approximately 50 minutes. 3. From Lugano Campione can be reached by boat, bus and car and although you have to cross the Swiss-Italian border line to reach it there are no formal border controls. Campione is approximately 9km from Lugano by road, and 15 minutes by boat across the lake. A ferry service runs regularly from Lugano to Campione throughout the day. More info on: www.campioneitalia.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Apr 6 11:33:33 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:33:33 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BD88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jeremy you have my full support for such a workshop. However I would look for another title. best w ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Mi 06.04.2011 04:17 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: cstd at igf-online.net Betreff: RE: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 10:59 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder: > > I have scanned the Indian proposal and it seems (surprisingly to me) > like a very good one. The issue of "outcomes," which I analyzed at > length in my book, is one that separates IGF "hawks" and "doves" from > the beginning. If you look at the original proposal for the structure > of IGF that we made at IGP, or Jeremy Malcolm's book, there has always > been support within civil society "hawks" for a stronger institutional > development of IGF based on bottom up working groups and some kind of > recommendations. Though I've joked that I prefer to call them "hawks" and "weasels". Yes, it would be a shame if the Indian proposal dies here. Perhaps we could bring it up again in a workshop this year? How about: "A Post-Mortem on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" Perhaps the title is a bit morbid, but such a workshop could be an excellent opportunity to bring back the members of the CSTD Working Group from all stakeholder groups, to discuss the Working Group's (lack of) outcomes candidly. CSTD Working Group members on this list, would you be willing to attend the panel of such a workshop? Remembering that our deadline is only next Friday so we have to finalise our workshop proposals soon (and so far, there are none firmly on the table). -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Apr 6 12:01:16 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 12:01:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BD88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BD88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC9967B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> As folks want to talk about the Indian proposal; can we frame it that way; ie as a forward-looking discussion. Fact that CSTD didn;t manage to have a serious discussion on it is irrelevant really. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:33 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: cstd at igf-online.net Subject: AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? Jeremy you have my full support for such a workshop. However I would look for another title. best w ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Mi 06.04.2011 04:17 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: cstd at igf-online.net Betreff: RE: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 10:59 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder: > > I have scanned the Indian proposal and it seems (surprisingly to me) > like a very good one. The issue of "outcomes," which I analyzed at > length in my book, is one that separates IGF "hawks" and "doves" from > the beginning. If you look at the original proposal for the structure > of IGF that we made at IGP, or Jeremy Malcolm's book, there has always > been support within civil society "hawks" for a stronger institutional > development of IGF based on bottom up working groups and some kind of > recommendations. Though I've joked that I prefer to call them "hawks" and "weasels". Yes, it would be a shame if the Indian proposal dies here. Perhaps we could bring it up again in a workshop this year? How about: "A Post-Mortem on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" Perhaps the title is a bit morbid, but such a workshop could be an excellent opportunity to bring back the members of the CSTD Working Group from all stakeholder groups, to discuss the Working Group's (lack of) outcomes candidly. CSTD Working Group members on this list, would you be willing to attend the panel of such a workshop? Remembering that our deadline is only next Friday so we have to finalise our workshop proposals soon (and so far, there are none firmly on the table). -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 12:18:57 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:18:57 -0600 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC9967B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BD88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC9967B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, I support the idea of a serious workshop on the topic. Personally, I will suggest something like: "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0" I will ask everybody understanding because I feel I need to put the disclaimer a the end of my contributions. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > As folks want to talk about the Indian proposal; can we frame it that way; > ie as a forward-looking discussion. > > Fact that CSTD didn;t manage to have a serious discussion on it is > irrelevant really. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of > "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:33 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: cstd at igf-online.net > Subject: AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? > > Jeremy > > you have my full support for such a workshop. However I would look for > another title. > > best > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm > Gesendet: Mi 06.04.2011 04:17 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: cstd at igf-online.net > Betreff: RE: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? > > > > On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 10:59 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Parminder: > > > > I have scanned the Indian proposal and it seems (surprisingly to me) > > like a very good one. The issue of "outcomes," which I analyzed at > > length in my book, is one that separates IGF "hawks" and "doves" from > > the beginning. If you look at the original proposal for the structure > > of IGF that we made at IGP, or Jeremy Malcolm's book, there has always > > been support within civil society "hawks" for a stronger institutional > > development of IGF based on bottom up working groups and some kind of > > recommendations. > > Though I've joked that I prefer to call them "hawks" and "weasels". > > Yes, it would be a shame if the Indian proposal dies here. Perhaps we > could bring it up again in a workshop this year? How about: > > "A Post-Mortem on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" > > Perhaps the title is a bit morbid, but such a workshop could be an > excellent opportunity to bring back the members of the CSTD Working > Group from all stakeholder groups, to discuss the Working Group's (lack > of) outcomes candidly. > > CSTD Working Group members on this list, would you be willing to attend > the panel of such a workshop? > > Remembering that our deadline is only next Friday so we have to finalise > our workshop proposals soon (and so far, there are none firmly on the > table). > > -- > Dr 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 > > Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on > the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > > 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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 12:23:47 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:23:47 -0600 Subject: [governance] WSJ "U.S. Products Help Block Mideast Web" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, As mentioned many times: *Technology is neutral*. The use people make of technology can have different ethical, moral, legal connotations, among others. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > < > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704438104576219190417124226.html > > > > These same issues discussed at the IGF in Athens. One more time? > > Nice quote: > > "Web-filtering technology has roots in the 1990s, when U.S. companies, > schools and libraries sought to prevent people from surfing porn, among > other things. > > Today, that U.S. technology is now among the tools used in the clampdowns > on uprisings across the Middle East. In Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and elsewhere, > bloggers have been jailed and even beaten as governments try to repress > online expression." > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 13:12:11 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:12:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] WSJ "U.S. Products Help Block Mideast Web" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technology in a broad sense is obviously neutral. But is the way certain technologies are developed always necessarily neutral? If code is law and law is absolutely never neutral, then it follows that all software is designed with a purpose. Even when we use the gun metaphor (guns don't kill people; people kill people) there's no denying that weapons are designed in light of a certain use that will be made of them. Nobody uses guns to plant trees. Now, is there really any good use to be made of surveillance tools such as DPI software? Taking into account, of course, that good investigative work doesn't always have to rely only on surveillance that infringes the very basic aspects of human privacy. Best, Ivar On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 13:23, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear All, > > As mentioned many times: *Technology is neutral*. The use people make of > technology can have different ethical, moral, legal connotations, among > others. > > Best, > > Miguel > > Disclaimer > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my > employer or any other institution > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >> < >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704438104576219190417124226.html >> > >> >> These same issues discussed at the IGF in Athens. One more time? >> >> Nice quote: >> >> "Web-filtering technology has roots in the 1990s, when U.S. companies, >> schools and libraries sought to prevent people from surfing porn, among >> other things. >> >> Today, that U.S. technology is now among the tools used in the clampdowns >> on uprisings across the Middle East. In Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and elsewhere, >> bloggers have been jailed and even beaten as governments try to repress >> online expression." >> >> Adam >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 13:52:05 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 20:52:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] WSJ "U.S. Products Help Block Mideast Web" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote: > > Technology in a broad sense is obviously neutral. > But is the way certain technologies are developed always necessarily neutral? If code is law and law is absolutely never neutral, then it follows that all software is designed with a purpose. from the original article: "Web-filtering technology has roots in the 1990s, when U.S. companies, schools and libraries sought to prevent people from surfing porn, among other things." so, yes, it had a purpose. Are we up in arms because this code was written in the USA and is being used elsewhere? What if it had been written in say Bahrain, or Botswana, would it then be evil software still, or would it be a South -> North tech transfer that we would applaud? I second Miguel's position on this one. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 13:55:07 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 20:55:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] You don't need DPI or a "kill switch" to shut off the Internet...apparently Message-ID: http://gawker.com/#!5789474 Elderly people and the Internet are timeless foes. A 75-year-old lady from the Republic of Georgia scored a point for the olds when she cut off the entire country of Armenia from the net last month. According to the AFP, the woman was scavenging for scrap metal around the village of Ksanai on March 28. She came across a fiber-optic cable linking Armenia to Georgia and she cut it up to sell the copper. Unfortunately, that cable provided the majority of Armenia's internet service, and the poor Armenians were cut off from the Internet for "hours" that evening. Now she faces up to three years in prison. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dvbirve at yandex.ru Wed Apr 6 15:53:53 2011 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 23:53:53 +0400 Subject: [governance] Blocking Livejournal in Russia Message-ID: <244241302119633@web1.yandex.ru> Hello everyone! The Top news in Russia is blackout of LiveJournal due to DDoS attacks! This is the third and most serious attack on LJ on a week. Now it works well, but 2 hours ago it was out of service. Sincerely, Andrey Shcherbovich ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Apr 6 17:33:39 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 18:33:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <4D9CDC33.6070607@cafonso.ca> Yes, I like the idea of a WG on forensic analysis of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF :) --c.a. On 04/05/2011 11:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 10:59 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Parminder: >> >> I have scanned the Indian proposal and it seems (surprisingly to me) >> like a very good one. The issue of “outcomes,” which I analyzed at >> length in my book, is one that separates IGF “hawks” and “doves” from >> the beginning. If you look at the original proposal for the structure >> of IGF that we made at IGP, or Jeremy Malcolm’s book, there has always >> been support within civil society “hawks” for a stronger institutional >> development of IGF based on bottom up working groups and some kind of >> recommendations. > > Though I've joked that I prefer to call them "hawks" and "weasels". > > Yes, it would be a shame if the Indian proposal dies here. Perhaps we > could bring it up again in a workshop this year? How about: > > "A Post-Mortem on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" > > Perhaps the title is a bit morbid, but such a workshop could be an > excellent opportunity to bring back the members of the CSTD Working > Group from all stakeholder groups, to discuss the Working Group's (lack > of) outcomes candidly. > > CSTD Working Group members on this list, would you be willing to attend > the panel of such a workshop? > > Remembering that our deadline is only next Friday so we have to finalise > our workshop proposals soon (and so far, there are none firmly on the > table). > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 7 00:54:07 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:24:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <4D9C6A2B.9090608@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <4D9C6A2B.9090608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D9D436F.4030904@itforchange.net> Apologies for the font mix up in my earlier email, which was caused by the cut paste of the quoted part from another document. The third important issue in the WG meeting was about IGF funding. At the meeting, no one advocated that voluntary and mixed funding should be discontinued. However, developing countries insisted that UN should have at least have some regular budget devoted to the IGF, which is at present not the case. *There is no official UN budget devoted to the IGF at all*. This inter alia causes a depriortization and demotion of IGF in the UN system vis a vis other UN related organizations, which is of course not a good thing. Developing country reps also argued the case at length of how an official policy related body cannot be allowed to remain dependent on private or voluntary funding alone. This is a perfectly logical assertion. Policy related forums cannot be left hostage to unpredictable and unstable funding which voluntary funding obviously means. One can think of any official policy forums in our respective national contexts. Would we accept, for instance, if there were to be an official 'ICT in schools' public forum for policy discussion and input dependent entirely on private finding? I think we would all claim it to be a practice contrary to all cannons and values of public life. However, governments of developed countries, supported by business and technical community, were for carrying on with the present funding model, and making no change to it at all , especially not seeking the opening up of an UN line of budget for it. They however never directly addressed the question as to why were they opposed to opening up a committed UN budgetary line *in addition to* all other funds that IGF receives today. For developing countries this was as importantly an issue of principle, as of practical import (whereby they rightly argued; what happens to the IGF if for some reason all voluntary support was to cease suddenly, or over a period of time). Since, we in the IGC have spoken often, and at length, about the needed independence for the IGF, it may be useful to examine in that light the different propositions that were on the table at the WG meeting with regard to IGF funding. As mentioned, at least in my opinion, this was one of the three key areas of disagreement to which the stalemate at the WG meeting can be attributed. (Just to remind, I have discussed the two other key areas/issues in my earlier emails, which can also be found below.) Parminder On Wednesday 06 April 2011 06:57 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > Sorry for the long delay, but to finish my report on WG on IGF > improvements: > > I had mentioned that, in my view, there were three key issues on which > a possible WG report with recommendations on IGF improvements got > stuck; IGF outcomes, selection of MAG members (especially non gov > members) and IGF funding. India's contribution had important proposals > on all these key issues, which in my view were quite reasonable, as I > argue below. > > My earlier email dealt with the most important of these issues - IGF > outcomes. The present one will list some of the key constestations > around the other two key issues. > > _Selection of MAG members:_ > > This issue for me is very important vis a vis establishing the meaning > as well as legitimacy of multistakeholderism. And I hope we can > generate an internal debate on the positions different actors took on > this issue in the WG, and take otherwise. I quote the relevant parts > from India's submission in full in this regard: > > "The selection of non-government representatives to the MAG has to > be made more transparent and democratic/representative to better > represent different sections of the society, more so the > marginalised. Efforts have to be made to obtain as globally > representative a group as possible. At present, there are no > specific processes to ensure these imperatives, and the selection > process is largely /ad hoc /and mediated by some key global > stakeholder bodies, without due transparency about the process > followed to ensure that the diversity of interests and views in > that particular stakeholder group are duly represented." > > "We recommend an accountable, transparent and diversified > stakeholder selection process for stakeholder representatives. > Such a process should demonstrate its connectedness to the full > range of diversity within each stakeholder group, especially those > from developing countries, and otherwise less represented groups. > Each stakeholder group while selecting its representatives should > describe the process used in making the selection, and also > specifically mention what steps were taken to include a full > diversity of views and interests, and less represented groups, > including those from developing counties. To get the selection > process right is very important for the success of the unique > multi-stakeholder experiment in global governance that the IGF > represents." > > "One way of ensuring that specific interests are kept out of MAG > is by stipulating that the business sector members should not be > representatives of specific private companies, but represent > different trade associations like in the areas of telecom, > software companies, etc. The technical community members could > similarly include representatives from key technical and academic > institutions. The selection process for civil society members > could be made similarly democratic, with representatives selected > by a network of NGOs working in areas associated with Internet > policies, thus representing a really broad spectrum of civil society." > > (quote ends) > > In addition was also proposed a table indicating a quota based > selection from each geographical region so that geographic diversity > was ensured. (At the meeting India did say that this was only to serve > as a broad guideline, and was meant to stress that concern that there > should be enough internal diversity within non gov reps in the MAG, > and it should not get dominated by reps from the North.) In the table > proposed by India, the total number of MAG members remained more or > less the same as present while there was a small increase in the > number of gov reps (from 22 to 25), quite large increase in CS reps (7 > to 11) and some reduction for business (13 to 9) and tech community > reps (13 to 9). As mentioned, India made it clear that all this was > open to a reasoned discussion. > > I find the above proposals quite reasonable. Multistakeholderism is > for me a means to ensure that > > 1) a sufficient and full diversity of legitimate interests are > represented in policy making processes > > 2) the accent has to be on getting in those interests that are > otherwise (through other processes of representation) are most likely > to be kept out, or under-represented > > (3) there has to be conscious, deliberate and very strong measures, on > an ongoing manner, to ensure that a multistakeholder process is not > captured by certain dominant groups, which would defeat the very > purpose of multistakeholderism ( in the same as our struggles for more > democracy represent our efforts to ensure that the 'governmental' > method of representation is not captured) > > > I see the India's proposal completely in keeping with what I take to > be as the key tenets and logic of multistakeholderism. And therefore I > supported it. However, once again, there was no constructive > engagement with this detailed proposal. Business and technical members > said that the manner in which 'they' ( theywho? is of course never > clear) choose members to represent their stakeholder group should be > left to them and no guidelines etc are necessary. I do not agree to > this argument. It is setting up multistakeholderism for capture, > which is a big problem many democratic governments have with it. > Progressive civil society certainly has a big problem with such > possibilities of capture of MSism. We ourselves would like to see > strong and specific processes towards ensuring that such capture does > not take place. As long as we agree on this imperative, what those > processes would in fact look like can always be discussed. This was > also India's position, and they wanted a discussion on this issue. > Here is a clear instance of some developing countries coming forward > for doing a constructive engagement with multi-stakeholderism and key > non-gov stakeholders shying away. They need to answer why did they do so. > > Business and technical community while refusing to engage with India's > proposal were intent on pushing the 'triage' proposal that had come > from the last MAG meeting. As per this proposal a committee of old MAG > members will do a kind of triage over recs coming from different > stakeholder groups, who would be left to themselves to choose their > process of selection of their reps and forwarding the names to this > committee, without any further guidelines of openess, transparency > diversity, representativeness etc. There are at least two things wrong > with this proposal - one, that the old MAG members committee would > perpetuate a nincestuous system of inclusion and exclusion which I am > not at all comfortable with. Even worse is the proposition that, for > instance, business group members will decide on selections from civil > society. One can well understand what kind of exclusions and > inclusions this will entail. It is important to mention that many of > the civil society members of MAG opposed such a system of selection, > and for unclear reasons the proposal was taken as adopted by the MAG > meeting despite this opposition (Katitiza, Graciela, Fouad, Valeria > and others present can vouch for this). > > The issues that this above debate raises are crucial to engage with > for anyone who champions multistakeholderism, and i hope we in IGC can > also discuss them throughly here. > > Let me discuss the IGF funding issue in my next email. > > Parminder > > > On Tuesday 29 March 2011 11:57 PM, parminder wrote: >> Dear All >> >> I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what >> I think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements. >> >> "I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue."" >> >> Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be >> constructed here. It is a predictable script with predictable >> villains - of course, those developing countries, who else. A UN >> meeting on any IG issue perhaps need not even happen for this >> 'result' and 'analysis' of it to be produced :) . I keep hoping >> however that we would open our minds to look beyond this predictable >> response that we seem to remain stuck in. >> >> Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already >> predisposed to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note >> that developing countries had been seeking early and greater number >> of meetings of the WG since late last December, a request that was >> not heeded. Why would they want more meetings if they always wanted >> this WG to fail as it finally did? >> >> Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if >> it, some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of >> that meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing >> countries wanted a multistakeholder drafting group to work between >> the two meetings to come up with a draft with which the second >> meeting could start. Everyone knew that was the only way to produce a >> report within the 2 days of the WG meeting that were left when the >> group reassembled. A multi-stakeholder drafting group was proposed >> with about the same ratio as the overall WG - 5 gov members and 5 non >> gov members. However, on civil society's prompting some developing >> countries (lead here by Brazil) proposed that civil society can have >> 3 members instead of the originally proposed one becuase they >> represent greater diversity of views, with one member of business, >> one of tech comminuty etc. Business and tech community, and then some >> major devloping countries, said a clear no to this proposal to >> expanded civil society membership of the proposed drafting group. >> >> Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a >> drafting group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech >> community and major developed countries also seemed to be supporting >> this position (without their support it wont have carried). Here I >> will stop and pose this question to ourselves, as civil society, >> because this question is also important in terms of the most central >> substantive issue concerning IGF improvements that become the key >> point on which disagreement could not be closed out, whereby the WG >> failed to prepare any recs. >> >> Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder >> working group based processes to produce key substantive documents in >> the IG space, or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an >> activity? >> >> (If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we >> are vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding >> substantive improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and >> specific on this. I think the question is clear and direct enough.) >> >> In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of >> the first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an >> incisive comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other >> (developing) government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder >> drafting group, some major non-government stakeholders were opposing >> it. No one responded, of course. Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to >> this paradox. >> >> Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the real >> differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still think >> with some deft managing we could still have come out with something >> substantial, but on that later.) >> >> There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes, MAG >> selection (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding. >> Among these, the make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this >> issue could have been agreed upon we would have got a very good >> report, and that would really have been a substantial step forward >> for the IGF, and for global IG. Without looking throughly at what >> happened around this central issue we cannot get the right picture of >> the WG proceedings. >> >> Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal ( >> enclosed ) made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was >> not acceptable to developed countries. This, in my view, was the real >> issue because of which the WG process broke down. So before we start >> assessing what really happened and who is at fault, let us, each of >> us, and if possible, collectively, form an opinion if this proposal >> is fine by us, and the right way to go ahead. If it is the right way >> to go ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be blamed for WG >> failure, not those who proposed it, and those who supported it. >> >> There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on >> the table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times. >> I specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the >> way to get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of >> producing what is being called as 'messages', and also to explain how >> this process would be different from the Chairman's summary, and a >> shorter bulletted Chairman's summary, already being prepared at >> present. I never got a clear reply, which if it was put on table >> would have constituted a specific outcomes related proposal. >> >> Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference >> across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of >> plenary proceedings. So the essential difference between India's >> proposal and the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is >> about who does the 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that >> arose regarding drafting the report of the WG on IGF improvements - >> are we more comfortable with secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, >> we the evangelists of multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, >> support multi stakeholder working groups doing it. That is the core >> point we must decide. And depending on which way we decide it we can >> then know which side of the main contestation at the WG we are on. >> And then perhaps, if we really must, we can choose our villains. And >> if we indeed are inclined to suspect a 'planned failure' to use >> Wolfgang's term, then see whose planning it could be. Though I >> suspect that with some more real hard work we could have got some >> good results from the WG. >> >> It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on >> IG and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. >> Can a multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well >> directed stuff on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and >> divergences, but with relatively clear alternative policy options as >> done by WGIG - from an IGF process that is to be specifically >> designed to help it do so. This process starts from choosing clear >> and specific policy questions for IGF's consideration, forming WGs >> around each chosen issue, developing background material around each, >> WG then helps plan the process at the IGF through right format, >> speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder workshops, then arrange >> round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF before it goes to the >> plenary, and then the denouement, the multi stakeholder group brings >> out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on key areas of >> convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy paths and >> options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my >> understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the >> only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making. >> And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of >> India's proposal. >> >> Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who >> opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, >> Wolfgang when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that >> part on 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you >> mean by this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF. >> >> I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more >> comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative >> multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have >> clear political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at >> the moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the >> secretariat at a particular time, this situation could easily >> reverse. Would we then change our view on whether secretariat should >> do such stuff or alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I >> am saying more clear, just consider what if the key secretariat >> personnel were not put there by a particular country whose political >> positions we generally agreed with but by another country (which >> could happen any time) whose political opinions we were much against. >> This is purely hypothetical, put putting real countries and real >> people in this imagined situation will greatly help make clear what I >> am driving at. >> >> I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues >> that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and >> IGF funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in >> Annriette's and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes >> issue which was the real thing around which everything revolved, and >> which was to determine if anything substantial could come out of the >> WG's meeting. Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my >> view, must most of all be informed by this issue. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> Dear all >>> >>> I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question. >>> >>> I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." >>> >>> A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction. >>> >>> What are the options now for civil society? >>> >>> Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do. >>> >>> Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011. >>> >>> Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration". >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Apr 7 01:38:54 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:38:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal Message-ID: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> I've started a new thread so that it doesn't get missed, but this follows on from our thread on the CSTD meeting and the Indian proposal. I have two alternative texts to suggest for the workshop proposal, the first of which is narrower, focussing on consideration of the Indian proposal, and the other is a broader, more general evaluation of the CSTD working group on both procedural and substantive bases. There is, I suppose, no reason why we couldn't put both proposals forward, but otherwise please discuss which proposal you prefer. We'll have to get moving to get co-sponsors on board, so please respond soon. --- begins --- OPTION 1: Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly Mandate". The ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that other countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. It was suggested that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies for their action and feedback. Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so more fully, and to consider whether and how to take the proposals forward. OPTION 2: Evaluation of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF In response to a resolution of ECOSOC, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) formed a Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum, which met between the Vilnius and the Nairobi meetings of the IGF. The Working Group disbanded without producing a consensus report, due to a number of procedural obstacles and substantive disagreements. The procedural issues included, at the outset, whether non-governmental stakeholders should be allowed as members of the Working Group at all, and subsequently whether the consensus report should be produced by a multi-stakeholder drafting group or by the Chair. The substantive disagreements within the Working Group included the issues of outcomes from the IGF, the manner of selection of MAG members, and ongoing funding of the IGF. The purpose of this workshop is to objectively evaluate why the Working Group was not more successful, to consider what alternative multi-stakeholder structures and processes could be used for similar high-level Internet governance exercises in future, and to propose solutions in the substantive areas on which the Working Group was unable to agree. --- ends --- PS. Whilst Parminder sent a copy of the Indian proposal to the list recently, there is also a copy online at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/the-indian-proposal-for-improvements-to-igf-outcomes. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 01:57:25 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:57:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: hi, Might it be possible to do a workshop on an actual Internet Governance issue instead of navel-gazing? We couldn't even get our act together to make a statement to the NTIA, are we really only about talking about meta-IG, and not real 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 Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I've started a new thread so that it doesn't get missed, but this > follows on from our thread on the CSTD meeting and the Indian proposal. > > I have two alternative texts to suggest for the workshop proposal, the > first of which is narrower, focussing on consideration of the Indian > proposal, and the other is a broader, more general evaluation of the > CSTD working group on both procedural and substantive bases. > > There is, I suppose, no reason why we couldn't put both proposals > forward, but otherwise please discuss which proposal you prefer.  We'll > have to get moving to get co-sponsors on board, so please respond soon. > > --- begins --- > > OPTION 1: Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, > the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed > Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly > Mandate".  The ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that other > countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. > > It was suggested that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to > deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background > material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a > roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that > discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each > issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies > for their action and feedback. > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss > these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so > more fully, and to consider whether and how to take the proposals > forward. > > > OPTION 2: Evaluation of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF > > In response to a resolution of ECOSOC, the Commission on Science and > Technology for Development (CSTD) formed a Working Group on Improvements > to the Internet Governance Forum, which met between the Vilnius and the > Nairobi meetings of the IGF. > > The Working Group disbanded without producing a consensus report, due to > a number of procedural obstacles and substantive disagreements.  The > procedural issues included, at the outset, whether non-governmental > stakeholders should be allowed as members of the Working Group at all, > and subsequently whether the consensus report should be produced by a > multi-stakeholder drafting group or by the Chair. > > The substantive disagreements within the Working Group included the > issues of outcomes from the IGF, the manner of selection of MAG members, > and ongoing funding of the IGF. > > The purpose of this workshop is to objectively evaluate why the Working > Group was not more successful, to consider what alternative > multi-stakeholder structures and processes could be used for similar > high-level Internet governance exercises in future, and to propose > solutions in the substantive areas on which the Working Group was unable > to agree. > > --- ends --- > > PS. Whilst Parminder sent a copy of the Indian proposal to the list > recently, there is also a copy online at > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/the-indian-proposal-for-improvements-to-igf-outcomes. > > -- > Dr 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 > > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on > the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > > 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Apr 7 02:05:24 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:05:24 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:57 +0300, McTim wrote: > hi, > > Might it be possible to do a workshop on an actual Internet Governance > issue instead of navel-gazing? > > We couldn't even get our act together to make a statement to the NTIA, > are we really only about talking about meta-IG, and not real IG? Why not both? Please suggest a topic for what you call "real IG", and if there is broad agreement, the IGC can sponsor that too. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mazzone at ebu.ch Thu Apr 7 03:49:08 2011 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 09:49:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF5ED8DC4E7@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Miguel, You're perfectly right to put the disclaimer. Your position of civil servant doesn't prevent you to continue to be a citizen. A citizen of the world. All the best. Giacomo Ps: where are you nowadays ? ________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Lee W McKnight Sent: Wed Apr 06 18:18:57 2011 Subject: Re: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? Dear all, I support the idea of a serious workshop on the topic. Personally, I will suggest something like: "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0" I will ask everybody understanding because I feel I need to put the disclaimer a the end of my contributions. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: As folks want to talk about the Indian proposal; can we frame it that way; ie as a forward-looking discussion. Fact that CSTD didn;t manage to have a serious discussion on it is irrelevant really. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:33 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: cstd at igf-online.net Subject: AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? Jeremy you have my full support for such a workshop. However I would look for another title. best w ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Mi 06.04.2011 04:17 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: cstd at igf-online.net Betreff: RE: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 10:59 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder: > > I have scanned the Indian proposal and it seems (surprisingly to me) > like a very good one. The issue of "outcomes," which I analyzed at > length in my book, is one that separates IGF "hawks" and "doves" from > the beginning. If you look at the original proposal for the structure > of IGF that we made at IGP, or Jeremy Malcolm's book, there has always > been support within civil society "hawks" for a stronger institutional > development of IGF based on bottom up working groups and some kind of > recommendations. Though I've joked that I prefer to call them "hawks" and "weasels". Yes, it would be a shame if the Indian proposal dies here. Perhaps we could bring it up again in a workshop this year? How about: "A Post-Mortem on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" Perhaps the title is a bit morbid, but such a workshop could be an excellent opportunity to bring back the members of the CSTD Working Group from all stakeholder groups, to discuss the Working Group's (lack of) outcomes candidly. CSTD Working Group members on this list, would you be willing to attend the panel of such a workshop? Remembering that our deadline is only next Friday so we have to finalise our workshop proposals soon (and so far, there are none firmly on the table). -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 14:07:27 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:07:27 -0600 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: Dear All, I believe the three ideas (two proposed by Jeremy and the one proposed by McTim) are important. *Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0* This kind of work will allow to pave the way towards real improvement of IGF. *Evaluation of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF* This is interesting and convenient because the CSTD is the entry point of IGF into the intergovernmental machinery and an analysis could help to suggest ways to improve work within the framework of the CSTD. *Real IG (I would suggest Current IG vis a vis meta IG)* I believe the group (and many members) around this emailing list, as I have said before, has the capacity, expertise and capabilities to work and influence in what McTim calls real IG, which revolves around settings where current decisions are taken. A workshop presenting and discussing this issue will help clarifying the current mapping between foras, bodies, decisions and impacts, and might help a lot of uninitiated people. I hope IGC can find resources and partners to take the above ideas for workshops forward. Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:57 +0300, McTim wrote: > > hi, > > > > Might it be possible to do a workshop on an actual Internet Governance > > issue instead of navel-gazing? > > > > We couldn't even get our act together to make a statement to the NTIA, > > are we really only about talking about meta-IG, and not real IG? > > Why not both? Please suggest a topic for what you call "real IG", and > if there is broad agreement, the IGC can sponsor that too. > > -- > Dr 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 > > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on > the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Apr 7 14:47:07 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:47:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC9968F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I like the list. One more to throw out as an IGC-backed - workshop; or possibly as a plenary theme: Internet Rights and Principles. Yeah I know that - certain interests - seem to send such topics into a MAG-hole never to be seen or heard at IGFs; but doesn't mean we should stop asking for them. Especially when the Dynamic Coalition's launch of the 10 Internet Rights and Principles last week got it off to a great start. We are heading towards availability in 25 languages already; and I am sure the story will be picked up more in mainstream media in coming days...cause I'm working on it ; ) The doc itself is clearly just a 1st version, open to input and criticsm. Anyway, my 2 cents for IGC to consider. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine [miguel.alcaine at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 2:07 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal Dear All, I believe the three ideas (two proposed by Jeremy and the one proposed by McTim) are important. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 This kind of work will allow to pave the way towards real improvement of IGF. Evaluation of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF This is interesting and convenient because the CSTD is the entry point of IGF into the intergovernmental machinery and an analysis could help to suggest ways to improve work within the framework of the CSTD. Real IG (I would suggest Current IG vis a vis meta IG) I believe the group (and many members) around this emailing list, as I have said before, has the capacity, expertise and capabilities to work and influence in what McTim calls real IG, which revolves around settings where current decisions are taken. A workshop presenting and discussing this issue will help clarifying the current mapping between foras, bodies, decisions and impacts, and might help a lot of uninitiated people. I hope IGC can find resources and partners to take the above ideas for workshops forward. Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:57 +0300, McTim wrote: > hi, > > Might it be possible to do a workshop on an actual Internet Governance > issue instead of navel-gazing? > > We couldn't even get our act together to make a statement to the NTIA, > are we really only about talking about meta-IG, and not real IG? Why not both? Please suggest a topic for what you call "real IG", and if there is broad agreement, the IGC can sponsor that too. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 14:53:57 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:53:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC9968F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC9968F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D9E0845.4000208@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 15:55:19 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:55:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:57 +0300, McTim wrote: >> hi, >> >> Might it be possible to do a workshop on an actual Internet Governance >> issue instead of navel-gazing? >> >> We couldn't even get our act together to make a statement to the NTIA, >> are we really only about talking about meta-IG, and not real IG? > > Why not both?  Please suggest a topic for what you call "real IG", and > if there is broad agreement, the IGC can sponsor that too. I've had some specific ideas, but every time I sit down to write them up in the last 12 hours, I've lost power, so that got me thinking about PWs suggestion from a while back that power is a critical Internet resource, which I think is much more sweeping and crucial idea than any others I've had (that are likely to be supported by this group). Question 1: Title of proposed workshop: Stable Electrical Power as a Critical Internet Resource Question 2: Please provide a concise description of the proposed workshop: This workshop will explore the issues surrounding the most basic of Critical Internet Resources, that of having stable electrical power. Questions to be explored could include: o How can the Internet lead chance on social, economic and political dimensions? o What is the role of each stakeholder in managing Internet resources o How can access and innovation be promoted? o What are the problems being faced by countries where Internet usage is not growing? o What are the problems being faced by countries where Internet penetration is not growing? o What are the main obstacles to access to knowledge online today? o Access to infrastructure: what are the technical, commercial and policy obstacles at the national and international levels? o What is the role that states can play in ensuring access? Question 3: Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your workshop fall under? • The Development Agenda / Internet governance for development (IG4D) • Managing critical Internet resources • Access and diversity What could be very interesting is the notion that if we are to accept Internet access as a Human Right, then doesn't that imply that access to stable electricity supply is part and parcel of that right? In other words, if ppl demand Internet access, are they not also demanding a stable power supply as a Human Right? -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 16:09:55 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:09:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear All, > > I believe the three ideas (two proposed by Jeremy and the one proposed by > McTim) are important. > > Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > This kind of work will allow to pave the way towards real improvement of > IGF. > > Evaluation of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF > This is interesting and convenient because the CSTD is the entry point of > IGF into the intergovernmental machinery and an analysis could help to > suggest ways to improve work within the framework of the CSTD. > > Real IG (I would suggest Current IG vis a vis meta IG) > I believe the group (and many members) around this emailing list, as I have > said before, has the capacity, expertise and capabilities to work and > influence in what McTim calls real IG, which revolves around settings where > current decisions are taken. A workshop presenting and discussing this issue > will help clarifying the current mapping between foras, bodies, decisions > and impacts, and might help a lot of uninitiated people. Now that is not a bad idea at all. Originally, I was thinking of very specific topics (see my proposal about power that I just sent), but this could be a very good way to do both capacity building on the Internet Model/Ecosystem AND actually push/pull people into actual IG processes. I like it! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 8 00:34:01 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 10:04:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> Hi All I am not sure we should ask for the workshop on 'evaluation of CSTD....' when we are in any case proposing the one on 'Indian proposal'. I have been to many workshops in the IGF now and am convinced that the valuable time of a global assemblage once in a year under official UN legitimacy should be devoted to relatively clear and concrete deliberations, aimed at making progress on the global Internet policy landscape. A simple evaluation of the CSTD WG in my opinion will attract a lot of empty verbiage, denoting standard perspectives of different parties. Having to specifically comment on a concrete proposal on the table on the other hand will, hopefully, force people to be clear and concise in their propositions. Also, I am almost sure that the secretariat will ask us to merge these two workshops as being too close to each other in their subject matter. There may therefore be no point in starting with two proposals when the ultimate destiny of them is more or less known in advance. This is for the group's and co-coordinator's consideration. parminder On Thursday 07 April 2011 11:37 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear All, > > I believe the three ideas (two proposed by Jeremy and the one proposed > by McTim) are important. > > *Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0* > This kind of work will allow to pave the way towards real improvement > of IGF. > > *Evaluation of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF* > This is interesting and convenient because the CSTD is the entry point > of IGF into the intergovernmental machinery and an analysis could help > to suggest ways to improve work within the framework of the CSTD. > > *Real IG (I would suggest Current IG vis a vis meta IG)* > I believe the group (and many members) around this emailing list, as I > have said before, has the capacity, expertise and capabilities to work > and influence in what McTim calls real IG, which revolves around > settings where current decisions are taken. A workshop presenting and > discussing this issue will help clarifying the current mapping between > foras, bodies, decisions and impacts, and might help a lot of > uninitiated people. > > I hope IGC can find resources and partners to take the above ideas for > workshops forward. > > Miguel > > Disclaimer > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my > employer or any other institution > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:57 +0300, McTim wrote: > > hi, > > > > Might it be possible to do a workshop on an actual Internet > Governance > > issue instead of navel-gazing? > > > > We couldn't even get our act together to make a statement to the > NTIA, > > are we really only about talking about meta-IG, and not real IG? > > Why not both? Please suggest a topic for what you call "real IG", and > if there is broad agreement, the IGC can sponsor that too. > > -- > Dr 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 > > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on > the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 01:06:10 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:06:10 +0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I was thinking the same that both workshops could be merged into just one workshop. The two topics can then be discussed in the same workshop instead of having two independent spaces....my two cents... --- Fouad On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:34 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > I am not sure we should ask for the workshop on 'evaluation of CSTD....' > when we are in any case proposing the one on 'Indian proposal'. I have been > to many workshops in the IGF now and am convinced that the valuable time of > a global assemblage once in a year under official UN legitimacy should be > devoted to relatively clear and concrete deliberations, aimed at making > progress on the global Internet policy landscape. A simple evaluation of the > CSTD WG in my opinion will attract a lot of empty verbiage, denoting > standard perspectives of different parties. Having to specifically comment > on a concrete proposal on the table on the other hand will, hopefully, force > people to be clear and concise in their propositions. > > Also, I am almost sure that the secretariat will ask us to merge these two > workshops as being too close to each other in their subject matter. There > may therefore be no point in starting with two proposals when the ultimate > destiny of them is more or less known in advance. This is for the group's > and co-coordinator's consideration. > > parminder > > > On Thursday 07 April 2011 11:37 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > > Dear All, > > I believe the three ideas (two proposed by Jeremy and the one proposed by > McTim) are important. > > Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > This kind of work will allow to pave the way towards real improvement of > IGF. > > Evaluation of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF > This is interesting and convenient because the CSTD is the entry point of > IGF into the intergovernmental machinery and an analysis could help to > suggest ways to improve work within the framework of the CSTD. > > Real IG (I would suggest Current IG vis a vis meta IG) > I believe the group (and many members) around this emailing list, as I have > said before, has the capacity, expertise and capabilities to work and > influence in what McTim calls real IG, which revolves around settings where > current decisions are taken. A workshop presenting and discussing this issue > will help clarifying the current mapping between foras, bodies, decisions > and impacts, and might help a lot of uninitiated people. > > I hope IGC can find resources and partners to take the above ideas for > workshops forward. > > Miguel > > Disclaimer > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my > employer or any other institution > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:57 +0300, McTim wrote: >> > hi, >> > >> > Might it be possible to do a workshop on an actual Internet Governance >> > issue instead of navel-gazing? >> > >> > We couldn't even get our act together to make a statement to the NTIA, >> > are we really only about talking about meta-IG, and not real IG? >> >> Why not both?  Please suggest a topic for what you call "real IG", and >> if there is broad agreement, the IGC can sponsor that too. >> >> -- >> Dr 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 >> >> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers >> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >> >> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer >> groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on >> the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >> >> Twitter #CICongress >> >> 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, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Apr 8 01:16:15 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:16:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1302239775.2492.2.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:06 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I was thinking the same that both workshops could be merged into just > one workshop. The two topics can then be discussed in the same > workshop instead of having two independent spaces....my two cents... Merging them is effectively making a choice for the second (CSTD) workshop, since it's broad enough to include consideration of the Indian proposal. I also note that Parminder has indicated a preference for the first workshop. I agree that we should ideally put forward one or the other rather than both... plus McTim's more operational (which I prefer to "real") workshop. And Fouad, will you be repeating your "open space for discussion" workshop? -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress 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/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 01:22:58 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:22:58 +0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <1302239775.2492.2.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <1302239775.2492.2.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, I am not sure about the open space for discussion workshop at this moment because it didn't receive adequate participation, a large number of IGC members didn't participate either............I am checking one option with another organization for a possible joint workshop on Open Government Data but that is still in exploration stage. I'll update you on the developments as I think through this once more. -- FoO On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:06 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> I was thinking the same that both workshops could be merged into just >> one workshop. The two topics can then be discussed in the same >> workshop instead of having two independent spaces....my two cents... > > Merging them is effectively making a choice for the second (CSTD) > workshop, since it's broad enough to include consideration of the Indian > proposal. > > I also note that Parminder has indicated a preference for the first > workshop. > > I agree that we should ideally put forward one or the other rather than > both... plus McTim's more operational (which I prefer to "real") > workshop. > > And Fouad, will you be repeating your "open space for discussion" > workshop? > > -- > Dr 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 > > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on > the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Apr 8 04:54:31 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:54:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:09:55 +0300) References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > > Real IG (I would suggest Current IG vis a vis meta IG) > > I believe the group (and many members) around this emailing list, as I have > > said before, has the capacity, expertise and capabilities to work and > > influence in what McTim calls real IG, which revolves around settings where > > current decisions are taken. A workshop presenting and discussing this issue > > will help clarifying the current mapping between foras, bodies, decisions > > and impacts, and might help a lot of uninitiated people. > > > Now that is not a bad idea at all. Originally, I was thinking of very > specific topics (see my proposal about power that I just sent), but > this could be a very good way to do both capacity building on the > Internet Model/Ecosystem AND actually push/pull people into actual IG > processes. I like it! I agree as well that this is a great idea, and I would be interested in being personally involved in organizing this workshop. Question 1: Title of proposed workshop: Mapping Internet Governance Question 2: Please provide a concise description of the proposed workshop: This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses these questions, and for thereafter keeping this document up-to-date. Question 3: Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your workshop fall under? All the five broad IGF Themes would be explicitly addressed by discussing what are the main governance processes relevant to each of these themes. The workshop and its resulting "Map of Internet Governance" document will contribute to capacity building in all of these thematic areas, and to empowering individuals as well as stakeholder organizations to become directly involved in the Internet Governance processes which are relevant to their area of interest. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Dixie at global-partners.co.uk Fri Apr 8 05:22:25 2011 From: Dixie at global-partners.co.uk (Dixie Hawtin) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:22:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] 10 internet Rights and Principles In-Reply-To: <4D9E0845.4000208@paque.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC9968F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9E0845.4000208@paque.net> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82CA1D8F5D6@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Following on from Lee and Ginger's messages I wanted to share the 10 internet Rights and Principles with you. The Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition are working to develop a comprehensive Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet - a document interpreting and explaining how existing human rights apply to the Internet, including those internet policy principles which are essential in order to fulfil human rights in the digital age. We are currently consulting on the Charter, feedback will go into creating a Version 2.0 to launch at the IGF in Kenya. The "10 Internet Rights and Principles" is a distillation of the wide-ranging Charter down to the ten core demands we make in order to defend and expand the Internet as a space which is empowering, open and accessible to all. The 10 Internet Rights and Principles were launched at the second expert meeting on "Freedom of Expression and the Internet" in Stockholm, convened on 30-31 March 2011 by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, who attended this launching event, welcomed this initiative. A flyer of the 10 Internet Rights and Principles: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/userfiles/file/10%20Internet%20Rights%20and%20Principles%20Flyer%20Final.pdf The IRP Coalition website (including many translations of the 10 Internet Rights and Principles): http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/ All the best, Dixie From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque Sent: 07 April 2011 19:54 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Cc: Miguel Alcaine; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal I agree. We have to propose IRP. It is indeed perfect timing. Best, gp On 4/7/2011 1:47 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: I like the list. One more to throw out as an IGC-backed - workshop; or possibly as a plenary theme: Internet Rights and Principles. Yeah I know that - certain interests - seem to send such topics into a MAG-hole never to be seen or heard at IGFs; but doesn't mean we should stop asking for them. Especially when the Dynamic Coalition's launch of the 10 Internet Rights and Principles last week got it off to a great start. We are heading towards availability in 25 languages already; and I am sure the story will be picked up more in mainstream media in coming days...cause I'm working on it ; ) The doc itself is clearly just a 1st version, open to input and criticsm. Anyway, my 2 cents for IGC to consider. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine [miguel.alcaine at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 2:07 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal Dear All, I believe the three ideas (two proposed by Jeremy and the one proposed by McTim) are important. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 This kind of work will allow to pave the way towards real improvement of IGF. Evaluation of the CSTD WG on Improvements to the IGF This is interesting and convenient because the CSTD is the entry point of IGF into the intergovernmental machinery and an analysis could help to suggest ways to improve work within the framework of the CSTD. Real IG (I would suggest Current IG vis a vis meta IG) I believe the group (and many members) around this emailing list, as I have said before, has the capacity, expertise and capabilities to work and influence in what McTim calls real IG, which revolves around settings where current decisions are taken. A workshop presenting and discussing this issue will help clarifying the current mapping between foras, bodies, decisions and impacts, and might help a lot of uninitiated people. I hope IGC can find resources and partners to take the above ideas for workshops forward. Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:57 +0300, McTim wrote: hi, Might it be possible to do a workshop on an actual Internet Governance issue instead of navel-gazing? We couldn't even get our act together to make a statement to the NTIA, are we really only about talking about meta-IG, and not real IG? Why not both? Please suggest a topic for what you call "real IG", and if there is broad agreement, the IGC can sponsor that too. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Apr 8 05:29:50 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:29:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 10:54:31 on Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance decisions > are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and decision-making > bodies? In what topic areas do they make decisions and with what > kinds of impacts? There are lots of "maps of the ecosystem" in circulation, but there's no harm in making another. What will be the cause of some debate, I think, is deciding what issues are in fact "Internet Governance". Once you've done that, slotting players into a map is fairly easy. Would you, for example, include the Council of Europe on account of the Budapest Convention which has impacts upon network operators to be slightly more "law enforcement friendly" than otherwise? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Apr 8 06:04:48 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:04:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: (message from Roland Perry on Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:29:50 +0100) References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Roland Perry wrote: > In message <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 10:54:31 on > Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance decisions > > are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and decision-making > > bodies? In what topic areas do they make decisions and with what > > kinds of impacts? > > [..] What will be the cause of some debate, I think, is deciding > what issues are in fact "Internet Governance". [..] > > Would you, for example, include the Council of Europe on account of the > Budapest Convention which has impacts upon network operators to be > slightly more "law enforcement friendly" than otherwise? This should be decided in view of the stated objective to empower individuals and stakeholder organizations to make sure that their viewpoints and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration. If it makes sense for stakeholders who particularly care about making sure that the "law enforcement friendliness" of network oprators is in some ways "not too great" or "not too small", to monitor what CoE is doing and if necessary seek to influence it, then yes. Otherwise no. Given that EDRi, the European Digital Rights organization that cares deeply about these kinds of issues from a human rights perspective, has taken the trouble of becoming a formal Observer at CoE and sending someone to participate at meetings (at least this was the case a few years ago, I'm not sure about the current status) I would expect the result to be that the CoE should definitely be included on the map. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Apr 8 06:40:48 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 06:40:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <1302239775.2492.2.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> ,<1302239775.2492.2.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I view it as the other way around, discussing a concrete proposal for a way forward is main thing. Deconstructing CSTD to me sounds like a GIGANET topic actually; since history of IG failures is mainly of - academic interest. ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:16 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:06 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I was thinking the same that both workshops could be merged into just > one workshop. The two topics can then be discussed in the same > workshop instead of having two independent spaces....my two cents... Merging them is effectively making a choice for the second (CSTD) workshop, since it's broad enough to include consideration of the Indian proposal. I also note that Parminder has indicated a preference for the first workshop. I agree that we should ideally put forward one or the other rather than both... plus McTim's more operational (which I prefer to "real") workshop. And Fouad, will you be repeating your "open space for discussion" workshop? -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Apr 8 06:46:16 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:46:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:04:48 on Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Norbert Bollow writes >> [..] What will be the cause of some debate, I think, is deciding >> what issues are in fact "Internet Governance". [..] >> >> Would you, for example, include the Council of Europe on account of the >> Budapest Convention which has impacts upon network operators to be >> slightly more "law enforcement friendly" than otherwise? > >This should be decided in view of the stated objective to empower >individuals and stakeholder organizations to make sure that their >viewpoints and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration. > >If it makes sense for stakeholders who particularly care about >making sure that the "law enforcement friendliness" of network >oprators is in some ways "not too great" or "not too small", to >monitor what CoE is doing and if necessary seek to influence it, >then yes. Otherwise no. > >Given that EDRi, the European Digital Rights organization that >cares deeply about these kinds of issues from a human rights >perspective, has taken the trouble of becoming a formal Observer at >CoE and sending someone to participate at meetings (at least this >was the case a few years ago, I'm not sure about the current status) >I would expect the result to be that the CoE should definitely be >included on the map. I agree with that analysis. My real point here is to ask when will this workshop be analysing all the other potential organisations? Will the workshop be presenting for discussion a paper that's almost complete, or is it the start of the process of writing such a paper? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 8 06:51:13 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:21:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> ,<1302239775.2492.2.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> On Friday 08 April 2011 04:10 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I view it as the other way around, discussing a concrete proposal for a way forward is main thing. > > Deconstructing CSTD to me sounds like a GIGANET topic actually; since history of IG failures is mainly of - academic interest. Agree completely. We should set examples of focused discussions on concrete policy/ institutional issues for the rest of IGF participants. Our inputs towards IGF improvements have repeatedly called for increasing such focus, so we will be putting our money where our mouth is. parminder > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:16 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa > Cc: parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal > > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:06 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> I was thinking the same that both workshops could be merged into just >> one workshop. The two topics can then be discussed in the same >> workshop instead of having two independent spaces....my two cents... > Merging them is effectively making a choice for the second (CSTD) > workshop, since it's broad enough to include consideration of the Indian > proposal. > > I also note that Parminder has indicated a preference for the first > workshop. > > I agree that we should ideally put forward one or the other rather than > both... plus McTim's more operational (which I prefer to "real") > workshop. > > And Fouad, will you be repeating your "open space for discussion" > workshop? > > -- > Dr 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 > > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on > the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Apr 8 08:47:31 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:47:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> ,<1302239775.2492.2.ca mel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 4:21 PM +0530 4/8/11, parminder wrote: >On Friday 08 April 2011 04:10 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >>I view it as the other way around, discussing a >>concrete proposal for a way forward is main >>thing. >> >>Deconstructing CSTD to me sounds like a GIGANET >>topic actually; since history of IG failures is >>mainly of - academic interest. >> > >Agree completely. I do too. I think India's proposal's good. And if there hasn't been progress with the CSTD then I'm sure it can be reviewed/championed in the taking stock/way forward session. There is one issue in India's proposal I think could be looked at: Enhanced Cooperation. Says it's important, should be operationalized, etc. But it doesn't define it. A workshop "Defining Enhanced Cooperation" might be useful. I'm certainly not clear what it means. Adam >We should set examples of focused discussions on >concrete policy/ institutional issues for the >rest of IGF participants. Our inputs towards IGF >improvements have repeatedly called for >increasing such focus, so we will be putting our >money where our mouth is. > >parminder > >>________________________________________ >>From: >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>[governance at lists.cpsr.org] >>On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm >>[jeremy at ciroap.org] >>Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:16 AM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa >>Cc: parminder >>Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop >>text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal >> >>On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:06 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>>I was thinking the same that both workshops could be merged into just >>>one workshop. The two topics can then be discussed in the same >>>workshop instead of having two independent spaces....my two cents... >>> >> >>Merging them is effectively making a choice for the second (CSTD) >>workshop, since it's broad enough to include consideration of the Indian >>proposal. >> >>I also note that Parminder has indicated a preference for the first >>workshop. >> >>I agree that we should ideally put forward one or the other rather than >>both... plus McTim's more operational (which I prefer to "real") >>workshop. >> >>And Fouad, will you be repeating your "open space for discussion" >>workshop? >> >>-- >>Dr 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 >> >>Empowering Tomorrow¹s Consumers >>CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >> >>Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer >>groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on >>the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! >>http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >> >>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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Apr 8 09:14:00 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 14:14:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <71anv3yYownNFAC0@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 21:47:31 on Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Adam Peake writes >There is one issue in India's proposal I think could be looked at: >Enhanced Cooperation. Says it's important, should be operationalized, >etc. But it doesn't define it. A workshop "Defining Enhanced >Cooperation" might be useful. I'm certainly not clear what it means. This is what the CSTD thinks it's all about: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/e2009d92crp1_en.pdf and the previous 'annual' report: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/e2009d92_en.pdf And I'll quote from this year's CSTD papers: "Enhanced cooperation 143. In its resolution 2010/2 of 19 July 2010, and in consideration of paragraphs 68 to 71 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, ECOSOC invited 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 in respect of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues. The request emphasized the importance of a balanced representation of all stakeholders, in their respective roles and responsibilities, as set out in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda. 144. DESA held open consultations on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet with member States and all other stakeholders, as requested by the Council and the General Assembly, from September to December 2010. Stakeholders were invited to participate in two ways: online and/or by attending a face-to-face meeting in New York in December 2010. The outcome of these consultations will be contained in a report of the Secretary-General for consideration by the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth session, through ECOSOC. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/a66d64_en.pdf I haven't heard much discussion of the outcomes of that December meeting - it's been a bit overshadowed by the IGF Improvement WG. (See para 149 of the same document above). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Apr 8 09:24:01 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:24:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: (message from Adam Peake on Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:47:31 +0900) References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> ,<1302239775.2492.2.ca mel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > At 4:21 PM +0530 4/8/11, parminder wrote: > >On Friday 08 April 2011 04:10 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > >>I view it as the other way around, discussing a > >>concrete proposal for a way forward is main > >>thing. > >> > >>Deconstructing CSTD to me sounds like a GIGANET > >>topic actually; since history of IG failures is > >>mainly of - academic interest. > >> > > > >Agree completely. > > > I do too. +1. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Apr 8 09:49:48 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:49:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: (message from Roland Perry on Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:46:16 +0100) References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Roland Perry wrote: > >> Would you, for example, include the Council of Europe on account of the > >> Budapest Convention which has impacts upon network operators to be > >> slightly more "law enforcement friendly" than otherwise? > >Given that EDRi, the European Digital Rights organization that > >cares deeply about these kinds of issues from a human rights > >perspective, has taken the trouble of becoming a formal Observer at > >CoE and sending someone to participate at meetings (at least this > >was the case a few years ago, I'm not sure about the current status) > >I would expect the result to be that the CoE should definitely be > >included on the map. > > I agree with that analysis. My real point here is to ask when will this > workshop be analysing all the other potential organisations? > > Will the workshop be presenting for discussion a paper that's almost > complete, or is it the start of the process of writing such a paper? Since the whole point of doing this as at the IGF is to (try to) get broad multistakeholder buy-in for the resulting living document, in the sense of all kinds of stakeholders from all over the world viewing it as "*our* map document" (rather than some author's) and contributing to making it reasonably complete and keeping it up-to-date, I don't think that there are significant limits on what can be done in advance of the workshop. It's of course desirable to come prepared with knowledge of the various pre-existing documents with similar objectives that have been compiled from various narrower perspectives, and to come with some ideas for various options on how the resulting "map of internet governance" document could be structured and organized. The time in Nairobi should IMO to a significant part be discussion about how the map document should be designed to make it optimally useful to all the various stakeholder groups, internationally, and this not only with regard to its content but also with regard to the "human networking" impact of the process of creating the document and keeping it up to date. In other words, to me this proposal is about creating something new (building on everything that has been done in the field already), not about promoting something that I'd have done already. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 11:50:16 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:50:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I also support are more focused workshop, based on the discussion of a specific proposal of improvement. I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they did not say why. I also agree that we put forth a proposal about mapping the IG ecosystem and the inter-relation between the fora. We could also try to map what are the key IG-related issues being currently discussed in other fora. That will be useful to newcomers, but also to us, as the report from the UN SG clearly mentioned that the links between the IGF and the broader dialogue about IG should be strenghtened. Marilia On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > > > At 4:21 PM +0530 4/8/11, parminder wrote: > > >On Friday 08 April 2011 04:10 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > > > >>I view it as the other way around, discussing a > > >>concrete proposal for a way forward is main > > >>thing. > > >> > > >>Deconstructing CSTD to me sounds like a GIGANET > > >>topic actually; since history of IG failures is > > >>mainly of - academic interest. > > >> > > > > > >Agree completely. > > > > > > I do too. > > +1. > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 12:27:55 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:27:55 -0600 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear all, I think you are right previewing a request to merge both workshops. In such an scenario, I would suggest to push for the forward looking workshop: *Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 *In relation to the open consultations on "Enhanced Cooperation" verified last December, may be some people in the list could enlighten the rest on its conclusions. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > > > At 4:21 PM +0530 4/8/11, parminder wrote: > > >On Friday 08 April 2011 04:10 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > > > >>I view it as the other way around, discussing a > > >>concrete proposal for a way forward is main > > >>thing. > > >> > > >>Deconstructing CSTD to me sounds like a GIGANET > > >>topic actually; since history of IG failures is > > >>mainly of - academic interest. > > >> > > > > > >Agree completely. > > > > > > I do too. > > +1. > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 12:39:51 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:39:51 -0600 Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear All, In my opinion, IGC may build a compendium of what maps are available, and present to the workshop a proposal in alpha state (if I take software versions) to continue refining such map. In the workshop, it could be discussed the features of the map itself, its content and its future development. I think that establishing an annual process to update such map and make it available to the public - probably electronically, like one does for ISO 9001, will be very useful. Having the workshop discussing without a document, may produce good ideas on the features of an eventual map, but could limit real progress. I see more advantages on having a proposed map on alpha version to present in Nairobi even if the proposed map needs to be remade from zero for 2012, which also happens with software. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Roland Perry wrote: > > >> Would you, for example, include the Council of Europe on account of > the > > >> Budapest Convention which has impacts upon network operators to be > > >> slightly more "law enforcement friendly" than otherwise? > > >Given that EDRi, the European Digital Rights organization that > > >cares deeply about these kinds of issues from a human rights > > >perspective, has taken the trouble of becoming a formal Observer at > > >CoE and sending someone to participate at meetings (at least this > > >was the case a few years ago, I'm not sure about the current status) > > >I would expect the result to be that the CoE should definitely be > > >included on the map. > > > > I agree with that analysis. My real point here is to ask when will this > > workshop be analysing all the other potential organisations? > > > > Will the workshop be presenting for discussion a paper that's almost > > complete, or is it the start of the process of writing such a paper? > > Since the whole point of doing this as at the IGF is to (try > to) get broad multistakeholder buy-in for the resulting living > document, in the sense of all kinds of stakeholders from all > over the world viewing it as "*our* map document" (rather than > some author's) and contributing to making it reasonably complete > and keeping it up-to-date, I don't think that there are significant > limits on what can be done in advance of the workshop. It's of > course desirable to come prepared with knowledge of the various > pre-existing documents with similar objectives that have been > compiled from various narrower perspectives, and to come with > some ideas for various options on how the resulting "map of > internet governance" document could be structured and organized. > > The time in Nairobi should IMO to a significant part be discussion > about how the map document should be designed to make it optimally > useful to all the various stakeholder groups, internationally, and > this not only with regard to its content but also with regard to > the "human networking" impact of the process of creating the > document and keeping it up to date. > > In other words, to me this proposal is about creating something > new (building on everything that has been done in the field already), > not about promoting something that I'd have done already. > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Apr 8 12:50:43 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:50:43 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BDC3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Kepp the proposal as flexible as possible. There will be CSTD and ECOSOC meetings before Nairobi. So we should include the results of those meetings in the workshop. best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Marilia Maciel Gesendet: Fr 08.04.2011 17:50 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Betreff: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal I also support are more focused workshop, based on the discussion of a specific proposal of improvement. I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they did not say why. I also agree that we put forth a proposal about mapping the IG ecosystem and the inter-relation between the fora. We could also try to map what are the key IG-related issues being currently discussed in other fora. That will be useful to newcomers, but also to us, as the report from the UN SG clearly mentioned that the links between the IGF and the broader dialogue about IG should be strenghtened. Marilia On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Adam Peake wrote: > At 4:21 PM +0530 4/8/11, parminder wrote: > >On Friday 08 April 2011 04:10 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > >>I view it as the other way around, discussing a > >>concrete proposal for a way forward is main > >>thing. > >> > >>Deconstructing CSTD to me sounds like a GIGANET > >>topic actually; since history of IG failures is > >>mainly of - academic interest. > >> > > > >Agree completely. > > > I do too. +1. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Apr 8 14:00:12 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 19:00:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 15:49:48 on Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Norbert Bollow writes >The time in Nairobi should IMO to a significant part be discussion >about how the map document should be designed to make it optimally >useful to all the various stakeholder groups, internationally, and >this not only with regard to its content but also with regard to >the "human networking" impact of the process of creating the >document and keeping it up to date. > >In other words, to me this proposal is about creating something >new (building on everything that has been done in the field already), >not about promoting something that I'd have done already. This sounds to me like something which might be the output of several day's collaborative work, not just one workshop session. But you have to start somewhere. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 18:59:30 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:59:30 -0600 Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Indeed Roland, I was in the same line of thinking as Norbert. We might start working on this as soon as possible and take the workshop only as an important step in the process to look for input from others and adjust accordingly. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 15:49:48 on > Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > The time in Nairobi should IMO to a significant part be discussion >> about how the map document should be designed to make it optimally >> useful to all the various stakeholder groups, internationally, and >> this not only with regard to its content but also with regard to >> the "human networking" impact of the process of creating the >> document and keeping it up to date. >> >> In other words, to me this proposal is about creating something >> new (building on everything that has been done in the field already), >> not about promoting something that I'd have done already. >> > > This sounds to me like something which might be the output of several day's > collaborative work, not just one workshop session. But you have to start > somewhere. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 20:15:10 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 12:15:10 +1200 Subject: [governance] Pacific Internet Governance Forum Message-ID: Dear All, The inaugural PIGF has commenced here in Noumea. You can access the Agenda via http://pacificigf.org/agenda If anyone wants to join the Skype Group for the PIGF, let me know so I can add you. My skype name is salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Apr 8 20:55:05 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 08:55:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <863aeee142807b664dce8b127ea757aa@localhost> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:50:16 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote: I also support are more focused workshop, based on the discussion of a specific proposal of improvement. I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they did not say why. I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but here is some more nuanced language for the former, with changes underlined (anyone else, feel free to make your own suggestions): Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly Mandate". Although only one stakeholder's proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. It is also one of the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting point for further discussion. It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies for their action and feedback. Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether and how to take such proposals forward. -- DR 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 EMPOWERING TOMORROW'S CONSUMERS CI WORLD CONGRESS, 3-6 MAY 2011, HONG KONG Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress [1] Read our email confidentiality notice [2]. Don't print this email unless necessary. Links: ------ [1] http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress [2] http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Apr 8 20:39:25 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 08:39:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> On 08/04/2011, at 11:50 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they did not say why. I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but here is some more nuanced language for the former, with changes underlined (anyone else, feel free to make your own suggestions): Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly Mandate". Although only one stakeholder's proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. It is also one of the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting point for further discussion. It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies for their action and feedback. Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether and how to take such proposals forward. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Apr 8 22:55:13 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 22:55:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <863aeee142807b664dce8b127ea757aa@localhost> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> ,<863aeee142807b664dce8b127ea757aa@localhost> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC996AB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 'although only one stakeholder's proposal' seems to make short shrift of 1 billion + people....gratuitous phrase imho Re mapping, there were several early 'mapping IG'-type papers done of various stripes a while back, by IGP, I think Bill did one, and I am sure there are more which I am blanking on. Anyway, whoever is taking lead there should first do quick round-up of prior work. Last, remember there is a third topic proposed for IGC to champion, on Internet Rights and Principles, which we conveniently have space for since we are down to one more focused and forward-looking workshop... ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 8:55 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:50:16 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote: I also support are more focused workshop, based on the discussion of a specific proposal of improvement. I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they did not say why. I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but here is some more nuanced language for the former, with changes underlined (anyone else, feel free to make your own suggestions): Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly Mandate". Although only one stakeholder's proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. It is also one of the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting point for further discussion. It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies for their action and feedback. Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether and how to take such proposals forward. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Apr 8 23:01:04 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 11:01:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC996AB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> ,<863aeee142807b664dce8b127ea757aa@localhost> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC996AB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6272DA51-6B8F-40C5-8A50-4F8283EF5F20@ciroap.org> On 09/04/2011, at 10:55 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > 'although only one stakeholder's proposal' seems to make short shrift of 1 billion + people....gratuitous phrase imho Perhaps 'although there was no consensus around this proposal'... I'm trying to make it look less like we are pushing India's line here. > Last, remember there is a third topic proposed for IGC to champion, on Internet Rights and Principles, which we conveniently have space for since we are down to one more focused and forward-looking workshop... Can you or one of the other IRP people on this list suggest some wording? -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 8 23:23:28 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 08:53:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> While at it, it would not be appropriate if the IGC does not take note of the hottest public policy issue right now - that of net neutrality. The US congress yesterday blocked FCC's NN guidelines, which themselves were not good enough. In these political contestations, right now in front of our eyes, the Internet, and through it a world order, of the future is being shaped. (Dont say it is just a US matter; how much I wish US policies were just US matters.) So may be somethign like 'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality' In addressing this issue we will be doing a specific positive contribution to global Internet policy regimes. Important to note that Council of Europe is working on the issue of global net neutrality. parminder On Saturday 09 April 2011 06:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 08/04/2011, at 11:50 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder >> representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel >> invited and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. >> During the CSTD WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed >> the proposal, but they did not say why. > > I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused > India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but > here is some more nuanced language for the former, with changes > underlined (anyone else, feel free to make your own suggestions): > > *Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0* > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the > IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of > "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General > Assembly Mandate". _Although only one stakeholder's proposal, _the ten > suggested improvements reflect proposals that _some_ other countries > and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. _It is also > one of the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF > outcomes to emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a > convenient starting point for further discussion._ > > It was suggested _in the proposal_ that the MAG identify key questions > for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue > develop background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through > workshops, a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional > meetings, and that discussion at the plenary level would result in an > IGF report on each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and > other relevant bodies for their action and feedback. > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully > discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a > space to do so more fully. _The workshop will provide an opportunity > for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well > as their shortcomings, and_ consider whether and how to take _such_ > proposals forward. > > -- > > *Dr 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 > > * > * > *Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong* > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join > consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and > discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > * > * > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Apr 8 23:59:56 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:59:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org>,<4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC996AC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Since Parminder wants to talk US domestic politics: 1st, the vote to repeal was just a House vote. The Senate has not taken action and likely won't so...House vote has no legal effect or consequence. Though it does serve as a warning shot at FCC. 2nd, US courts tossed out a lawsuit filed by Verizon & Comcast if memory serves me well, against FCC Open Internet (their proper name) policies, last week, saying it was filed prematurely, since FCC hadn't completed and Federal Register hadn't yet published the rules. Still, it is safe to assume that the lawsuit will be refiled at earliest opportunity. So, in US the push for and against net neutrality/open Internet is a step forward- step back kind of thing; with the consequential steps forward continuing at FCC, aided recently by the courts. The House vote in other words is political theater, of no effect other than to warn FCC their budget could be trimmed by House in future if they don't play ball with - House views. Still most important in my ever-humble opinion: the actual FCC rules marching forward even while under attack from various quarters...are called Open Internet rules. Because...that's what folks actually mean. So I'm fine with a workshop on the topic; I just wish we could call it what we mean and not the smokescreen misnomer Google snookered the world into arguing about five years ago. Especially since Google cut its 'what? me worry about net neutrality? just kidding!' deal with Verizon last summer. But...if we must call it net neutrality even while discussing FCC's open Internet rules...well ok. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:23 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal While at it, it would not be appropriate if the IGC does not take note of the hottest public policy issue right now - that of net neutrality. The US congress yesterday blocked FCC's NN guidelines, which themselves were not good enough. In these political contestations, right now in front of our eyes, the Internet, and through it a world order, of the future is being shaped. (Dont say it is just a US matter; how much I wish US policies were just US matters.) So may be somethign like 'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality' In addressing this issue we will be doing a specific positive contribution to global Internet policy regimes. Important to note that Council of Europe is working on the issue of global net neutrality. parminder On Saturday 09 April 2011 06:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 08/04/2011, at 11:50 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they did not say why. I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but here is some more nuanced language for the former, with changes underlined (anyone else, feel free to make your own suggestions): Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly Mandate". Although only one stakeholder's proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. It is also one of the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting point for further discussion. It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies for their action and feedback. Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether and how to take such proposals forward. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 9 01:22:34 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 10:52:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC996AC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org>,<4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC996AC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D9FED1A.3020702@itforchange.net> Lee Thanks for the clarification, though I did read the news as it is described by you. But yes, I should not have not said 'US congress blocked it', it was neither the full congress, nor a conclusive bocking. As for the right name for the proposed workshop, I have no problem with either term as long as we are speaking of *blocking or priortization of content on commercial considerations*, a definition which despite many claims on this list to the contrary, it quite clear and specific. FCC also used as this parametre as the basic one. My problem is that a lot of people try to mix freedom of expression issues with 'commercial considerations' issue. Both of these are separately very important, but it is difficult to conduct a discussion on NN or open Internet when FoE issues keep getting thrown in into the same discussion. That is all I want to make sure, that we have the discussion on the same subject that FCC was discussing when it came out with its guidelines on the issue. However, it is also relevant that globally NN is the term that people most clearly recognise as meaning traffic priortisation on commercial grounds. parminder On Saturday 09 April 2011 09:29 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Since Parminder wants to talk US domestic politics: > > 1st, the vote to repeal was just a House vote. The Senate has not taken action and likely won't so...House vote has no legal effect or consequence. > > Though it does serve as a warning shot at FCC. > > 2nd, US courts tossed out a lawsuit filed by Verizon& Comcast if memory serves me well, against FCC Open Internet (their proper name) policies, last week, saying it was filed prematurely, since FCC hadn't completed and Federal Register hadn't yet published the rules. Still, it is safe to assume that the lawsuit will be refiled at earliest opportunity. > > So, in US the push for and against net neutrality/open Internet is a step forward- step back kind of thing; with the consequential steps forward continuing at FCC, aided recently by the courts. The House vote in other words is political theater, of no effect other than to warn FCC their budget could be trimmed by House in future if they don't play ball with - House views. > > Still most important in my ever-humble opinion: the actual FCC rules marching forward even while under attack from various quarters...are called Open Internet rules. > > Because...that's what folks actually mean. > > So I'm fine with a workshop on the topic; I just wish we could call it what we mean and not the smokescreen misnomer Google snookered the world into arguing about five years ago. Especially since Google cut its 'what? me worry about net neutrality? just kidding!' deal with Verizon last summer. But...if we must call it net neutrality even while discussing FCC's open Internet rules...well ok. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:23 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal > > While at it, it would not be appropriate if the IGC does not take note of the hottest public policy issue right now - that of net neutrality. The US congress yesterday blocked FCC's NN guidelines, which themselves were not good enough. In these political contestations, right now in front of our eyes, the Internet, and through it a world order, of the future is being shaped. (Dont say it is just a US matter; how much I wish US policies were just US matters.) So may be somethign like > > 'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality' > > In addressing this issue we will be doing a specific positive contribution to global Internet policy regimes. > > Important to note that Council of Europe is working on the issue of global net neutrality. > > parminder > > On Saturday 09 April 2011 06:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 08/04/2011, at 11:50 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they did not say why. > > I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but here is some more nuanced language for the former, with changes underlined (anyone else, feel free to make your own suggestions): > > Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly Mandate". Although only one stakeholder's proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. It is also one of the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting point for further discussion. > > It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies for their action and feedback. > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether and how to take such proposals forward. > > -- > Dr 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 > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 01:25:02 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:25:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Pacific IGF] Pacific IGF - Draft summary - Part 1 - Sessions 1&2, Saturday Morning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This was our morning session at the PIGF. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Keith Davidson Date: Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:42 PM Subject: [Pacific IGF] Pacific IGF - Draft summary - Part 1 - Sessions 1&2, Saturday Morning To: IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com Pacific IGF Saturday 9 April 2011 - Opening Session *1. **Keith Davidson introduction* Keith welcomed people to the Forum and introduced Dr Jimmie Rogers. *2. **Dr Jimmie Rogers – SPC Director General* Dr Rogers opened proceedings with a prayer. He explained the background of the SPC facility in which the IGF is being held. In his opening statement, Dr Rogers made a broad survey over the opportunities and challenges the Internet poses for the Pacific, and the potential it offers as a tool for development. SPC's role is limited in the Internet area, as it is mainly a zone for private sector innovation. Provides a platform in partnership to assist the development process. He highlighted an MOU signed with NetSafe in New Zealand, to help members of the Pacific community develop a safer Internet. A challenge he posed is how to make sure the Pacific voice is heard globally in the Internet arena. Keith thanked Dr Rogers for his address, and asked him to pass on to the SPC staff his thanks for the organisation of the event. Keith noted the history of the IGF, where at the end of the 1990s the cross-cutting nature of many core Internet issues were becoming clear – but where there were no proper forums to address them. The WSIS process led to the first global IGF in Greece in 2006. The first agreed cycle of five is complete, and a sixth is being held this year. They have become a very useful forum for discussion of a wide range of Internet governance issues, and have spread to be held in national and regional domains as well. They allow policymakers and others to discuss the issues they face and work out ways to tackle these that aren't always based on regulation or legislation in the first instance. Keith welcomed the other keynote speakers for the event, and then handed over to Peter Dengate-Thrush. *3. **Peter Dengate-Thrush – Chair of ICANN* Peter's presentation summarised the origins of the Internet, the basis of the IP address and top level domain name allocation, the origins of ICANN as a multi-stakeholder governance body for Internet resource allocation, ICANN's structure, the recent activity of ICANN (IDNs and security, among other things) and an important highlight on what ICANN does not do (deal with content). Peter also spent some time discussing in depth recent changes to ICANN's relationship with the United States government, the progress in implementing IDNs which allow countries to have domain names completely in their own script rather than having to use Latin scripts, the implementation of new global Top Level Domains, and the exhaustion of the IPv4 address space. Keith thanked Peter for his presentation, and introduced the third speaker Don Hollander. *4. **Don Hollander – Citizen* “A day in the life of an ICT-enabled village.” Don's presentation outlined the many uses of ICT that have become available in the village setting, from small businesses, to healthcare, to church, to connections with relatives far away, to shop stock management. Presentation was first given in a similar form to a meeting of Pacific ICT ministers in Wellington in 2006. The vision of five years ago is becoming real across the Pacific, with the Internet a fundamental driver. Opportunities remain to manage and govern the Internet well enough to serve the people. But opportunity is already there. Keith thanked Don for his presentation, and noted that the Internet is not yet everywhere. While there is faster and more available Internet, new issues need to be confronted along with the rollout. A whole host of public policy issues arise: freedom of expression, fighting SPAM, free association, the need for outreach and so on. As many problems in front of us as there are behind. The IGF allows people to share experiences and develop their own solutions: developing new ideas and new approaches is the point of this event. The panels will be short and provocative, and then allow time for questions and discussion and the sharing of ideas. Keith also noted that he was apologetic that the organisation of the IGF had not been necessarily done through a multi-stakeholder process – the time was not available to allow for this. Second Session: Internet Access for All *5. **Maureen Hilyard - Introduction* Maureen introduced herself and her speakers, and gave a briefing about what PICISOC is – the Pacific chapter of the global Internet Society. Represent 22 countries with 681 members. They support the Pacific IGF to foster exchange of views, promote learning & understanding, and look to best practices & solutions. A collective Pacific voice is needed in the international forums – and this Pacific IGF gives the opportunity for such a voice to be developed. Universal access is a key theme for PicISOC – getting services to unserved or underserved people. Webb Henderson report analysed range of policies in place across the Pacific – mixed. Lack of liberalisation feeds into lack of access. *6. **Gunela Astbrink – Leveraging technology to give voice and reach for people with disabilities* Gunela comes from ISOC-AU in Australia. In summary, the presentation noted the scale of disability in the region (around 800,000 in the Pacific) and that the response to guarantee social inclusion and respect has to be broadly based. Technology provides many opportunities for people to be included, to communicate with each other and to continue with education, for example, independently. In discussion: · Are there any heartening success stories? No portfolio of success stories yet assembled in the region. · How has ISOC-AU affected standards on these issues? Gunela outlined a range of examples. · Cochlear video conferencing analysis in Samoa – suitable when 1mbps connectivity available, saving travel. *7. **Ian Thomson – on seeding remote access* Ian has a background working practically in the Pacific, including helping roll out OLPC. Key points: · It's not about the technology · It's not about the money · Multi-stakeholder approaches take time, but donors are often focused on demonstrating short-run success. · Target should be on everyone to be involved – not simply particular chosen services. This creates the widest possible ecosystem of interest, leading to most support. · Lots of trials and pilots have been done, but very few have scaled up. Not appropriate to do more pilots and trials; focus needs to be on rapidly scaling up. Need to just get on and do it. Maureen thanked Ian for his presentation, and noted her regret there aren't more Governments present here, to hear the message about going from trials to mass rollout. *Discussion* · In Fiji, there is a universal service programme funded by international call minutes. It's one thing to legislate it, but even post-liberalisation, there is a lack of follow through to access deficit reduction. Inconsistent policy a real issue, creates difficulties across the islands. · Cook Islands and Palau have 100% connectivity. It's not impossible but it is difficult. · It's not about the money but it is about the financing (Vanuatu) – hard to collate demand and funds in the face of inter-agency competition etc. · Is there an opportunity for the private sector to be an intermediary between departments to get them working together? This is the traditional role for the operators. · Change requires commitment from senior people in government to agree and push it through. · Scaling up not working but already understood? From a social science perspective, the particular situation of each country is important, and is the key to maximise benefits and mitigating problems. No silver bullet, and a case-by-case approach is needed. · Cook Islands perspective: the outer islands have been done by Telecom Cook Islands. Benefits to health and education services. Health – saving costs of travel of up to $4k a return trip, for basic analysis and diagnosis. Greater teacher training opportunities too. · Airport Authority perpsective – interagency negotiations agreed as an issue. Points of demarcation and interactions with different agencies in the terminal has been an interesting negotiation. · Solomons – Distance Learning Centre example, a packet network: problem with ongoing costs once material installed. Schools didn't have enough users; technology failures too. Solomons Telecom assisting in improving the service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Apr 9 04:44:49 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:44:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> On 09/04/2011, at 11:23 AM, parminder wrote: > 'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality' > > In addressing this issue we will be doing a specific positive contribution to global Internet policy regimes. > > Important to note that Council of Europe is working on the issue of global net neutrality. For the two suggested workshops on network neutrality and human rights, before we could put either of them forward as the IGC we would need: (a) a volunteer to organise them (ie. pull the speakers together, etc); and (b) some descriptive text for the proposal to the Secretariat/MAG. As for the Mapping workshop, we already have the descriptive text, and Norbert has volunteered to help organise (thank you Norbert!). Will anyone else be co-organising with him (McTim, Miguel)? For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to co-organise with anyone else who wishes to do so). -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 05:17:50 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 12:17:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Indeed Roland, > > I was in the same line of thinking as Norbert. We might start working on > this as soon as possible and take the workshop only as an important step in > the process to look for input from others and adjust accordingly. I think this is a great resource for this mapping: http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/internetmodel.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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 08:04:08 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:04:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Pacific Internet Governance Forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, can you add me my skype ID: b.schombe Baudouin 2011/4/9 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Dear All, > > The inaugural PIGF has commenced here in Noumea. You can access the Agenda > via http://pacificigf.org/agenda > > If anyone wants to join the Skype Group for the PIGF, let me know so I can > add you. My skype name is salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chad at apc.org Sat Apr 9 08:51:04 2011 From: chad at apc.org (Chad Lubelsky) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 08:51:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <40195D6A-5D1E-4DCC-BCEA-8D02BA3C3B0C@apc.org> APC has also put together maps of the internet public policy space, decision-making entities and participating actors. http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/books/mapping-internet-public-policy Chad On 2011-04-09, at 5:17 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >> Indeed Roland, >> >> I was in the same line of thinking as Norbert. We might start working on >> this as soon as possible and take the workshop only as an important step in >> the process to look for input from others and adjust accordingly. > > I think this is a great resource for this mapping: > > http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/internetmodel.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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ---- Chad Lubelsky - Global networking, policy and advocacy coordinator Association for Progressive Communications Montreal, Canada chad at apc.org - +1 514 603 3382 --- APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 12:26:38 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:26:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> Message-ID: "For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to co-organise with anyone else who wishes to do so)." I would be happy to assist you, if you want some help. Marília On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/04/2011, at 11:23 AM, parminder wrote: > > 'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality' > > In addressing this issue we will be doing a specific positive contribution > to global Internet policy regimes. > > Important to note that Council of Europe is working on the issue of global > net neutrality. > > > For the two suggested workshops on network neutrality and human rights, > before we could put either of them forward as the IGC we would need: > > (a) a volunteer to organise them (ie. pull the speakers together, etc); and > (b) some descriptive text for the proposal to the Secretariat/MAG. > > As for the Mapping workshop, we already have the descriptive text, and > Norbert has volunteered to help organise (thank you Norbert!). Will anyone > else be co-organising with him (McTim, Miguel)? > > For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to co-organise with > anyone else who wishes to do so). > > -- > > *Dr 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 > * > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join > consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion > on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > * > > 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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Apr 10 04:14:01 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:44:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> Similarly, I am happy to propose a text for the 'global network neutrality' workshop and help organize it along with any or all others who may be interested. i can undertake to anchor the effort on IGC's behalf. parminder On Saturday 09 April 2011 09:56 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > "For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to co-organise > with anyone else who wishes to do so)." > I would be happy to assist you, if you want some help. > > Marília > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 09/04/2011, at 11:23 AM, parminder wrote: > >> 'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality' >> >> In addressing this issue we will be doing a specific positive >> contribution to global Internet policy regimes. >> >> Important to note that Council of Europe is working on the issue >> of global net neutrality. > > For the two suggested workshops on network neutrality and human > rights, before we could put either of them forward as the IGC we > would need: > > (a) a volunteer to organise them (ie. pull the speakers together, > etc); and > (b) some descriptive text for the proposal to the Secretariat/MAG. > > As for the Mapping workshop, we already have the descriptive text, > and Norbert has volunteered to help organise (thank you Norbert!). > Will anyone else be co-organising with him (McTim, Miguel)? > > For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to > co-organise with anyone else who wishes to do so). > > -- > > *Dr 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 > > * > * > *Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong* > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join > consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and > discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > * > * > > 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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Apr 10 11:07:13 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:37:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> Below is a proposed text for a workshop on 'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality'. Thanks. parminder Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines that built over an agreement between two principal corporate players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. In the background, since Internet is essentially a global network and finally there must be common global norms on whether content can be prioritised across global digital highways including across global interconnection points) on payments by the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about global norms, taking into consideration the interests and viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful countries to seek global norms on NN. The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. On Sunday 10 April 2011 01:44 PM, parminder wrote: > Similarly, I am happy to propose a text for the 'global network > neutrality' workshop and help organize it along with any or all others > who may be interested. i can undertake to anchor the effort on IGC's > behalf. parminder > > On Saturday 09 April 2011 09:56 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> "For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to co-organise >> with anyone else who wishes to do so)." >> I would be happy to assist you, if you want some help. >> >> Marília >> >> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: >> >> On 09/04/2011, at 11:23 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> 'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality' >>> >>> In addressing this issue we will be doing a specific positive >>> contribution to global Internet policy regimes. >>> >>> Important to note that Council of Europe is working on the issue >>> of global net neutrality. >> >> For the two suggested workshops on network neutrality and human >> rights, before we could put either of them forward as the IGC we >> would need: >> >> (a) a volunteer to organise them (ie. pull the speakers together, >> etc); and >> (b) some descriptive text for the proposal to the Secretariat/MAG. >> >> As for the Mapping workshop, we already have the descriptive >> text, and Norbert has volunteered to help organise (thank you >> Norbert!). Will anyone else be co-organising with him (McTim, >> Miguel)? >> >> For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to >> co-organise with anyone else who wishes to do so). >> >> -- >> >> *Dr 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 >> >> * >> * >> *Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers >> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong* >> >> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join >> consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and >> discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >> >> Twitter #CICongress >> * >> * >> >> 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, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Apr 10 12:15:32 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:45:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4DA1D7A4.7030406@itforchange.net> A kind soul helped undo some atrocities to the English language committed in the text I posted :). Pl see below Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines that built over an agreement between two principal corporate players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. In the background, since Internet is essentially a global network and finally there must be common global norms on whether content can be prioritised across global digital highways including across global interconnection points) on payments by the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about global norms, taking into consideration the interests and viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful countries to seek global norms on NN. The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. On Sunday 10 April 2011 08:37 PM, parminder wrote: > Below is a proposed text for a workshop on 'A possible framework for > global Net Neutrality'. Thanks. parminder > > Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public > policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's Federal > Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines that built > over an agreement between two principal corporate players in the > area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on the issue, French > telecom regulatory authority have come out with a set of NN > proposals and recommendations, Brazil a drafting a new civil > rights framework for the Internet of which NN is an important > issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with a much acclaimed set > of NN guidelines. > > In the background, since Internet is essentially a global network > and finally there must be common global norms on whether content > can be prioritised across global digital highways including across > global interconnection points) on payments by the content > providers or not. Interesting, cross border network neutrality is > a subject being dealt with by an experts committee on the Council > of Europe. If we do not start talking about global norms, taking > into consideration the interests and viewpoints of all involved, > we will eventually be faced by a default regime of global traffic > flows which will be whatever gets decided by the key economic > powers. This is undemocratic way of subjecting the global public > to the political choices of a few, most powerful. On the other > hand, it is also true that even in the more powerful nations, > policy making in this area may become hostage to the interests of > multinational digital corporations at the cost of the national > public interest. It it therefore of considerable value even for > the more powerful countries to seek global norms on NN. > > The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive > regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of > coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. > > > > > > > > On Sunday 10 April 2011 01:44 PM, parminder wrote: >> Similarly, I am happy to propose a text for the 'global network >> neutrality' workshop and help organize it along with any or all >> others who may be interested. i can undertake to anchor the effort on >> IGC's behalf. parminder >> >> On Saturday 09 April 2011 09:56 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> "For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to >>> co-organise with anyone else who wishes to do so)." >>> I would be happy to assist you, if you want some help. >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> > wrote: >>> >>> On 09/04/2011, at 11:23 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> 'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality' >>>> >>>> In addressing this issue we will be doing a specific positive >>>> contribution to global Internet policy regimes. >>>> >>>> Important to note that Council of Europe is working on the >>>> issue of global net neutrality. >>> >>> For the two suggested workshops on network neutrality and human >>> rights, before we could put either of them forward as the IGC we >>> would need: >>> >>> (a) a volunteer to organise them (ie. pull the speakers >>> together, etc); and >>> (b) some descriptive text for the proposal to the Secretariat/MAG. >>> >>> As for the Mapping workshop, we already have the descriptive >>> text, and Norbert has volunteered to help organise (thank you >>> Norbert!). Will anyone else be co-organising with him (McTim, >>> Miguel)? >>> >>> For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to >>> co-organise with anyone else who wishes to do so). >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr 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 >>> >>> * >>> * >>> *Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers >>> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong* >>> >>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join >>> consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate >>> and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. >>> Register now! >>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >>> >>> Twitter #CICongress >>> * >>> * >>> >>> 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, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Apr 10 12:24:03 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:54:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4DA1D7A4.7030406@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4DA1D7A4.7030406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4DA1D9A3.2020600@itforchange.net> Sorry, i reposted the earlier unedited text. the new edited text is below Network Neutrality has, over the last year, in many countries, become an urgent issue for Internet governance. The US Federal Communications Commission promulgated NN guidelines; to do so, the FCC, a public policy entity, started from the terms of an agreement between two corporate, and so private, players. The EU has conducted a pulbic hearing on the issue; the French telecom regulatory authority has proposed a set of NN recommendations; Brazil is drafting a civil rights framework for the Internet, of which NN is an important element. Earlier, in 2009, Norway issued NN guidelines, now broadly acclaimed. The Internet is a global network and finally there must be common global norms: can content be prioritised across global digital highways (including across global interconnection points) based on purchase of that priority by content providers? Interestingly, cross border network neutrality is a subject being dealt by an experts committee of the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about global norms, taking into consideration the interests and viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually find ourselves forced into a default regime of global traffic flows decided only by key economic powers, who often are private actors. This is undemocratic. It subjects the global public to the political choices of a few, the most powerful. Even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area may prove hostage to the interests of multinational digital corporations and so potentially contravene the national public interest. It it therefore of considerable value, even for the more powerful countries, to seek global norms on NN. The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive regimes in different countries, then explore the steps to a shared set of global norms on NN. On Sunday 10 April 2011 09:45 PM, parminder wrote: > A kind soul helped undo some atrocities to the English language > committed in the text I posted :). Pl see below > > > Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public > policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's Federal > Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines that built > over an agreement between two principal corporate players in the > area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on the issue, French > telecom regulatory authority have come out with a set of NN > proposals and recommendations, Brazil a drafting a new civil > rights framework for the Internet of which NN is an important > issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with a much acclaimed set > of NN guidelines. > > In the background, since Internet is essentially a global network > and finally there must be common global norms on whether content > can be prioritised across global digital highways including across > global interconnection points) on payments by the content > providers or not. Interesting, cross border network neutrality is > a subject being dealt with by an experts committee on the Council > of Europe. If we do not start talking about global norms, taking > into consideration the interests and viewpoints of all involved, > we will eventually be faced by a default regime of global traffic > flows which will be whatever gets decided by the key economic > powers. This is undemocratic way of subjecting the global public > to the political choices of a few, most powerful. On the other > hand, it is also true that even in the more powerful nations, > policy making in this area may become hostage to the interests of > multinational digital corporations at the cost of the national > public interest. It it therefore of considerable value even for > the more powerful countries to seek global norms on NN. > > The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive > regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of > coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. > > > > On Sunday 10 April 2011 08:37 PM, parminder wrote: >> Below is a proposed text for a workshop on 'A possible framework for >> global Net Neutrality'. Thanks. parminder >> >> Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public >> policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's Federal >> Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines that built >> over an agreement between two principal corporate players in the >> area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on the issue, >> French telecom regulatory authority have come out with a set of >> NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a drafting a new civil >> rights framework for the Internet of which NN is an important >> issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with a much acclaimed >> set of NN guidelines. >> >> In the background, since Internet is essentially a global network >> and finally there must be common global norms on whether content >> can be prioritised across global digital highways including >> across global interconnection points) on payments by the content >> providers or not. Interesting, cross border network neutrality is >> a subject being dealt with by an experts committee on the Council >> of Europe. If we do not start talking about global norms, taking >> into consideration the interests and viewpoints of all involved, >> we will eventually be faced by a default regime of global traffic >> flows which will be whatever gets decided by the key economic >> powers. This is undemocratic way of subjecting the global public >> to the political choices of a few, most powerful. On the other >> hand, it is also true that even in the more powerful nations, >> policy making in this area may become hostage to the interests of >> multinational digital corporations at the cost of the national >> public interest. It it therefore of considerable value even for >> the more powerful countries to seek global norms on NN. >> >> The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive >> regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of >> coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday 10 April 2011 01:44 PM, parminder wrote: >>> Similarly, I am happy to propose a text for the 'global network >>> neutrality' workshop and help organize it along with any or all >>> others who may be interested. i can undertake to anchor the effort >>> on IGC's behalf. parminder >>> >>> On Saturday 09 April 2011 09:56 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> "For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to >>>> co-organise with anyone else who wishes to do so)." >>>> I would be happy to assist you, if you want some help. >>>> >>>> Marília >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> On 09/04/2011, at 11:23 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> 'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality' >>>>> >>>>> In addressing this issue we will be doing a specific positive >>>>> contribution to global Internet policy regimes. >>>>> >>>>> Important to note that Council of Europe is working on the >>>>> issue of global net neutrality. >>>> >>>> For the two suggested workshops on network neutrality and human >>>> rights, before we could put either of them forward as the IGC >>>> we would need: >>>> >>>> (a) a volunteer to organise them (ie. pull the speakers >>>> together, etc); and >>>> (b) some descriptive text for the proposal to the Secretariat/MAG. >>>> >>>> As for the Mapping workshop, we already have the descriptive >>>> text, and Norbert has volunteered to help organise (thank you >>>> Norbert!). Will anyone else be co-organising with him (McTim, >>>> Miguel)? >>>> >>>> For the India/IGC workshop, I'm happy to organise (or to >>>> co-organise with anyone else who wishes to do so). >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Dr 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 >>>> >>>> * >>>> * >>>> *Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers >>>> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong* >>>> >>>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join >>>> consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate >>>> and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. >>>> Register now! >>>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >>>> >>>> Twitter #CICongress >>>> * >>>> * >>>> >>>> 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, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Apr 10 12:22:54 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 17:22:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4DA1C7A1.9060106 at itforchange.net>, at 20:37:13 on Sun, 10 Apr 2011, parminder writes >In the background, since Internet is essentially a global network and >finally there must be common global norms on whether content can be >prioritised across global digital highways including across global >interconnection points) on payments by the content providers or not. Once you go international on this, it's necessary to look at the way peering and transit agreements work. "Follow the money". The revenue models of the telephone system work because there's a myriad of settlement-based interconnects, which just don't exist for the Internet. Especially when you can't easily tell whose traffic it is that you are shifting. Hence perhaps efforts by ITU (restarted recently) to look at using BGP to try to unpick some of this. In the current Internet model it's simply not possible for a content provider in UK to pay a consumer-eyeballs network in Pakistan to deliver its content preferentially (which includes paying not to restrict it). And when the "content provider" is the individual Internet citizen, wanting his blog to be transmitted everywhere, or wanting the files he's sharing by P2P to be received unhindered anywhere in the world, there's simply nothing approaching a mechanism for him to pay for that. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Apr 10 12:38:35 2011 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:38:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C@post.harvard.edu> On Apr 10, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4DA1C7A1.9060106 at itforchange.net>, at 20:37:13 on Sun, > 10 Apr 2011, parminder writes > >> In the background, since Internet is essentially a global network >> and finally there must be common global norms on whether content >> can be prioritised across global digital highways including across >> global interconnection points) on payments by the content providers >> or not. > > Once you go international on this, it's necessary to look at the way > peering and transit agreements work. "Follow the money". > > The revenue models of the telephone system work because there's a > myriad of settlement-based interconnects, which just don't exist for > the Internet. Especially when you can't easily tell whose traffic it > is that you are shifting. Hence perhaps efforts by ITU (restarted > recently) to look at using BGP to try to unpick some of this. > > In the current Internet model it's simply not possible for a content > provider in UK to pay a consumer-eyeballs network in Pakistan to > deliver its content preferentially (which includes paying not to > restrict it). > > And when the "content provider" is the individual Internet citizen, > wanting his blog to be transmitted everywhere, or wanting the files > he's sharing by P2P to be received unhindered anywhere in the world, > there's simply nothing approaching a mechanism for him to pay for > that. > > -- > Roland Perry Following that logic: It becomes even more important - for international receipt of material originated elsewhere - that _national_ NN regimes are 'in the public interest.' David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 14:20:20 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:20:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: If there are no further comments about this workshop proposal (reflections on the Indian proposal), then I believe that Jeremy and I will start contacting other stakeholder groups by tomorow (Monday), ok? On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 08/04/2011, at 11:50 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder > representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited > and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD > WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they > did not say why. > > > I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused > India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but here is > some more nuanced language for the former, with changes underlined (anyone > else, feel free to make your own suggestions): > > *Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0* > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the > IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of > "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General > Assembly Mandate". *Although only one stakeholder's proposal, *the ten > suggested improvements reflect proposals that *some* other countries and > other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. *It is also one of > the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to > emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting > point for further discussion.* > > It was suggested *in the proposal* that the MAG identify key questions for > the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop > background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, > a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and > that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on > each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant > bodies for their action and feedback. > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss these > suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so more > fully. *The workshop will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to > consider the merits of the proposals as well as their shortcomings, and* consider > whether and how to take *such* proposals forward. > > -- > > *Dr 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 > * > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join > consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion > on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > * > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Apr 10 16:04:46 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:04:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: (message from Miguel Alcaine on Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:39:51 -0600) References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20110410200446.709A215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Miguel Alcaine wrote: > In my opinion, IGC may build a compendium of what maps are available, and > present to the workshop a proposal in alpha state (if I take software > versions) to continue refining such map. > > In the workshop, it could be discussed the features of the map itself, its > content and its future development. I think that establishing an annual > process to update such map and make it available to the public - probably > electronically, like one does for ISO 9001, will be very useful. > > Having the workshop discussing without a document, may produce good ideas on > the features of an eventual map, but could limit real progress. > > I see more advantages on having a proposed map on alpha version to present > in Nairobi even if the proposed map needs to be remade from zero for 2012, > which also happens with software. I think that this is a very good plan, and I'd very much like to go forward along these lines. I'm also interested in exploring whether it's somehow possible to include, for each forum or group of related fora, contact info for getting advice on how to get involved productively. Anyway, the next vitally important step is for someone who has a strong personal network in the IGF community to join me in volunteering to be on the organizing team for this workshop. Due to my long absence from the IGF process (I was at the Athens IGF as a participant and as a panelist at a workshop), but haven't participated in the four IGFs since Athens) I absolutely don't want to go forward unless there's someone on the team who is more up-to-date. If this workshop idea is to work out, we need to move forward really quickly here, as the workshop proposals deadline is this upcoming Friday, and by then we need to have not only text descibing the idea, but also a list of co-organizers and panelists, with (to the extent possible) geographical balance, stakeholder balance and gender balance. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 17:23:10 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:23:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4DA1D9A3.2020600@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4DA1D7A4.7030406@itforchange.net> <4DA1D9A3.2020600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:24 PM, parminder wrote: > Sorry, i reposted the earlier unedited text. the new edited text is below > > Network Neutrality has, over the last year, in many countries, become an > urgent issue for Internet governance. The US Federal Communications > Commission promulgated NN guidelines; to do so, the FCC, a public policy > entity, started from the terms of an agreement between two corporate, and so > private, players. not so IIRC. Making such an assertion is misleading at best. The EU has conducted a pulbic hearing on the issue; the > French telecom regulatory authority has proposed a set of NN > recommendations; Brazil is drafting a civil rights framework for the > Internet, of which NN is an important element. Earlier, in 2009, Norway > issued NN guidelines, now broadly acclaimed. > The Internet is a global network of networks and finally there must be common global > norms: but there are already "global norms". We usually call them "Standards"  can content be prioritised across global digital highways (including > across global interconnection points) based on purchase of that priority by > content providers? Interestingly, cross border network neutrality is a > subject being dealt by an experts committee of the Council of Europe. If we > do not start talking about global norms, taking into consideration the > interests and viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually find ourselves > forced into a default regime of global traffic flows decided only by key > economic powers, who often are private actors. We are already there, and have been for quite some time. it's called QoS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6073/is_2_9/ai_n29363347/ -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Apr 10 17:37:19 2011 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 17:37:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4DA1D7A4.7030406@itforchange.net> <4DA1D9A3.2020600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <21F04CB8-C787-4492-96E1-CD2A12652E32@post.harvard.edu> On Apr 10, 2011, at 5:23 PM, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:24 PM, parminder > wrote: >> Sorry, i reposted the earlier unedited text. the new edited text is >> below >> >> Network Neutrality has, over the last year, in many countries, >> become an >> urgent issue for Internet governance. The US Federal Communications >> Commission promulgated NN guidelines; to do so, the FCC, a public >> policy >> entity, started from the terms of an agreement between two >> corporate, and so >> private, players. > > > not so IIRC. Making such an assertion is misleading at best. Provenance is never precise, is it. But many (quite well) informed folks, wrt the US comms policy process, were satisfied that the private Google-Verizon deal set the terms for what emerged finally at the FCC. A little Googling is illustrative. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sun Apr 10 22:13:33 2011 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:13:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: <40195D6A-5D1E-4DCC-BCEA-8D02BA3C3B0C@apc.org> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <40195D6A-5D1E-4DCC-BCEA-8D02BA3C3B0C@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Chad, This will take some time to assimilate, but it looks like there has been a great deal of thought behind the concepts and organization presented in this presentation. It's certainly worth some time and study. George At 8:51 AM -0400 4/9/11, Chad Lubelsky wrote: >APC has also put together maps of the >internet public policy space, decision-making >entities and participating actors. > > >http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/books/mapping-internet-public-policy > >Chad > > >On 2011-04-09, at 5:17 AM, McTim wrote: > >>On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Miguel Alcaine >><miguel.alcaine at gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>>Indeed Roland, >>> >>> >>>I was in the same line of thinking as Norbert. We might start working on >>> >>>this as soon as possible and take the workshop only as an important step in >>> >>>the process to look for input from others and adjust accordingly. >>> >> >>I think this is a great resource for this mapping: >> >>http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/internetmodel.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, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >---- > > >Chad Lubelsky - Global networking, policy and advocacy coordinator >Association for Progressive Communications >Montreal, Canada >chad at apc.org - +1 514 603 3382 > >--- > >APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org >Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! >¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! >Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sun Apr 10 22:13:28 2011 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:13:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop (was Re: Proposed...) In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: McTim, Thank you VERY much for referencing this exposition of the INternet Ecosystem. I don't know how it slipped by me when it was published. I agree that it's a very useful framework document for future use. George At 12:17 PM +0300 4/9/11, McTim wrote: >On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Miguel Alcaine > wrote: >> Indeed Roland, >> >> I was in the same line of thinking as Norbert. We might start working on >> this as soon as possible and take the workshop only as an important step in >> the process to look for input from others and adjust accordingly. > >I think this is a great resource for this mapping: > >http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/internetmodel.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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lists at privaterra.org Sun Apr 10 22:16:47 2011 From: lists at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:16:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Freedom on the Net 2011: Growing Threats to the Internet & Digital Media Message-ID: I would like to share details of the following Freedom House event that I am helping organize in the San Francisco Bay Area in about a week's time. http://goo.gl/LSlXZ *FREEDOM ON THE NET 2011* *: * *Growing Threats to the Internet & Digital Media* As the recent uprisings across the Middle East have shown, information technology facilitates political change, but for that very reason, authoritarian regimes are intensifying their controls over the internet. Freedom House is now issuing its report in levels of freedom on the internet around the world, which rates internet access, censorship, and user rights in 37 countries and assesses key trends in freedom of digital media. The presentation of report findings will be followed by a panel discussion with internet freedom experts. Brought to you by the Yahoo! Series on Business and Human Rights. *Alex Fowler*, Global* *Privacy* *and Public Policy Leader, Mozilla *Gwen Hinze*, International Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation *Sanja Kelly*, Senior Researcher & Managing Editor, Freedom House *Ebele Okobi-Harris*, Director of Business & Human Rights Program, Yahoo! *Nicole Wong*, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Google Moderated by *Joseph Menn*, Technology Correspondent, *The Financial Times*; Author, *Fatal System Error* The Yahoo! Series on Business & Human Rights Monday, April 18, 6:30 PM World Affairs Council Auditorium 312 Sutter Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94108 As part of our ongoing commitment to bring you in-depth information on the most pressing international issues, we are proud to announce this program will also be available as live webcast. You can join by going to our homepage or going to www.LiveStream.com/WorldAffairs2011 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 23:13:59 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 06:13:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <21F04CB8-C787-4492-96E1-CD2A12652E32@post.harvard.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4DA1D7A4.7030406@itforchange.net> <4DA1D9A3.2020600@itforchange.net> <21F04CB8-C787-4492-96E1-CD2A12652E32@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37 AM, David Allen wrote: > On Apr 10, 2011, at 5:23 PM, McTim wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:24 PM, parminder >> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, i reposted the earlier unedited text. the new edited text is below >>> >>> Network Neutrality has, over the last year, in many countries, become an >>> urgent issue for Internet governance. The US Federal Communications >>> Commission promulgated NN guidelines; to do so, the FCC, a public policy >>> entity, started from the terms of an agreement between two corporate, and >>> so >>> private, players. >> >> >> not so IIRC.  Making such an assertion is misleading at best. > > Provenance is never precise, is it.  But many (quite well) informed folks, > wrt the US comms policy process, were satisfied that the private > Google-Verizon deal set the terms for what emerged finally at the FCC. It was the previous multilateral negotiations that formed the basis of the FCC proposal. It also informed the GV agreement. If you notice, the most objected to bit of the GV (treat wireless differently) isn't in the FCC proposal.  A > little Googling is illustrative. I Google every day! -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Apr 10 23:28:41 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:58:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4DA1D7A4.7030406@itforchange.net> <4DA1D9A3.2020600@itforchange.net> <21F04CB8-C787-4492-96E1-CD2A12652E32@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4DA27569.9030906@itforchange.net> On Monday 11 April 2011 08:43 AM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37 AM, David Allen > wrote: >> On Apr 10, 2011, at 5:23 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> Provenance is never precise, is it. But many (quite well) informed folks, >> wrt the US comms policy process, were satisfied that the private >> Google-Verizon deal set the terms for what emerged finally at the FCC. > It was the previous multilateral negotiations that formed the basis of > the FCC proposal. It also informed the GV agreement. If you notice, > the most objected to bit of the GV (treat wireless differently) isn't > in the FCC proposal. It is very much in the FCC proposal, and the most criticized part of it. parminder > A >> little Googling is illustrative. > I Google every day! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Apr 11 01:11:52 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:11:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) Message-ID: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> I'm not proposing to do an actual consensus call poll over the three IGC workshops, since they are not in the nature of statements and there is room for many viewpoints within all of them, but this is a summary of the status of our three workshop proposals so far, to which any more suggestions or serious objections are invited. We also need volunteers to co-organise and to serve as remote moderators as noted below. These are listed here in the order they were proposed. We will be submitting the workshop proposals by this Friday. 1. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly Mandate". Although there was no consensus around this proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. It is also one of the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting point for further discussion. It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies for their action and feedback. Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether and how to take such proposals forward. Sponsors: IGC, others TBC (possibly ISOC Chennai) Organisers for IGC: Jeremy Malcolm and Marilia Maciel Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) Speakers: TBC 2. Mapping Internet Governance This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses these questions, and for thereafter keeping this document up-to-date. Sponsors: IGC, others TBC Organisers for IGC: Nobert Bollow (another needed!) Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) Speakers: TBC 3. A possible framework for global Net Neutrality Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines that built over an agreement between two principal corporate players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. In the background, since Internet is essentially a global network and finally there must be common global norms on whether content can be prioritised across global digital highways including across global interconnection points) on payments by the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about global norms, taking into consideration the interests and viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful countries to seek global norms on NN. The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. Sponsors: IGC, IT for Change (I presume), others TBC Organisers for IGC: Parminder Jeet Singh Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) Speakers: TBC -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress 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/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 01:45:43 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:45:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) In-Reply-To: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <4DA29587.9030001@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 02:13:01 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:13:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4DA27569.9030906@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4DA1D7A4.7030406@itforchange.net> <4DA1D9A3.2020600@itforchange.net> <21F04CB8-C787-4492-96E1-CD2A12652E32@post.harvard.edu> <4DA27569.9030906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Monday 11 April 2011 08:43 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37 AM, David Allen > wrote: > > On Apr 10, 2011, at 5:23 PM, McTim wrote: > > Provenance is never precise, is it.  But many (quite well) informed folks, > wrt the US comms policy process, were satisfied that the private > Google-Verizon deal set the terms for what emerged finally at the FCC. > > It was the previous multilateral negotiations that formed the basis of > the FCC proposal. It also informed the GV agreement. If you notice, > the most objected to bit of the GV (treat wireless differently) isn't > in the FCC proposal. > > It is very much in the FCC proposal, and the most criticized part of it. Perhaps you should read it again: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf pages 58-61 -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 11 03:15:40 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:45:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4DA1D7A4.7030406@itforchange.net> <4DA1D9A3.2020600@itforchange.net> <21F04CB8-C787-4492-96E1-CD2A12652E32@post.harvard.edu> <4DA27569.9030906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4DA2AA9C.2010805@itforchange.net> On Monday 11 April 2011 11:43 AM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:28 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Monday 11 April 2011 08:43 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37 AM, David Allen >> wrote: >> >> On Apr 10, 2011, at 5:23 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> Provenance is never precise, is it. But many (quite well) informed folks, >> wrt the US comms policy process, were satisfied that the private >> Google-Verizon deal set the terms for what emerged finally at the FCC. >> >> It was the previous multilateral negotiations that formed the basis of >> the FCC proposal. It also informed the GV agreement. If you notice, >> the most objected to bit of the GV (treat wireless differently) isn't >> in the FCC proposal. >> >> It is very much in the FCC proposal, and the most criticized part of it. > Perhaps you should read it again: > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf > > pages 58-61 > The current NN guidelines were issued by FCC in Dec 2010, where a differentiation between fixed and mobile Internet is made. The document you refer to seems to be an old one. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 02:24:53 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:54:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) In-Reply-To: <4DA29587.9030001@gmail.com> References: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4DA29587.9030001@gmail.com> Message-ID: I offer to serve as the remote moderator for the workshop around India's proposal. I notice that you have mentioned Isoc India Chennai as a possible supporter of this workshop. We will place this at our Chapter meeting to formally come back to IGC as a co-supporter. As for Topic 2, mapping Internet Governance, it requires utmost care in handling a topic of this nature, hope that the IGC handles this topic in a manner that the topic is not captured and that workshop brings about a balanced outcome Thankyou Sivasubramanian M President Isoc India Chennai http://isocindiachennai.in On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I am very happy to serve as remote moderator at one or more of the IGC > workshops as needed, and as scheduling of WSs permits. My preference would > be for WS 2 Mapping IG. > > Thanks to all. best, gp > > *Ms. Ginger (Virginia) Paque > *IGCBP Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > *The latest from Diplo...*Keep up with Diplo on Twitter. Follow > @DiplomacyEdu for all the news about > our programmes, courses, research, events, and more! > > > > > On 4/11/2011 12:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I'm not proposing to do an actual consensus call poll over the three IGC > workshops, since they are not in the nature of statements and there is > room for many viewpoints within all of them, but this is a summary of > the status of our three workshop proposals so far, to which any more > suggestions or serious objections are invited. We also need volunteers > to co-organise and to serve as remote moderators as noted below. > > These are listed here in the order they were proposed. We will be > submitting the workshop proposals by this Friday. > > 1. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to > the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of > "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN > General Assembly Mandate". Although there was no consensus > around this proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect > proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups > have also previously aired. It is also one of the only > relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to > emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a > convenient starting point for further discussion. > > It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key > questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group > for each issue develop background material on it, to be > considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable > discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that > discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on > each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other > relevant bodies for their action and feedback. > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully > discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide > a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an > opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the > proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether > and how to take such proposals forward. > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC (possibly ISOC Chennai) > > Organisers for IGC: Jeremy Malcolm and Marilia Maciel > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > > 2. Mapping Internet Governance > > This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance > decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and > decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make > decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals > and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints > and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? > > Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the > workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for > creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses > these questions, and for thereafter keeping this document > up-to-date. > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC > > Organisers for IGC: Nobert Bollow (another needed!) > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > > 3. A possible framework for global Net Neutrality > > Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public > policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's > Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines > that built over an agreement between two principal corporate > players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on > the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out > with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a > drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which > NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with > a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. > > In the background, since Internet is essentially a global > network and finally there must be common global norms on whether > content can be prioritised across global digital highways > including across global interconnection points) on payments by > the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network > neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee > on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about > global norms, taking into consideration the interests and > viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a > default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever > gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic > way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of > a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that > even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area > may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital > corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it > therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful > countries to seek global norms on NN. > > The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive > regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of > coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. > > Sponsors: IGC, IT for Change (I presume), others TBC > > Organisers for IGC: Parminder Jeet Singh > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Apr 11 05:42:02 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:42:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4DA2AA9C.2010805@itforchange.net> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4DA1D7A4.7030406@itforchange.net> <4DA1D9A3.2020600@itforchange.net> <21F04CB8-C787-4492-96E1-CD2A12652E32@post.harvard.edu> <4DA27569.9030906@itforchange.net> <4DA2AA9C.2010805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder's correct, see Google's position on wireless neutrality has shifted (about 180) over the last year or so. Perhaps due to Android and need to work with network operators. This is a good resource Adam >On Monday 11 April 2011 11:43 AM, McTim wrote: > >>On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:28 AM, parminder >> >>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>On Monday 11 April 2011 08:43 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >>>On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37 AM, David Allen >>> >>>wrote: >>> >>>On Apr 10, 2011, at 5:23 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>>Provenance is never precise, is it.  But many (quite well) informed folks, >>>wrt the US comms policy process, were satisfied that the private >>>Google-Verizon deal set the terms for what emerged finally at the FCC. >>> >>>It was the previous multilateral negotiations that formed the basis of >>>the FCC proposal. It also informed the GV agreement. If you notice, >>>the most objected to bit of the GV (treat wireless differently) isn't >>>in the FCC proposal. >>> >>>It is very much in the FCC proposal, and the most criticized part of it. >>> >> >>Perhaps you should read it again: >>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf >> >>pages 58-61 >> > >The current NN guidelines were issued by FCC in >Dec 2010, where a differentiation between fixed >and mobile Internet is made. The document you >refer to seems to be an old one. parminder > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Apr 11 06:40:07 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:40:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C@post.harvard.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In message <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C at post.harvard.edu>, at 12:38:35 on Sun, 10 Apr 2011, David Allen writes >> In the current Internet model it's simply not possible for a content >>provider in UK to pay a consumer-eyeballs network in Pakistan to >>deliver its content preferentially (which includes paying not to >>restrict it). >> >> And when the "content provider" is the individual Internet citizen, >>wanting his blog to be transmitted everywhere, or wanting the files >>he's sharing by P2P to be received unhindered anywhere in the world, >>there's simply nothing approaching a mechanism for him to pay for that. > >Following that logic: It becomes even more important - for >international receipt of material originated elsewhere - that >_national_ NN regimes are 'in the public interest.' In the absence of infinite bandwidth within the country, and to the country, it may be in the "National Interest" to use what bandwidth you have to enable the majority of users to have a satisfactory experience. In an attempt to illustrate what I mean, it's not unknown for email systems to put limits on the size of attachments, to perhaps 8MB, in order to share the system's resources equitably between users. There's an implication that either (a) 8MB is enough to express anything which should be circulated as an email or (b) that if you want to use email as a file-transfer protocol, there's a limit to the file size it's acceptable to attach. Therefore email of that kind is not "network neutral" because of that arbitrary limit. And nor is there any money attached to each email to assist in building infrastructure for its delivery. Similar arguments can be made for other protocols (such as HTTP, NNTP), but email is a good one to start with because many people will be familiar with this particular restriction, and indeed many who have been on the receiving end of bloated attachments may actually welcome it. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Mon Apr 11 07:29:10 2011 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:29:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) In-Reply-To: <4DA29587.9030001@gmail.com> References: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4DA29587.9030001@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4da2e6061861b_3aeb932202c1c@a2-weasel18.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Mon Apr 11 07:39:47 2011 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:39:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) In-Reply-To: <4da2e6061861b_3aeb932202c1c@a2-weasel18.tmail> Message-ID: The same for me, would be happy to be reomte moerator for one of the sessions. Best regards, Yuliya Morenets Le 11/4/2011, "Raquel Gatto" a écrit: >+1, I would be glad to help with remote moderation for the IGC WSs.  > >Em 11/04/2011 02:45, Ginger Paque < gpaque at gmail.com > escreveu: I am very happy to serve as remote moderator at one or more of the IGC workshops as needed, and as scheduling of WSs permits. My preference would be for WS 2 Mapping IG. Thanks to all. best, gp > > >Ms. Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBP Coordinator DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig >The latest from Diplo...Keep up with Diplo on Twitter. Follow @DiplomacyEdu for all the news about our programmes, courses, research, events, and more! > > > > On 4/11/2011 12:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >I'm not proposing to do an actual consensus call poll over the three IGC >workshops, since they are not in the nature of statements and there is >room for many viewpoints within all of them, but this is a summary of >the status of our three workshop proposals so far, to which any more >suggestions or serious objections are invited. We also need volunteers >to co-organise and to serve as remote moderators as noted below. > >These are listed here in the order they were proposed. We will be >submitting the workshop proposals by this Friday. > >1. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to > the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of > "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN > General Assembly Mandate". Although there was no consensus > around this proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect > proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups > have also previously aired. It is also one of the only > relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to > emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a > convenient starting point for further discussion. > > It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key > questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group > for each issue develop background material on it, to be > considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable > discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that > discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on > each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other > relevant bodies for their action and feedback. > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully > discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide > a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an > opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the > proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether > and how to take such proposals forward. > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC (possibly ISOC Chennai) > > Organisers for IGC: Jeremy Malcolm and Marilia Maciel > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > >2. Mapping Internet Governance > > This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance > decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and > decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make > decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals > and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints > and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? > > Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the > workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for > creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses > these questions, and for thereafter keeping this document > up-to-date. > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC > > Organisers for IGC: Nobert Bollow (another needed!) > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > >3. A possible framework for global Net Neutrality > > Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public > policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's > Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines > that built over an agreement between two principal corporate > players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on > the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out > with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a > drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which > NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with > a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. > > In the background, since Internet is essentially a global > network and finally there must be common global norms on whether > content can be prioritised across global digital highways > including across global interconnection points) on payments by > the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network > neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee > on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about > global norms, taking into consideration the interests and > viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a > default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever > gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic > way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of > a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that > even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area > may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital > corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it > therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful > countries to seek global norms on NN. > > The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive > regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of > coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. > > Sponsors: IGC, IT for Change (I presume), others TBC > > Organisers for IGC: Parminder Jeet Singh > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 08:08:08 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:08:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary)--Remote moderators In-Reply-To: <4da2e6061861b_3aeb932202c1c@a2-weasel18.tmail> References: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4DA29587.9030001@gmail.com> <4da2e6061861b_3aeb932202c1c@a2-weasel18.tmail> Message-ID: <4DA2EF28.7070004@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Mon Apr 11 12:07:46 2011 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:07:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) In-Reply-To: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: Jeremy, Thanks for all of your work; as usual wonderful at all levels. If you need a co-sponsor to list for any of these if you think Imagining the Internet may be helpful to list, please do so. I will try to provide assistance as is possible. I'm not completely certain that we are funded for the Nairobi journey, but I hope and expect that I or another faculty leader from Imagining the Internet will be there with as many as three or four students to do documentary coverage and provide support in any way we can for all at IGF and the IGC. I want to add that Diplo Foundation has been leading net neutrality discussions at the past two IGFs. I do not know if Vladimir Radinovich and the others want to be involved or not, but I thought I would pass that along to you. You or Ginger might want to contact them directly, so this can be value-added work. Janna On 4/11/11 1:11 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > I'm not proposing to do an actual consensus call poll over the three IGC > workshops, since they are not in the nature of statements and there is > room for many viewpoints within all of them, but this is a summary of > the status of our three workshop proposals so far, to which any more > suggestions or serious objections are invited. We also need volunteers > to co-organise and to serve as remote moderators as noted below. > > These are listed here in the order they were proposed. We will be > submitting the workshop proposals by this Friday. > > 1. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to > the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of > "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN > General Assembly Mandate". Although there was no consensus > around this proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect > proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups > have also previously aired. It is also one of the only > relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to > emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a > convenient starting point for further discussion. > > It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key > questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group > for each issue develop background material on it, to be > considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable > discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that > discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on > each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other > relevant bodies for their action and feedback. > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully > discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide > a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an > opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the > proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether > and how to take such proposals forward. > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC (possibly ISOC Chennai) > > Organisers for IGC: Jeremy Malcolm and Marilia Maciel > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > > 2. Mapping Internet Governance > > This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance > decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and > decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make > decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals > and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints > and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? > > Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the > workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for > creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses > these questions, and for thereafter keeping this document > up-to-date. > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC > > Organisers for IGC: Nobert Bollow (another needed!) > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > > 3. A possible framework for global Net Neutrality > > Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public > policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's > Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines > that built over an agreement between two principal corporate > players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on > the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out > with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a > drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which > NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with > a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. > > In the background, since Internet is essentially a global > network and finally there must be common global norms on whether > content can be prioritised across global digital highways > including across global interconnection points) on payments by > the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network > neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee > on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about > global norms, taking into consideration the interests and > viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a > default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever > gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic > way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of > a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that > even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area > may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital > corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it > therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful > countries to seek global norms on NN. > > The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive > regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of > coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. > > Sponsors: IGC, IT for Change (I presume), others TBC > > Organisers for IGC: Parminder Jeet Singh > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of Imagining the Internet www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 12:35:28 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:35:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) In-Reply-To: References: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: Once available, I would like to volunteer as Remote Moderator ... The NN session if possible ... But if not, any other that requires assistance. Thanks. Rgds, Tracy On Apr 11, 2011 6:18 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From graciela at nupef.org.br Mon Apr 11 12:41:20 2011 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:41:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) In-Reply-To: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <4DA32F30.2060808@nupef.org.br> Dear Jeremy, Parminder and all, Instituto Nupef would like to collaborate in the organization of the workshop on Net Neutrality. regards, Graciela Em 4/11/11 2:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm escreveu: > I'm not proposing to do an actual consensus call poll over the three IGC > workshops, since they are not in the nature of statements and there is > room for many viewpoints within all of them, but this is a summary of > the status of our three workshop proposals so far, to which any more > suggestions or serious objections are invited. We also need volunteers > to co-organise and to serve as remote moderators as noted below. > > These are listed here in the order they were proposed. We will be > submitting the workshop proposals by this Friday. > > 1. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to > the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of > "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN > General Assembly Mandate". Although there was no consensus > around this proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect > proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups > have also previously aired. It is also one of the only > relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to > emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a > convenient starting point for further discussion. > > It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key > questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group > for each issue develop background material on it, to be > considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable > discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that > discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on > each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other > relevant bodies for their action and feedback. > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully > discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide > a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an > opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the > proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether > and how to take such proposals forward. > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC (possibly ISOC Chennai) > > Organisers for IGC: Jeremy Malcolm and Marilia Maciel > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > > 2. Mapping Internet Governance > > This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance > decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and > decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make > decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals > and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints > and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? > > Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the > workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for > creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses > these questions, and for thereafter keeping this document > up-to-date. > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC > > Organisers for IGC: Nobert Bollow (another needed!) > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > > 3. A possible framework for global Net Neutrality > > Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public > policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's > Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines > that built over an agreement between two principal corporate > players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on > the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out > with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a > drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which > NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with > a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. > > In the background, since Internet is essentially a global > network and finally there must be common global norms on whether > content can be prioritised across global digital highways > including across global interconnection points) on payments by > the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network > neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee > on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about > global norms, taking into consideration the interests and > viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a > default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever > gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic > way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of > a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that > even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area > may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital > corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it > therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful > countries to seek global norms on NN. > > The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive > regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of > coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. > > Sponsors: IGC, IT for Change (I presume), others TBC > > Organisers for IGC: Parminder Jeet Singh > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Apr 11 12:53:34 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:53:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) In-Reply-To: <4DA29587.9030001@gmail.com> (message from Ginger Paque on Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:45:43 -0500) References: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4DA29587.9030001@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20110411165334.6658E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Ginger Paque wrote: > I am very happy to serve as remote moderator at one or more of the > IGC workshops as needed, and as scheduling of WSs permits. My > preference would be for WS 2 Mapping IG. Thanks a lot for volunteering! Is it ok with you if I put your name for "remote moderator" on the workshop proposal for the "Mapping IG" workshop? (My understanding is that we can sill change things around later if desired, but we need to provide a concrete name in the workshop proposal in order to provide assurance that someone will be there, and that there is a reasonbale degree of geographical balance.) You'd need to provide me with up-to-date information on your affiliations please. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Apr 11 13:53:49 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:53:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Mapping IG workshop (was Re: Three IGC...) In-Reply-To: (message from Sivasubramanian M on Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:54:53 +0530) References: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4DA29587.9030001@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20110411175349.B3CFD15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Sivasubramanian M wrote: > As for Topic 2, mapping Internet Governance, it requires utmost care in > handling a topic of this nature, hope that the IGC handles this topic in a > manner that the topic is not captured and that workshop brings about a > balanced outcome I absolutely agree on the importance of avoiding "capture". I'd suggest that one possible preventive countermeasure, which is also valuable in its own right, will be to put special emphasis on the needs of potential participants in IG decision-making processes from developing countries (see updated proposal summary below). Would you be able to propose a co-organizer for this workshop (prefereably someone with a strong background in "IG for development" aspects) whose imvolvement would give you the confidence that "topic capture" will not happen? Greetings, Norbert Mapping Internet Governance (IGC sponsored workshop at Nairobi IGF) This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses these questions from a balanced, multistakeholder perspective, and for thereafter keeping this document up-to-date. As a starting point for the discussions, a list of already existing documents with similar goals and a rough draft for a first edition of the Map will be prepared in advance. At the workshop itself, it will be a main goal to learn from diverse stakeholders about what information is important to them to empower their effective participation in Internet Governance fora. There will be special emphasis on the challenges related to effective participation from developing countries in Internet Governance decision-making processes, with the objective of ensuring that the resulting decisions become more conductive to development goals. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 11 14:41:06 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:41:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Request for a debater Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A1B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> This request may sound humorous but it is serious, though I admit I write this message with a mischievous gleam in my eye. As some of you know, GigaNet is holding a symposium on Internet governance in Washington DC, on May 5 and 6. We have quite a few good speakers from both the policy and the academic world lined up. You can see the schedule here: http://www.amiando.com/GigaNET-DC-2011.html One of our panels is labeled "Whither the IGF." It will consist of a debate between someone who thinks the IGF is worthwhile and evolving well, and someone who thinks it's either on the wrong track or should be abandoned. We have a pro-IGF speaker. Now we need an anti. Of course, you have to be in or around Washington DC on those dates, and be articulate and well-informed about the current status of the IGF. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 16:07:13 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:07:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) In-Reply-To: <20110411165334.6658E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1302498714.29742.34.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4DA29587.9030001@gmail.com> <20110411165334.6658E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4DA35F71.9050506@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 16:09:35 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:09:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) NN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DA35FFF.6020507@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 16:26:40 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:56:40 +0430 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: As I see it, discussing net neutrality includes making en effort to understand this "absence of infinite bandwidth", e.g. the allegation of scarcity. Is such scarcity an inescapable fact or the result of an elaborate planning by big Telcos? I daresay there's at least one aspect of organizing this workshop that everyone who manifested themselves so far seems to agree upon: we need a debater with profound knowledge of the American experience with net neutrality, especially of the legal aspects. The discussion in the list on the FCC's current stance on this subject illustrates this need. Also, but much less important to the issue at point right now: If you're going to mention advances in different countries that relate to this issue, Chile's should be mentioned in addition or instead of Brazil's - they actually enacted a law on net neutrality, we're still working with a rough draft that so far (unfortunately) has no prospect of being approved in Congress and in order to see the light of day. Best, Ivar On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 15:10, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C at post.harvard.edu>, at > 12:38:35 on Sun, 10 Apr 2011, David Allen < > David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> writes > >> In the current Internet model it's simply not possible for a content >>> provider in UK to pay a consumer-eyeballs network in Pakistan to deliver its >>> content preferentially (which includes paying not to restrict it). >>> >>> And when the "content provider" is the individual Internet citizen, >>> wanting his blog to be transmitted everywhere, or wanting the files he's >>> sharing by P2P to be received unhindered anywhere in the world, there's >>> simply nothing approaching a mechanism for him to pay for that. >>> >> >> Following that logic: It becomes even more important - for international >> receipt of material originated elsewhere - that _national_ NN regimes are >> 'in the public interest.' >> > > In the absence of infinite bandwidth within the country, and to the > country, it may be in the "National Interest" to use what bandwidth you have > to enable the majority of users to have a satisfactory experience. > > In an attempt to illustrate what I mean, it's not unknown for email systems > to put limits on the size of attachments, to perhaps 8MB, in order to share > the system's resources equitably between users. There's an implication that > either (a) 8MB is enough to express anything which should be circulated as > an email or (b) that if you want to use email as a file-transfer protocol, > there's a limit to the file size it's acceptable to attach. > > Therefore email of that kind is not "network neutral" because of that > arbitrary limit. And nor is there any money attached to each email to assist > in building infrastructure for its delivery. > > Similar arguments can be made for other protocols (such as HTTP, NNTP), but > email is a good one to start with because many people will be familiar with > this particular restriction, and indeed many who have been on the receiving > end of bloated attachments may actually welcome it. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Apr 11 16:55:41 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:55:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 00:56:40 on Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann writes >As I see it, discussing net neutrality includes making en effort to >understand this "absence of infinite bandwidth", e.g. the allegation of >scarcity. Is such scarcity an inescapable fact or the result of an elaborate >planning by big Telcos? > >I daresay there's at least one aspect of organizing this workshop that >everyone who manifested themselves so far seems to agree upon: we need a >debater with profound knowledge of the American experience with net >neutrality, especially of the legal aspects. And also an expert in the cost of International bandwidth and transit, plus the cost of domestic infrastructure, so that the "lack of infinity" can be explained in terms of the provisioning cost. This fundamental 'access' discussion is surely of wider benefit as well, because many developing countries whose (often state-owned) telcos may also be trying to reach to infinity and beyond. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vladar at diplomacy.edu Mon Apr 11 17:04:45 2011 From: vladar at diplomacy.edu (Vladimir Radunovic) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:04:45 +0200 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Janna, Jeremy, Parminder, colleagues, Let me reflect briefly on NN proposal. Searching for common sets of norms is the right next step, I agree. Summarising the discussion of previous years, and especially of the latest workshop at the IGF in Vilnius, there are two major open issues related to such a common set of norms: 1) Format of the "document", if any: * business is inclined to support "ex post" (case-by-case) rather than "ex ante" regulation, justifying it with competition and need for space for innovations in business models; * users are inclined to ask for a more formal "safeguards" from the big telco business, not trusting the market only (esp. after the economic crises); * regulators (some of them - like Norway) work towards "collaborative regulation" with finding the win-win approach for all sides and formulising it in the "guidelines"/"recommendations" format, yet leaving the option of the "stick" to move it to "hard law" if needed 2) "Exceptions" from these norms * business presents the challenges in broadband delivery and qos - especially with wireless internet - in light of "next billion users" and new high-bandwidth services that are still to come; they argue that, while NN for "Internet as we know it" is fine, space should be given to "new services" (and they/we don't know yet what these will be) to develop without limitations - therefore allowing the "exceptions" * users are eager to hear more on what these services will really be and if there is really a need for exceptions - especially in developing countries where it is expected the next billion users will start using "the new services" immediately as well * regulators are cautious - on one hand they need to assure consumers protection and innovations at ends, while on the other hand they need to create the environment to business for further investments and possible innovations in business models as well Based on these two components, the discussion on possible effects of NN set of norms on business and users - especially on developing countries - can be analysed. Diplo supports this workshop and will be happy to co-sponsor it and assist with preparations. Since we will likely again bring number of successful participants of our capacity building programmes from developing countries - from governments, regulators, civil society... - to the IGF, we may get them involved directly as well. Best! Vlada *** The latest from Diplo... E-Diplomacy - edip.diplomomacy.edu Exploring the appropriate use of new tools for diplomacy. Join our network! www.facebook.com/ediplomacy *** _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Vladimir Radunovic Coordinator Internet Governance Programmes DiploFoundation email: vladar at diplomacy.edu web: www.diplomacy.edu/ig _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:07:46 -0400 From: Janna Anderson Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Janna Anderson To: , Jeremy Malcolm Jeremy, Thanks for all of your work; as usual wonderful at all levels. If you need a co-sponsor to list for any of these if you think Imagining the Internet may be helpful to list, please do so. I will try to provide assistance as is possible. I'm not completely certain that we are funded for the Nairobi journey, but I hope and expect that I or another faculty leader from Imagining the Internet will be there with as many as three or four students to do documentary coverage and provide support in any way we can for all at IGF and the IGC. I want to add that Diplo Foundation has been leading net neutrality discussions at the past two IGFs. I do not know if Vladimir Radinovich and the others want to be involved or not, but I thought I would pass that along to you. You or Ginger might want to contact them directly, so this can be value-added work. Janna On 4/11/11 1:11 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > I'm not proposing to do an actual consensus call poll over the three IGC > workshops, since they are not in the nature of statements and there is > room for many viewpoints within all of them, but this is a summary of > the status of our three workshop proposals so far, to which any more > suggestions or serious objections are invited. We also need volunteers > to co-organise and to serve as remote moderators as noted below. > > These are listed here in the order they were proposed. We will be > submitting the workshop proposals by this Friday. > > 1. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to > the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of > "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN > General Assembly Mandate". Although there was no consensus > around this proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect > proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups > have also previously aired. It is also one of the only > relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to > emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a > convenient starting point for further discussion. > > It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key > questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group > for each issue develop background material on it, to be > considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable > discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that > discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on > each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other > relevant bodies for their action and feedback. > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully > discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide > a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an > opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the > proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether > and how to take such proposals forward. > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC (possibly ISOC Chennai) > > Organisers for IGC: Jeremy Malcolm and Marilia Maciel > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > > 2. Mapping Internet Governance > > This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance > decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and > decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make > decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals > and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints > and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? > > Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the > workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for > creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses > these questions, and for thereafter keeping this document > up-to-date. > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC > > Organisers for IGC: Nobert Bollow (another needed!) > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC > > 3. A possible framework for global Net Neutrality > > Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public > policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's > Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines > that built over an agreement between two principal corporate > players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on > the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out > with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a > drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which > NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with > a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. > > In the background, since Internet is essentially a global > network and finally there must be common global norms on whether > content can be prioritised across global digital highways > including across global interconnection points) on payments by > the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network > neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee > on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about > global norms, taking into consideration the interests and > viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a > default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever > gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic > way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of > a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that > even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area > may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital > corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it > therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful > countries to seek global norms on NN. > > The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive > regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of > coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. > > Sponsors: IGC, IT for Change (I presume), others TBC > > Organisers for IGC: Parminder Jeet Singh > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > Speakers: TBC -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of Imagining the Internet www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Apr 11 20:58:18 2011 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:58:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <64D6BC24-2F1C-4B0E-836D-1D4FC5C78E49@post.harvard.edu> On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C at post.harvard.edu>, > at 12:38:35 on Sun, 10 Apr 2011, David Allen > writes >>> In the current Internet model it's simply not possible for a >>> content provider in UK to pay a consumer-eyeballs network in >>> Pakistan to deliver its content preferentially (which includes >>> paying not to restrict it). >>> >>> And when the "content provider" is the individual Internet >>> citizen, wanting his blog to be transmitted everywhere, or wanting >>> the files he's sharing by P2P to be received unhindered anywhere >>> in the world, there's simply nothing approaching a mechanism for >>> him to pay for that. >> >> Following that logic: It becomes even more important - for >> international receipt of material originated elsewhere - that >> _national_ NN regimes are 'in the public interest.' > > In the absence of infinite bandwidth within the country, and to the > country, it may be in the "National Interest" to use what bandwidth > you have to enable the majority of users to have a satisfactory > experience. > > In an attempt to illustrate what I mean, it's not unknown for email > systems to put limits on the size of attachments, to perhaps 8MB, in > order to share the system's resources equitably between users. > There's an implication that either (a) 8MB is enough to express > anything which should be circulated as an email or (b) that if you > want to use email as a file-transfer protocol, there's a limit to > the file size it's acceptable to attach. > > Therefore email of that kind is not "network neutral" because of > that arbitrary limit. And nor is there any money attached to each > email to assist in building infrastructure for its delivery. > > Similar arguments can be made for other protocols (such as HTTP, > NNTP), but email is a good one to start with because many people > will be familiar with this particular restriction, and indeed many > who have been on the receiving end of bloated attachments may > actually welcome it. > -- > Roland Perry Generally, in my experience, email is not a case with tiered prices to be paid for different size attachments. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Apr 12 04:07:30 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:07:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <64D6BC24-2F1C-4B0E-836D-1D4FC5C78E49@post.harvard.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C@post.harvard.edu> <64D6BC24-2F1C-4B0E-836D-1D4FC5C78E49@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In message <64D6BC24-2F1C-4B0E-836D-1D4FC5C78E49 at post.harvard.edu>, at 20:58:18 on Mon, 11 Apr 2011, David Allen writes >Generally, in my experience, email is not a case with tiered prices to >be paid for different size attachments. That's right. Nevertheless, it's a hopefully easy-to-understand illustration of the concept that "size matters" when considering the transport of content on the Internet. Of course, there also isn't a tiered pricing structure at my blogging site, to ensure that I can "pay" to have my blogs transported worldwide, unhindered. So a distant network seeking to make more money [actually, "any money"] by trying to charge me for that facility, is out of luck. The model of "charge the content provider" to get unhindered distribution currently only works *very* locally to the website. Which is why we need to take care when there are proposals for settlement-based international peering, which I see as a bigger issue than whether YouTube should be allowed to pay a local mobile network to carry its content over and above a handset user's monthly quota (and therefore allowing that network's handsets to be advertised as "unlimited YouTube", which will increase their sales). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 12 04:30:53 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:30:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Panelists needed - "Mapping IG" workshop Message-ID: <20110412083053.648FF15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Dear all, as the workshop proposal submisstion deadline is approaching fast, I need your help with finding a reasonably well-balanced and interesting group of panelists. (Already for the workshop proposal which is due on Friday a list of panelists is needed.) Specifically for the "Mapping Internet Governance" workshop, I think that it is important to have the perspectives of potential users of the Map from all stakeholder groups represented among the panelists. Therefore...do you have suggestions/recommendations for the following? * Someone from a development country government who'd represent a "government stakeholder" user's perspective for the map. I think that the panelist should be a from a country where the government is reasonably democratic, respectful of human rights, and does not have too bad a reputation with regard to corruption. * Someone from industry who'd represent a "private sector stakeholder" user's perspective for the map. I think that the panelist should be a from a company which has neither a monopoly nor a dominant market position. (I'm not looking from someone who works full-time for a industry lobby organization, because in my opinion at least, the main target group of the Map should not so much be professional lobbyists, but as far as possible the various stakeholders themselves.) Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sam at apnic.net Tue Apr 12 06:46:14 2011 From: sam at apnic.net (Sam Dickinson) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:46:14 +1000 Subject: [governance] Statement by Internet technical & academic community reps to CSTD WG on IGF Message-ID: <4DA42D76.20608@apnic.net> Hi all, FYI, following the last meeting of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the five technical and academic representatives drafted a common statement on the WG's activities, requesting an extension of the WG's mandate. For those who are interested, the statement has just been published at: Regards Sam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Tue Apr 12 09:17:02 2011 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:17:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by Internet technical & academic community reps to CSTD WG on IGF In-Reply-To: <4DA42D76.20608@apnic.net> References: <4DA42D76.20608@apnic.net> Message-ID: Hey Sam, This is an excellent statement, thanks to all who participated! Of course, it does open the possibility of having this CSTD working group becoming a continuing series of meta-meetings without termination to determine the shape of the continuing series of IGF meetings, perhaps without termination. Perhaps the CSTD working group could even eventually evolve into a bureau with decision making capability! :-) Given the location of the multistakeholder group in which the I* community is firmly embedded -- within the formal structure of the UN system -- that could be an interesting development. Cheers, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 8:46 PM +1000 4/12/11, Sam Dickinson wrote: >Hi all, > >FYI, following the last meeting of the UN Commission on Science and >Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group on improvements >to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the five technical and >academic representatives drafted a common statement on the WG's >activities, requesting an extension of the WG's mandate. > >For those who are interested, the statement has just been published at: > > > >Regards >Sam >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Apr 12 10:39:56 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:39:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by Internet technical & academic community reps to CSTD WG on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <4DA42D76.20608@apnic.net> Message-ID: In message , at 09:17:02 on Tue, 12 Apr 2011, George Sadowsky writes >Perhaps the CSTD working group could even eventually evolve into a >bureau with decision making capability! :-) During the WG meeting on 24th March I posted here: "Today's working group is pretty much indistinguishable from the bureau ... Has anyone yet suggested replacing the MAG with a continuance of the WG?" As for continuing the debate into a possible 3rd session of the WG, there's a problem with timescales, because the CSTD meeting will be debating the WG's report in just six weeks from today, with a requirement to send recommendations to July's ECOSOC meeting. In view of this recent letter from one of the stakeholder groups, we can probably assume that there isn't a draft-for-approval of the final report circulating yet. What if that report was just to say "we've had a lot of discussions, quite a lot of agreement, but there's much more work to be done; we recommend the General Assembly[1] appoints a Bureau (and by implication scraps the MAG) to continue this work in conjunction with future host countries and Open consulations". And the vacant IGF Chair would then conveniently be filled by the CSTD Chair (who could delegate the role like they did with the WG). [1] This is the main problem, until that sits at the end of the year, the WG doesn't have a mandate. But then neither does the MAG, which is presumably awaiting the GA 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Apr 12 14:07:51 2011 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:07:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C@post.harvard.edu> <64D6BC24-2F1C-4B0E-836D-1D4FC5C78E49@post. harvard.edu> Message-ID: <12719692-45D6-42B7-81E8-FF358116B7F2@post.harvard.edu> On Apr 12, 2011, at 4:07 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <64D6BC24-2F1C-4B0E-836D-1D4FC5C78E49 at post.harvard.edu>, > at 20:58:18 on Mon, 11 Apr 2011, David Allen > writes >> Generally, in my experience, email is not a case with tiered prices >> to be paid for different size attachments. > > That's right. Nevertheless, it's a hopefully easy-to-understand > illustration of the concept that "size matters" when considering the > transport of content on the Internet. > > Of course, there also isn't a tiered pricing structure at my > blogging site, to ensure that I can "pay" to have my blogs > transported worldwide, unhindered. So a distant network seeking to > make more money [actually, "any money"] by trying to charge me for > that facility, is out of luck. > > The model of "charge the content provider" to get unhindered > distribution currently only works *very* locally to the website. > > Which is why we need to take care when there are proposals for > settlement-based international peering, which I see as a bigger > issue than whether YouTube should be allowed to pay a local mobile > network to carry its content over and above a handset user's monthly > quota (and therefore allowing that network's handsets to be > advertised as "unlimited YouTube", which will increase their sales). > -- > Roland Perry A framework - for analysis of NN - is necessary when so many pieces have been tossed into its policy cauldron. Here is one: Where is the power? Is that power used responsibly? The (almost canonical) case: An ISP providing access for consumers often also serves as gatekeeper for access by users. That is power. Does the ISP use its gatekeeper power to line its own pocket, or to push some ideology, at the expense of the excluded viewpoints? That is abuse of power. There are, by now hoary, examples from the present. Of historical precedence: Notably, on the US scene - from the bygone era when a telco was the whole and only story - a 'common carrier model' was sacrosanct. And worked. And likely not just the US scene (nor for just comms technology, for that matter). The telco was required to provide 'common carriage.' It could not interfere with the message. What was put on the wire was delivered. Of course this had some underpinnings in freedom of expression. The telco was required to play its part supporting expression of views, whatever those views may be. (On the US scene, this was carried to unworkable extremes in for instance Computer Inquiry I and II. The introduction of computers in the network meant some intra-transmission tinkering with the message. The US spent decades trying to find its way through both 'hands off' common carriage and the power of computers. In some ways, the present NN quandaries echo those earlier conceptual conundrums. The all- consuming effort put into US CI I and II does underline, however, how strongly were felt the dictates of common carriage.) Today we can see, perhaps, through the relative clarity of the past's common carriage. As one case: An ISP takes money to favor one voice over another and / or has an economic interest in blocking alternative, competitive voices. (An ISP, for example, that provides both access and also a menu of programming choices. In that case, the viewer at home could use the access side to reach programming that is competitive with that offered by the ISP. Which the ISP can then make less attractive by not delivering so fast or with less quality.) That is abuse. Or: An ISP blocks content it prefers the populace not to see, for ideological reasons. Bullies of all stripes - certainly dictatorial / autocratic regimes - would control the information ecology. That is abuse. Even though history teaches how open exchange tends to out and to upset the bully's apple cart, albeit perhaps only decades on ... Those are the abuses - clear and unmistakeable - that an NN dialog addresses. In this view. Are there other considerations? Indeed, that is what nuances the story. Just as with CI I and II historically, for instance. Networks must be managed. Network capacity is one key to 'neutral' possibilities; yes, email attachments can be a useful illustration. Wired capacity, as fiber, can expand, not to infinity, but to its practical instantiation. Wireless capacity is more limited by frequency availability. In both cases, does the network manager responsibly expand? And for wireless, does the arbiter of bandwidth, typically a government entity, behave? Or, for instance, is the network manager(s) laggard in upgrade, and greedy in pricing, such as in the US where bandwidth seriously lags competitor societies and prices are many times higher, comparatively? That is abuse. When other 'management' may not be. As to cross-border cases - content delivery networks, CDNs, are available to reach around the world. On the one hand, CDNs raise those interesting NN questions, about favoring some voices over others. On the other hand, they are a pretty much inevitable - present - extension of the architecture. We need to get that into the bigger NN picture. And I think you are right, to flag settlement- based international peering - it is not the first thought, when NN is the objective. What might be an NN regime? That is for a workshop to take forward. In my view, rules-based policy threatens to founder on the complexity of cases to be addressed. There is always an exception. Which turns the spotlight, instead, onto principles. Which, in turn, depends on the culture - organizational and social - in which applied and ultimately upon the qualities of the human beings interpreting principles. But most of all - the discussion proceeds fruitfully only with a framework that is clear about what is at stake. Those framework concerns are addressed, first. While the other - inevitable - considerations also find their due. In this view. For NN, in the above, that framework is power and its abuse. In this regard, a proposition is at the heart of this view from 10,000 meters: that our comms networks provide a public service, albeit often from the hands of private actors. The physical networks form the basis for the functioning of our social networks - our societies. As such, they are subject to considerations and policy that serve that polity, not just the private wishes of the so-called 'owners.' Even the US, obsessed with empowering the individual, was entirely in the thrall of 'common carriage' for its telco net - a strict public onus on the 'private' actor. In particular, wire-based networks, increasingly fiber, tend to monopoly at the local access level. Even wireless - especially vital to the 'south' and the future - accommodates only a certain number of entrants. Since there are - in this view - public responsibilities for these private actors, the implications are not hard to see: wire- based quasi-monopolies require treatment as such; even wireless nets engender compelling public mandates. All in my opinion, needless to say, David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Apr 12 17:27:53 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:27:53 +1200 Subject: [governance] Summary of Pacific Internet Governance Forum 2011 Message-ID: Dear All, Here is a brief summary of the Pacific Internet Governance Forum 9th, 10th April, 2011 in Noumea: * * Acknowledgement of Diplo’s sponsorship As part of Diplo’s mandate to build capacity in the ACP countries through the generous funding of the European Union, Dalsie and I through a Diplo Fellowship attended the first Pacific Internet Governance Forum in Noumea, New Caledonia. I would like to thank both Diplo and EU for enabling our attendance. We have been through the IG Foundation Training and it served us well, we found that we were able to assist those who asked for our assistance on issues. Feedback from the floor was that they welcomed and enjoyed our interventions. * * *First Pacific Internet Governance Forum* The Pacific Internet Governance Forum convened on the 9th and 10th of April, 2011. The Pacific Islands Ministerial Meeting for Energy, Infrastructure and ICT convened from the 4th April 2011 till the 8th April, 2011 and was very well attended. There was a ccTLD workshop that had ICANN Chair, cctLD’s from the Pacific region, APNIC, Pacific Clearing House who presented. APNIC informed the Pacific about how there were no more v4 allocations but that they were ready to assist countries or companies looking to migrate into IPv6. It was reported that Beijing is well under way to preparing for the inevitable. Bill Woodcock (Packet Clearing House) along with Richard Lamb spoke about the exciting developments with DNSSEC and they showed us how it worked. A Tour was also organised to visit the Alcatel- Lucent cable ship in which a few of us got to see how global submarine cables etc were placed into the sea etc. *Remote Participation* I coordinated Remote participation from Noumea with Diplo (Ginger). In the Pacific, where travelling inter island is very expensive, remote participation and remote learning are very important for the Pacific. Remote learning is extremely powerful and necessary here in the Pacific and I have had a lot of people enquiring about the Training that Diplo runs. They are looking forward to signing up. The mix of in situ and remote with Diplo’s support was significant in this regard. *Attendance* APT, APTLD, APv6 task force, APNIC, ICANN, PICISOC, ITU, PACNOG, AusRegistry, Internet New Zealand, Telecommunications Representatives from around the Pacific, ISPs, Verisign, Netsafe, SPREP, SPC, PITA, Regulators, Universities, Civil Society, Department of Communication and Information technologies representatives from the Pacific, members of parliaments from the Pacific, Government Ministers, individuals attended the PIGF. To see the Agenda: http://pacificigf.org/ *Opening* The PIGF was opened by Dr Jimmy Rogers, head of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) that is mandated by Pacific Island Prime Ministers to look after ICT Policy development in the region amongst other things. (I am having trouble uploading videos and images from here in New Zealand. I will try to find a way to get the interviews I did across. *Issues* The Sessions were extremely dynamic and vibrant. The issues and concerns that came from both panellists and the Forum at large included:- - Access to infrastructure - Access for persons with disabilities; - Critical and current issues in the internet infrastructure; - Universal Service and Access; - Governance challenges; - Multi stakeholder approach; - ICT as an enabler for economic development; - Capacity Development; - Cyber Security - Media Governance; - Regulatory Challenges; - ICT for Climate Change – management of e-waste; - Standards; The PIGF is looking at how it will consolidate these issues and get further views from those who could not make it to be able to represent this at the Global IGF in Nairobi, Kenya. I am happy that through the generous sponsorship of key players, we were able to have the first Pacific IGF and it was a resounding success. The ITU Secretary General Dr Touré closed the Pacific Regional IGF and we witnessed the signing of an MoU between SPC and APNIC. To see Dr Toure’s closing speech: http://bit.ly/gBK32q There were key strategic connections forged. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Apr 13 03:57:40 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:57:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality In-Reply-To: <12719692-45D6-42B7-81E8-FF358116B7F2@post.harvard.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <4D9FD130.4050802@itforchange.net> <6E33B4C1-4694-4CC1-AE72-0309259E7DCD@ciroap.org> <4DA166C9.3060204@itforchange.net> <4DA1C7A1.9060106@itforchange.net> <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C@post.harvard.edu> <64D6BC24-2F1C-4B0E-836D-1D4FC5C78E49@post.harvard.edu> <12719692-45D6-42B7-81E8-FF358116B7F2@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In message <12719692-45D6-42B7-81E8-FF358116B7F2 at post.harvard.edu>, at 14:07:51 on Tue, 12 Apr 2011, David Allen writes >The telco was required to provide 'common carriage.' It could not >interfere with the message. What was put on the wire was delivered. As an aside, there is a school of thought which says that this approach would make it very difficult to combat spam, and in more recent times to remove sources of viruses and malware and isolate members of botnets. It's actually the number-one complaint from members of the public when I try to describe what "Internet Governance" is - from their perspective we are all doing a terrible job on account of failing to combat spam. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Apr 13 07:06:32 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:06:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Please help!!! -> "Mapping IG" workshop Message-ID: <20110413110632.E976F15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Dear all, the deadline for submitting workshop proposals is fast approaching and I urgently need help with finding suitable panelists. (As part of the workshop proposal, we're supposed to already provide a list of panelists and their affiliations. Even if it may be acceptable to have some spots still open or "to be confirmed", I'm not even close to the point of having enough for what would in my mind be a credible proposal.) So, if you have a reasonably good personal network in some segment of the IGF community, please drop me a quick email, provided that you're willing to help out at least a little with advice and/or contacts. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 13 22:37:30 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:37:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Well morbidity may be appropriate in discussing the trajectory of the IGF. Hey, no one has taken me up on the invitation to take the negative side on its future!!! --MM ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] "A Post-Mortem on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" Perhaps the title is a bit morbid, but such a workshop could be an excellent opportunity to bring back the members of the CSTD Working Group from all stakeholder groups, to discuss the Working Group's (lack of) outcomes candidly. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 13 23:04:07 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:04:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law that matter, not IGF. On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, see this recent IGP blog article: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions. One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ana.neves at umic.pt Thu Apr 14 02:32:02 2011 From: ana.neves at umic.pt (Ana Neves) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:32:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <450EE0FF7413444E8CFEE87F4452034403A8FDA4@MAIL01.umic.pt> Parece-me mais do q claro q Milton Mueller está a contribuir para a morte do IGF, ou estou enganada? É verdade q tanto dá "uma no cravo como outra na ferradura", mas creio q isso se deve mais ao facto de ainda haver mta gente a favor do IGF e ele assim defende onde é q o IGF poderia ter 1 papel (q n se percebe) e onde absolutamente não tem qqr papel (nas coisas verdadeiramente importantes da Internet)... q achas? -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: quinta-feira, 14 de Abril de 2011 04:04 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: cstd at igf-online.net Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law that matter, not IGF. On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, see this recent IGP blog article: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions. One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 02:33:31 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:33:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network > neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by > national regulatory authorities. The positions of the various actors and > interest groups are well known and well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does > will have much impact on what happens in this space. The US Congress will > probably negate the current FCC rules and the US will have to either pass > new legislation or find some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF > does not enter into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU > and national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is > the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law that > matter, not IGF. > Agree with above. > > On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for > a global forum to work out a new policy. Are there? I think only those who seek to monetise IPv4 addresses see this need. > For some background, see this recent IGP blog article: > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go > beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public > list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? > > It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, > ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized > institutions. > But there IS a global policy framework for IP addressing policy development, as Owen de Long just described to you on the ARIN list: "I think you have conflated the address distribution hierarchy at ICANN with the policy hierarchy on the address resource portion of IANA operations at ICANN. IANA address policy is controlled by the NRO/ASO structure. If you want to set IANA policy (make ICANN do something with regard to address resources through their IANA contract), then, you need to propose and get adopted in all five RIR policy processes a policy which specifies what you want IANA/ICANN to do. Once all 5 RIRs have passed substantially identical policy submitted to their policy development mechanisms, that is passed along to the ASO AC which then recommends it be adopted or sends it back as for further work if they feel that some aspect of the development process did not correctly follow the process or if they feel that there are significant differences between the policies passed in different regions." As for WikiLeaks, I don't know what you want "to be done" or indeed if anything should be done. > One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be > utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be > entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and > issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. > Do you mean the MAG or Secretariat? > It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, > which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy > publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no > capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving > smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about. > Sounds about right. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 02:53:06 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:53:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Well morbidity may be appropriate in discussing the trajectory of the IGF. > Hey, no one has taken me up on the invitation to take the negative side on > its future!!! > Send me a ticket Milton (front of the plane please, and leave the return to NBO open ended). I think the tack I would take is that because there is a conflict between those who want outputs and those who want to focus on capacity building, the IGF spends too much time and energy on discussing itself, and not enough time doing its main purpose, which is capacity building. If workshops actually focused on teaching folk instead of "shape of the table" issues it could be very useful indeed. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Apr 14 03:29:03 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:29:03 +0800 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1302766143.14893.14.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:53 +0300, McTim wrote: > I think the tack I would take is that because there is a conflict > between those who want outputs and those who want to focus on capacity > building, the IGF spends too much time and energy on discussing > itself, and not enough time doing its main purpose, which is capacity > building. If workshops actually focused on teaching folk instead of > "shape of the table" issues it could be very useful indeed. I would have said the opposite. Any old conference can do capacity building; this is the IGF's least important function in my view. Not any conference can do multi-stakeholder deliberation on Internet policy issues. And I think the IGF spends too little time discussing institutional issues, which is why neither our Indian workshop proposal nor the mapping proposal fit within any of the substantive themes. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress 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/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Apr 14 03:47:34 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:47:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Leadership? References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <450EE0FF7413444E8CFEE87F4452034403A8FDA4@MAIL01.umic.pt> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BE1B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Milton: One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. Wolfgang: The problem is, that there is NO IGF leadership at the moment. The dilemma is that the two key individuals who steered IGF - Nitin and Markus - are gone, the MAG is in a limbo and the "overseeing body", the UN CSTD, is unable to find a consensus beyond the simple decision to continue until 2015. However, there is not only bad news. The opportunity is that a new bottom up emerging self-organized leadership could constitute itself during the forthcoming MAG meeting in May 2011 as a driving force which both understands the issues and has a vision what to do (step by step) in the coming years. A bottom up self organized successful IGF in Nairobi (this would be before the 2nd Committee of the UNGA will start negotiations on "IGF improvement") would demonstrate that there is no need to wait for CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA recommendations to "improve" the IGF. The people themselves (the "stakeholders") will understand what they have to do and they will hopefully do it (without waiting for "permission"). The general problem is that the multistakeholder approach was accepted by the heads of states in 2005 as a "theoretical" concept, but there was no common understanding what it means in practice. Five years later we still see more lip service than real implementation if ot comes to new forms of (global) policy development and decision making. Nobody really knows what the "respective roles" of the main stakeholders are and how the interaction among the stakeholders should be organized and implemented. What we need is indeed a set of (multistakeholder) guiding principles and formal procedures for stakeholder interaction. A good subject for an IGF workshop. A great challenge for a new "Framework of Commitments" (FoC). The risk is that the whole new MS approach could fail and could fall back into traditional intergovernmental powerplay with opposing non-governmental global mechanisms outside the (state) power structure. This is what you can see now within the G 8 under the French Presidency and the Russian efforts to get the issue into the 1st Committee of the UNGA, which deals with security issues (and where non-governmental stakeholders have nothing to say). As Thomas Schneider has recently put it nicely in a panel on multistakeholderism (during the IGF-D), there is not yet a real multistakeholder model in the world. ICANN and IGF as the two main playgrounds for the new global governance model are still in their infant stage and do not really offer opportunities "on equal footing". ICANN has multistakeholder participation but it is under private sector leadership. IGF has multistakeholder participation but it is (as we can see now) under governmental (UN) leadership. We see the Board/GAC battle and we see the CSTD WG composition battle between governments and non-governmental stakeholder (with an deep dissens among the governments themselves in the background). But the good news here is that the "patt", this "inter-governmental agony", offers a "window of opportunity" for the further development of the IGF and a new MAG which should move from "giving advice" to "steer the process". Such a new (open) IGF Multistakeholder Steering Group for an IGF 2.0 could become the first real model of an multistakeholder process which offers equal opportunities to each stakeholders. With other words, workshop proposers and MAGgers should think big. Nairobi is much more than another IGF. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Apr 14 03:48:46 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:48:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <1302766143.14893.14.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302766143.14893.14.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <2CFUSMFebqpNFAwW@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <1302766143.14893.14.camel at terminus-Aspire-L320>, at 15:29:03 on Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:53 +0300, McTim wrote: >> I think the tack I would take is that because there is a conflict >> between those who want outputs and those who want to focus on capacity >> building, the IGF spends too much time and energy on discussing >> itself, and not enough time doing its main purpose, which is capacity >> building. If workshops actually focused on teaching folk instead of >> "shape of the table" issues it could be very useful indeed. > >I would have said the opposite. Any old conference can do capacity >building; this is the IGF's least important function in my view. Best leave that to ITU BDT then ;) And I do recall it being said that there was no place for "dummies guide to IP" at IGFs after Sharm. >Not any conference can do multi-stakeholder deliberation on Internet >policy issues. And I think the IGF spends too little time discussing >institutional issues, which is why neither our Indian workshop proposal >nor the mapping proposal fit within any of the substantive themes. I think the IGF should be a place to do capacity building amongst IGF attendees, who can then take their new-found multistakeholder skills and contacts to other venues for the real work to be done. The problem is, you probably can't justify it on that alone. So you need some other sessions as the excuse to get everyone into what's really a 4-day team building exercise. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 04:15:02 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:15:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <1302766143.14893.14.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302766143.14893.14.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:53 +0300, McTim wrote: >> I think the tack I would take is that because there is a conflict >> between those who want outputs and those who want to focus on capacity >> building, the IGF spends too much time and energy on discussing >> itself, and not enough time doing its main purpose, which is capacity >> building.  If workshops actually focused on teaching folk instead of >> "shape of the table" issues it could be very useful indeed. > > I would have said the opposite.  Any old conference can do capacity > building; not when the vast majority of time is spent navel-gazing! this is the IGF's least important function in my view.  Not > any conference can do multi-stakeholder deliberation on Internet policy > issues.  And I think the IGF spends too little time discussing > institutional issues, which is why neither our Indian workshop proposal > nor the mapping proposal fit within any of the substantive themes. I think the mapping workshop could be used to steer ppl to the appropriate fora, take the case of my earlier post to MM, how many folk attending IGF know or could describe accurately the global framework for IP addressing policies?? I would venture to guess very few. Education is what is needed, not rhetoric. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Apr 14 08:13:26 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:13:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4DA6E4E6.5000701@cafonso.ca> I suggested a less morbid (or sounding less morbid) one: "A Forensic Analysis on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" :) --c.a. On 04/13/2011 11:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Well morbidity may be appropriate in discussing the trajectory of the IGF. > Hey, no one has taken me up on the invitation to take the negative side on its future!!! > > --MM > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] > > "A Post-Mortem on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" > > Perhaps the title is a bit morbid, but such a workshop could be an > excellent opportunity to bring back the members of the CSTD Working > Group from all stakeholder groups, to discuss the Working Group's (lack > of) outcomes candidly. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 08:21:09 2011 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:21:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <4DA6E4E6.5000701@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><4DA6E4E6.5000701@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <937604038-1302783662-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1431437729-@bda059.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Where IGF's goes when die? Carlos Vera -----Original Message----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:13:26 To: ; Milton L Mueller Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; cstd at igf-online.net Subject: Re: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? I suggested a less morbid (or sounding less morbid) one: "A Forensic Analysis on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" :) --c.a. On 04/13/2011 11:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Well morbidity may be appropriate in discussing the trajectory of the IGF. > Hey, no one has taken me up on the invitation to take the negative side on its future!!! > > --MM > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] > > "A Post-Mortem on the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF" > > Perhaps the title is a bit morbid, but such a workshop could be an > excellent opportunity to bring back the members of the CSTD Working > Group from all stakeholder groups, to discuss the Working Group's (lack > of) outcomes candidly. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Apr 14 08:25:38 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:25:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4DA6E7C2.1040708@cafonso.ca> Milton, your argument is killed by your second phrase: "This is an issue that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities." Yes, like crime, privacy rights and so on -- aren't so many gov decisions on these and other issues done by simple ministerial decrees, directed at specific or all sectors, which are not really different from regulatory determinations? The point is not discarding wksps because the thematic field is one regulated by the State. Is to get us (at least non-govs) a space to exchange ideas and develop proposals on how precisely to confront those mechanisms and decisions from above. My point is that wksps are generally too academic, too one-speaks-everyone-else-listens-(or-not), and little is left in terms of what many of us defend for the IGF itself -- at least a consensus around proposals for action organized in a document. For me this is the main problem which makes most of them useless (like a stream of first-world phds presenting generalist views on "development and ICTs" etc etc), not because some of the themes relate to State's regulatory mechanisms or because the theme is already well discussed. frt rgds --c.a. On 04/14/2011 12:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a > Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will > be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the > various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. > Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in > this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC > rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find > some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter > into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and > national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is > the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law > that matter, not IGF. > > On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry > out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, > see this recent IGP blog article: > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html > > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? > > It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, > ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate > globalized institutions. > > One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to > be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where > it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional > environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute > anything. It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN > organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and > others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic > problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding > the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can > actually do something about. > > --MM > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and > to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 14 09:19:49 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:19:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Workshop on IGF improvements Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Another tardy intervention: I like the idea of the workshop on IGF improvements, but the workshop would best be focused on the whole concept of IGF Improvements, and one of the panelists could promote or analyze the Indian proposal. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 09:20:39 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:20:39 +0200 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Vladimir just have two issues that are relevant and should be carefully discussed in the case of African countries, particularly in countries where debates on different topics in IGF previously have not been sufficiently clarified. I also support the proposal to give more opportunities to nationals of developing countries to participate in the workshop will be organized by Diplo. However , the greatest responsibility rests with African actors. Much of the work must be done in the media and the technical community. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/4/11 Vladimir Radunovic > Janna, Jeremy, Parminder, colleagues, > > > > Let me reflect briefly on NN proposal. > > > > Searching for common sets of norms is the right next step, I agree. > Summarising the discussion of previous years, and especially of the latest > workshop at the IGF in Vilnius, there are two major open issues related to > such a common set of norms: > > 1) *Format of the "document",* if any: > > · business is inclined to support "ex post" (case-by-case) rather > than "ex ante" regulation, justifying it with competition and need for space > for innovations in business models; > > · users are inclined to ask for a more formal "safeguards" from > the big telco business, not trusting the market only (esp. after the > economic crises); > > · regulators (some of them - like Norway) work towards > "collaborative regulation" with finding the win-win approach for all sides > and formulising it in the "guidelines"/"recommendations" format, yet leaving > the option of the "stick" to move it to "hard law" if needed > > *2) **"Exceptions" from these norms* > > · business presents the challenges in broadband delivery and qos - > especially with wireless internet - in light of "next billion users" and new > high-bandwidth services that are still to come; they argue that, while NN > for "Internet as we know it" is fine, space should be given to "new > services" (and they/we don't know yet what these will be) to develop without > limitations - therefore allowing the "exceptions" > > · users are eager to hear more on what these services will really > be and if there is really a need for exceptions - especially in developing > countries where it is expected the next billion users will start using "the > new services" immediately as well > > · regulators are cautious - on one hand they need to assure > consumers protection and innovations at ends, while on the other hand they > need to create the environment to business for further investments and > possible innovations in business models as well > > Based on these two components, the discussion on possible effects of NN set > of norms on business and users - especially on developing countries - can be > analysed. > > > > Diplo supports this workshop and will be happy to co-sponsor it and assist > with preparations. > > > > Since we will likely again bring number of successful participants of our > capacity building programmes from developing countries - from governments, > regulators, civil society... - to the IGF, we may get them involved directly > as well. > > > > Best! > > > > Vlada > > > > > > > > *** > > The latest from Diplo... > > > > E-Diplomacy – edip.diplomomacy.edu > > Exploring the appropriate use of new tools for diplomacy. Join our network! > > www.facebook.com/ediplomacy > > *** > > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > > > Vladimir Radunovic > > Coordinator > > Internet Governance Programmes > > DiploFoundation > > email: vladar at diplomacy.edu > > web: www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > > > * * > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > *Subject: * > > Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) > > *Date: * > > Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:07:46 -0400 > > *From: * > > Janna Anderson > > *Reply-To: * > > governance at lists.cpsr.org,Janna Anderson > > *To: * > > , Jeremy Malcolm > > > > > Jeremy, > > > > Thanks for all of your work; as usual wonderful at all levels. > > > > If you need a co-sponsor to list for any of these if you think Imagining the > > Internet may be helpful to list, please do so. I will try to provide > > assistance as is possible. I'm not completely certain that we are funded for > > the Nairobi journey, but I hope and expect that I or another faculty leader > > from Imagining the Internet will be there with as many as three or four > > students to do documentary coverage and provide support in any way we can > > for all at IGF and the IGC. > > > > I want to add that Diplo Foundation has been leading net neutrality > > discussions at the past two IGFs. I do not know if Vladimir Radinovich and > > the others want to be involved or not, but I thought I would pass that along > > to you. You or Ginger might want to contact them directly, so this can be > > value-added work. > > > > Janna > > > > On 4/11/11 1:11 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > > > > > I'm not proposing to do an actual consensus call poll over the three IGC > > > workshops, since they are not in the nature of statements and there is > > > room for many viewpoints within all of them, but this is a summary of > > > the status of our three workshop proposals so far, to which any more > > > suggestions or serious objections are invited. We also need volunteers > > > to co-organise and to serve as remote moderators as noted below. > > > > > > These are listed here in the order they were proposed. We will be > > > submitting the workshop proposals by this Friday. > > > > > > 1. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > > > > > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to > > > the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of > > > "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN > > > General Assembly Mandate". Although there was no consensus > > > around this proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect > > > proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups > > > have also previously aired. It is also one of the only > > > relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to > > > emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a > > > convenient starting point for further discussion. > > > > > > It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key > > > questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group > > > for each issue develop background material on it, to be > > > considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable > > > discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that > > > discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on > > > each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other > > > relevant bodies for their action and feedback. > > > > > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully > > > discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide > > > a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an > > > opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the > > > proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether > > > and how to take such proposals forward. > > > > > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC (possibly ISOC Chennai) > > > > > > Organisers for IGC: Jeremy Malcolm and Marilia Maciel > > > > > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > > > > > Speakers: TBC > > > > > > 2. Mapping Internet Governance > > > > > > This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance > > > decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and > > > decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make > > > decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals > > > and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints > > > and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? > > > > > > Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the > > > workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for > > > creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses > > > these questions, and for thereafter keeping this document > > > up-to-date. > > > > > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC > > > > > > Organisers for IGC: Nobert Bollow (another needed!) > > > > > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > > > > > Speakers: TBC > > > > > > 3. A possible framework for global Net Neutrality > > > > > > Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public > > > policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's > > > Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines > > > that built over an agreement between two principal corporate > > > players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on > > > the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out > > > with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a > > > drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which > > > NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with > > > a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. > > > > > > In the background, since Internet is essentially a global > > > network and finally there must be common global norms on whether > > > content can be prioritised across global digital highways > > > including across global interconnection points) on payments by > > > the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network > > > neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee > > > on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about > > > global norms, taking into consideration the interests and > > > viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a > > > default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever > > > gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic > > > way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of > > > a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that > > > even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area > > > may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital > > > corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it > > > therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful > > > countries to seek global norms on NN. > > > > > > The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive > > > regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of > > > coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. > > > > > > Sponsors: IGC, IT for Change (I presume), others TBC > > > > > > Organisers for IGC: Parminder Jeet Singh > > > > > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > > > > > Speakers: TBC > > > > -- > > Janna Quitney Anderson > > Director of Imagining the Internet > > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > > > > Associate Professor of Communications > > Director of Internet Projects > > School of Communications > > Elon University > > andersj at elon.edu > > (336) 278-5733 (o) > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 09:32:42 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:32:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <4DA6E7C2.1040708@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA6E7C2.1040708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi Milton, you give a mixed opinion. By the way this would be of interest to you: The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World by Evgeny Morozov http://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-How-Liberate-World/dp/1846143535/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt Synopsis: "Does free information mean free people? At the start of the twenty-first century we were promised that the internet would liberate the world. We could come together as never before, and from Iran's 'twitter revolution' to Facebook 'activism', technological innovation would spread democracy to oppressed peoples everywhere. We couldn't have been more wrong. In The Net Delusion Evgeny Morozov destroys this myth, arguing that 'internet freedom' is an illusion, and that technology has failed to help protect people's rights. Not only that -- in many cases the internet is actually helping authoritarian regimes. >From China to Russia to Iran, oppressive governments are using cyberspace to stifle dissent: planting clandestine propaganda, employing sophisticated digital censorship and using online surveillance. We are all being manipulated in more subtle ways too -- becoming pacified by the net, instead of truly engaging. This book is a wake-up call. It shows us how our misplaced faith in cyber-utopia means the West risks missing the real challenges. Morozov argues that we must look at other ways of promoting democracy abroad, and forces us -- policymakers and citizens alike -- to recognize that all our freedoms are at stake." I actually bought the book and going through it I must agree to the fact, network neutral for whom? For us, the developing world or for the developed world and why? Maybe that is the primary question that hasn't been answered at all. The debate cannot stop and the clarity has to be sought! -- Fouad On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Milton, your argument is killed by your second phrase: "This is an issue > that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities." > Yes, like crime, privacy rights and so on -- aren't so many gov > decisions on these and other issues done by simple ministerial decrees, > directed at specific or all sectors, which are not really different from > regulatory determinations? > > The point is not discarding wksps because the thematic field is one > regulated by the State. Is to get us (at least non-govs) a space to > exchange ideas and develop proposals on how precisely to confront those > mechanisms and decisions from above. > > My point is that wksps are generally too academic, too > one-speaks-everyone-else-listens-(or-not), and little is left in terms > of what many of us defend for the IGF itself -- at least a consensus > around proposals for action organized in a document. For me this is the > main problem which makes most of them useless (like a stream of > first-world phds presenting generalist views on "development and ICTs" > etc etc), not because some of the themes relate to State's regulatory > mechanisms or because the theme is already well discussed. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 04/14/2011 12:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a >> Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will >> be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the >> various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. >> Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in >> this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC >> rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find >> some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter >> into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and >> national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is >> the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law >> that matter, not IGF. >> >> On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry >> out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, >> see this recent IGP blog article: >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html >> >> > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but > go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a > public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? >> >> It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, >> ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate >> globalized institutions. >> >> One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to >> be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where >> it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional >> environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute >> anything. It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN >> organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and >> others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic >> problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding >> the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can >> actually do something about. >> >> --MM >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 09:42:48 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:42:48 -0700 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only give the developing world perspective. What I have felt on NN issues is lobbies fighting with each other while keeping out the developing world segment that will be truly affected by the Internet. I want to add the capacity building element here. I don't see a single activity on the ground where a certain NN advocacy group has gone to regulators to educate them on NN related issues and how to/not to develop a stand on the issue. The fact remains that the larger portion of Internet and Web resources remain in the developed West and the developing east and south are usually outside the picture. Not having the knowledge nor capacity leads regulators to regulate the Internet in such a way that is not beneficial for their citizenry and in the long run not at all beneficial for the governments themselves because they cap themselves from providing their social and economic setup the opportunity that a neutral network would actually offer. This is a whole different debate. Within the NN debate I am yet to see corporations from the developing world step into the discussion or fight on issues pertaining to the topic at any global Internet discussion forum so the issue remains, do we want to bring in those that continue to blur the NN debate and give them the opportunity to continue to do so or should we now move the whole NN discussion towards the developing countries. I appreciate the fact that such detailed documentation is being identified but it really does not reflect an opportunity but more of a blurring activity that should be avoided and a very subjective approach to addressing the NN realities keeping developing countries as the focus should be adopted. _-- FoO On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > Janna, Jeremy, Parminder, colleagues, > > > > Let me reflect briefly on NN proposal. > > > > Searching for common sets of norms is the right next step, I agree. > Summarising the discussion of previous years, and especially of the latest > workshop at the IGF in Vilnius, there are two major open issues related to > such a common set of norms: > > 1) *Format of the "document",* if any: > > · business is inclined to support "ex post" (case-by-case) rather > than "ex ante" regulation, justifying it with competition and need for space > for innovations in business models; > > · users are inclined to ask for a more formal "safeguards" from > the big telco business, not trusting the market only (esp. after the > economic crises); > > · regulators (some of them - like Norway) work towards > "collaborative regulation" with finding the win-win approach for all sides > and formulising it in the "guidelines"/"recommendations" format, yet leaving > the option of the "stick" to move it to "hard law" if needed > > *2) **"Exceptions" from these norms* > > · business presents the challenges in broadband delivery and qos - > especially with wireless internet - in light of "next billion users" and new > high-bandwidth services that are still to come; they argue that, while NN > for "Internet as we know it" is fine, space should be given to "new > services" (and they/we don't know yet what these will be) to develop without > limitations - therefore allowing the "exceptions" > > · users are eager to hear more on what these services will really > be and if there is really a need for exceptions - especially in developing > countries where it is expected the next billion users will start using "the > new services" immediately as well > > · regulators are cautious - on one hand they need to assure > consumers protection and innovations at ends, while on the other hand they > need to create the environment to business for further investments and > possible innovations in business models as well > > Based on these two components, the discussion on possible effects of NN set > of norms on business and users - especially on developing countries - can be > analysed. > > > > Diplo supports this workshop and will be happy to co-sponsor it and assist > with preparations. > > > > Since we will likely again bring number of successful participants of our > capacity building programmes from developing countries - from governments, > regulators, civil society... - to the IGF, we may get them involved directly > as well. > > > > Best! > > > > Vlada > > > > > > > > *** > > The latest from Diplo... > > > > E-Diplomacy – edip.diplomomacy.edu > > Exploring the appropriate use of new tools for diplomacy. Join our network! > > www.facebook.com/ediplomacy > > *** > > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > > > Vladimir Radunovic > > Coordinator > > Internet Governance Programmes > > DiploFoundation > > email: vladar at diplomacy.edu > > web: www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > > > * * > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > *Subject: * > > Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) > > *Date: * > > Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:07:46 -0400 > > *From: * > > Janna Anderson > > *Reply-To: * > > governance at lists.cpsr.org,Janna Anderson > > *To: * > > , Jeremy Malcolm > > > > > Jeremy, > > > > Thanks for all of your work; as usual wonderful at all levels. > > > > If you need a co-sponsor to list for any of these if you think Imagining the > > Internet may be helpful to list, please do so. I will try to provide > > assistance as is possible. I'm not completely certain that we are funded for > > the Nairobi journey, but I hope and expect that I or another faculty leader > > from Imagining the Internet will be there with as many as three or four > > students to do documentary coverage and provide support in any way we can > > for all at IGF and the IGC. > > > > I want to add that Diplo Foundation has been leading net neutrality > > discussions at the past two IGFs. I do not know if Vladimir Radinovich and > > the others want to be involved or not, but I thought I would pass that along > > to you. You or Ginger might want to contact them directly, so this can be > > value-added work. > > > > Janna > > > > On 4/11/11 1:11 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > > > > > I'm not proposing to do an actual consensus call poll over the three IGC > > > workshops, since they are not in the nature of statements and there is > > > room for many viewpoints within all of them, but this is a summary of > > > the status of our three workshop proposals so far, to which any more > > > suggestions or serious objections are invited. We also need volunteers > > > to co-organise and to serve as remote moderators as noted below. > > > > > > These are listed here in the order they were proposed. We will be > > > submitting the workshop proposals by this Friday. > > > > > > 1. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 > > > > > > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to > > > the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of > > > "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN > > > General Assembly Mandate". Although there was no consensus > > > around this proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect > > > proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups > > > have also previously aired. It is also one of the only > > > relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to > > > emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a > > > convenient starting point for further discussion. > > > > > > It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key > > > questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group > > > for each issue develop background material on it, to be > > > considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable > > > discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that > > > discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on > > > each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other > > > relevant bodies for their action and feedback. > > > > > > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully > > > discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide > > > a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an > > > opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the > > > proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether > > > and how to take such proposals forward. > > > > > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC (possibly ISOC Chennai) > > > > > > Organisers for IGC: Jeremy Malcolm and Marilia Maciel > > > > > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > > > > > Speakers: TBC > > > > > > 2. Mapping Internet Governance > > > > > > This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance > > > decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and > > > decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make > > > decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals > > > and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints > > > and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? > > > > > > Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the > > > workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for > > > creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses > > > these questions, and for thereafter keeping this document > > > up-to-date. > > > > > > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC > > > > > > Organisers for IGC: Nobert Bollow (another needed!) > > > > > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > > > > > Speakers: TBC > > > > > > 3. A possible framework for global Net Neutrality > > > > > > Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public > > > policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's > > > Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines > > > that built over an agreement between two principal corporate > > > players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on > > > the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out > > > with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a > > > drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which > > > NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with > > > a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. > > > > > > In the background, since Internet is essentially a global > > > network and finally there must be common global norms on whether > > > content can be prioritised across global digital highways > > > including across global interconnection points) on payments by > > > the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network > > > neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee > > > on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about > > > global norms, taking into consideration the interests and > > > viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a > > > default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever > > > gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic > > > way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of > > > a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that > > > even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area > > > may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital > > > corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it > > > therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful > > > countries to seek global norms on NN. > > > > > > The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive > > > regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of > > > coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. > > > > > > Sponsors: IGC, IT for Change (I presume), others TBC > > > > > > Organisers for IGC: Parminder Jeet Singh > > > > > > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) > > > > > > Speakers: TBC > > > > -- > > Janna Quitney Anderson > > Director of Imagining the Internet > > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > > > > Associate Professor of Communications > > Director of Internet Projects > > School of Communications > > Elon University > > andersj at elon.edu > > (336) 278-5733 (o) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 09:46:24 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:46:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] Workshop on IGF improvements In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Would it be useful to have the IGC group that was involved in the CSTD working group and invite the technical community to have a dialogue in a round table format while also allowing participants to have their questions answered on an on-going basis? - FoO On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Another tardy intervention: > I like the idea of the workshop on IGF improvements, but the workshop would best be focused on the whole concept of IGF Improvements, and one of the panelists could promote or analyze the Indian proposal. > --MM > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 14 09:53:51 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:53:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA6E7C2.1040708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Fouad I've reviewed Morozov's flawed arguments in detail here. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/1/13/4726219.html all I have time to say for now. > -----Original Message----- > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:33 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso > Cc: Milton L Mueller; cstd at igf-online.net > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance? > > Hi Milton, you give a mixed opinion. By the way this would be of > interest to you: > > The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World > by Evgeny Morozov > http://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-How-Liberate- > World/dp/1846143535/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt > > Synopsis: "Does free information mean free people? > At the start of the twenty-first century we were promised that the > internet would liberate the world. We could come together as never > before, and from Iran's 'twitter revolution' to Facebook 'activism', > technological innovation would spread democracy to oppressed peoples > everywhere. > > We couldn't have been more wrong. In The Net Delusion Evgeny Morozov > destroys this myth, arguing that 'internet freedom' is an illusion, > and that technology has failed to help protect people's rights. Not > only that -- in many cases the internet is actually helping > authoritarian regimes. > > From China to Russia to Iran, oppressive governments are using > cyberspace to stifle dissent: planting clandestine propaganda, > employing sophisticated digital censorship and using online > surveillance. We are all being manipulated in more subtle ways too -- > becoming pacified by the net, instead of truly engaging. > > This book is a wake-up call. It shows us how our misplaced faith in > cyber-utopia means the West risks missing the real challenges. Morozov > argues that we must look at other ways of promoting democracy abroad, > and forces us -- policymakers and citizens alike -- to recognize that > all our freedoms are at stake." > > I actually bought the book and going through it I must agree to the > fact, network neutral for whom? For us, the developing world or for > the developed world and why? Maybe that is the primary question that > hasn't been answered at all. The debate cannot stop and the clarity > has to be sought! > > -- Fouad > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Milton, your argument is killed by your second phrase: "This is an issue > > that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities." > > Yes, like crime, privacy rights and so on -- aren't so many gov > > decisions on these and other issues done by simple ministerial decrees, > > directed at specific or all sectors, which are not really different from > > regulatory determinations? > > > > The point is not discarding wksps because the thematic field is one > > regulated by the State. Is to get us (at least non-govs) a space to > > exchange ideas and develop proposals on how precisely to confront those > > mechanisms and decisions from above. > > > > My point is that wksps are generally too academic, too > > one-speaks-everyone-else-listens-(or-not), and little is left in terms > > of what many of us defend for the IGF itself -- at least a consensus > > around proposals for action organized in a document. For me this is the > > main problem which makes most of them useless (like a stream of > > first-world phds presenting generalist views on "development and ICTs" > > etc etc), not because some of the themes relate to State's regulatory > > mechanisms or because the theme is already well discussed. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 04/14/2011 12:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> > >> I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a > >> Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will > >> be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the > >> various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. > >> Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in > >> this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC > >> rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find > >> some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter > >> into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and > >> national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is > >> the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law > >> that matter, not IGF. > >> > >> On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry > >> out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, > >> see this recent IGP blog article: > >> > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html > >> > >> > > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but > > go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a > > public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? > >> > >> It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, > >> ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate > >> globalized institutions. > >> > >> One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to > >> be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where > >> it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional > >> environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute > >> anything. It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN > >> organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and > >> others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic > >> problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding > >> the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can > >> actually do something about. > >> > >> --MM > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 14 10:01:16 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:01:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A44@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for a global forum to work out a new policy. Are there? I think only those who seek to monetise IPv4 addresses see this need. Monetisation of v4 addresses has already happened and is inevitable. Either the institutions find a way to deal with this or they fail. But there IS a global policy framework for IP addressing policy development, as Owen de Long just described to you on the ARIN list: Then why is the head of ARIN, John Curran, who is frankly a lot more far-sighted than Owen de Long, asking where to take the issue? The problem is that the RIRs are basically the status quo, a respected but small group whose control of address resources would be challenged by the kind of institutional changes being proposed. One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. Do you mean the MAG or Secretariat? I mean both. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Apr 14 10:04:38 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:04:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Workshop on IGF improvements In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99712@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> If I may, no surprise, beg to differ: a workshop with a sharper edge, using the Indian proposal to frame a point/counterpoint discussion on IGF improvements, would be more interesting than a bland 'let's discuss IGF improvements' workshop. Taking the Indian proposal seriously since it is the only serious proposal on the table we might actually gain - now I'm truly shocked - consensus on the IGF somehow improving. Stranger things have happened. Following a workshop discussion for and against, throwing out alternatives and critiquing the Indian effort, which could be dead and buried by the end of the session. Or not. My 2 cents Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:46 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop on IGF improvements Would it be useful to have the IGC group that was involved in the CSTD working group and invite the technical community to have a dialogue in a round table format while also allowing participants to have their questions answered on an on-going basis? - FoO On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Another tardy intervention: > I like the idea of the workshop on IGF improvements, but the workshop would best be focused on the whole concept of IGF Improvements, and one of the panelists could promote or analyze the Indian proposal. > --MM > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 14 10:05:47 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:05:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A45@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> "capacity building" is not the IGF's purpose, that is the purpose foisted upon it by people who want to neuter it. Guess what? They have succeeded, which is why fewer and fewer people care about what the IGF does. I think the tack I would take is that because there is a conflict between those who want outputs and those who want to focus on capacity building, the IGF spends too much time and energy on discussing itself, and not enough time doing its main purpose, which is capacity building. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 10:06:18 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:06:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] Workshop on IGF improvements In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: That´s the proposal. Jeremy and I have contacted themembers of the CSTD WG from the technical community and the business sector, to ask them if they want to co-sponsor and/or suggest speakers to this workshop. Panelists would be short to maximize opportunities of interaction with participants. Best, Marília On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Would it be useful to have the IGC group that was involved in the CSTD > working group and invite the technical community to have a dialogue in > a round table format while also allowing participants to have their > questions answered on an on-going basis? > > - FoO > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Another tardy intervention: > > I like the idea of the workshop on IGF improvements, but the workshop > would best be focused on the whole concept of IGF Improvements, and one of > the panelists could promote or analyze the Indian proposal. > > --MM > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > 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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charlespmok at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 11:58:29 2011 From: charlespmok at gmail.com (Charles Mok (gmail)) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:58:29 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA6E7C2.1040708@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I concur with Milton. I bought this book by mistake on my Kindle and it is a waste of my money. To me, it is a well-tried tactic of writing an opposite, sensationalist view, and it is bound to sell books. That's all. For this level of flawed arguments, I am actually quite amused by the level of attention he got. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Fouad > I've reviewed Morozov's flawed arguments in detail here. > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/1/13/4726219.html > > all I have time to say for now. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:33 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso > > Cc: Milton L Mueller; cstd at igf-online.net > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance? > > > > Hi Milton, you give a mixed opinion. By the way this would be of > > interest to you: > > > > The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World > > by Evgeny Morozov > > http://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-How-Liberate- > > World/dp/1846143535/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt > > > > Synopsis: "Does free information mean free people? > > At the start of the twenty-first century we were promised that the > > internet would liberate the world. We could come together as never > > before, and from Iran's 'twitter revolution' to Facebook 'activism', > > technological innovation would spread democracy to oppressed peoples > > everywhere. > > > > We couldn't have been more wrong. In The Net Delusion Evgeny Morozov > > destroys this myth, arguing that 'internet freedom' is an illusion, > > and that technology has failed to help protect people's rights. Not > > only that -- in many cases the internet is actually helping > > authoritarian regimes. > > > > From China to Russia to Iran, oppressive governments are using > > cyberspace to stifle dissent: planting clandestine propaganda, > > employing sophisticated digital censorship and using online > > surveillance. We are all being manipulated in more subtle ways too -- > > becoming pacified by the net, instead of truly engaging. > > > > This book is a wake-up call. It shows us how our misplaced faith in > > cyber-utopia means the West risks missing the real challenges. Morozov > > argues that we must look at other ways of promoting democracy abroad, > > and forces us -- policymakers and citizens alike -- to recognize that > > all our freedoms are at stake." > > > > I actually bought the book and going through it I must agree to the > > fact, network neutral for whom? For us, the developing world or for > > the developed world and why? Maybe that is the primary question that > > hasn't been answered at all. The debate cannot stop and the clarity > > has to be sought! > > > > -- Fouad > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > Milton, your argument is killed by your second phrase: "This is an > issue > > > that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities." > > > Yes, like crime, privacy rights and so on -- aren't so many gov > > > decisions on these and other issues done by simple ministerial decrees, > > > directed at specific or all sectors, which are not really different > from > > > regulatory determinations? > > > > > > The point is not discarding wksps because the thematic field is one > > > regulated by the State. Is to get us (at least non-govs) a space to > > > exchange ideas and develop proposals on how precisely to confront those > > > mechanisms and decisions from above. > > > > > > My point is that wksps are generally too academic, too > > > one-speaks-everyone-else-listens-(or-not), and little is left in terms > > > of what many of us defend for the IGF itself -- at least a consensus > > > around proposals for action organized in a document. For me this is the > > > main problem which makes most of them useless (like a stream of > > > first-world phds presenting generalist views on "development and ICTs" > > > etc etc), not because some of the themes relate to State's regulatory > > > mechanisms or because the theme is already well discussed. > > > > > > frt rgds > > > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > On 04/14/2011 12:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> > > >> I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a > > >> Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will > > >> be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the > > >> various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. > > >> Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in > > >> this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC > > >> rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find > > >> some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter > > >> into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and > > >> national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is > > >> the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law > > >> that matter, not IGF. > > >> > > >> On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry > > >> out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, > > >> see this recent IGP blog article: > > >> > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html > > >> > > >> > > > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy > but > > > go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a > > > public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? > > >> > > >> It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, > > >> ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate > > >> globalized institutions. > > >> > > >> One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to > > >> be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where > > >> it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional > > >> environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute > > >> anything. It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN > > >> organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and > > >> others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic > > >> problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding > > >> the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can > > >> actually do something about. > > >> > > >> --MM > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Apr 14 11:58:15 2011 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:58:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] DEADLINE EXTENDED: First International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2011) Message-ID: <01a601cbfabc$c3edd350$4bc979f0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] *************** SUBMISSION DEADLINE EXTENDED: May 25, 2011. *************** First International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis SIMPDA 2011 IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12 http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/SIMPDA2011/ June 29th - July 1st, 2011 Campione d’Italia, Italy * About SIMPDA * With the increasing automation of business processes growing amounts of process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6 - 2.12 First International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the industry can share their insight in this hot new field. The Symposium will feature a number of advanced keynotes illustrating new approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD seminar and selected research and industrial demonstrations. All this in the nice setting of Campione d’Italia, the Italian enclave surrounded by Swiss territory, on the shores of Lake Lugano. * Call for Papers * The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis offers to researchers and practitioners working in business process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis a unique opportunity to present new approaches and research results. The Symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and scientists from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 10 pages. Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original contributions, not previously published or under review for publication elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English. Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceedings volume with ISBN. Authors of accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium volume of LNBIP (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for late 2011 (extended papers length is between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 15-20 papers will be selected for the publication after a second round of review. > Topics Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to: • Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods • Data-aware and data-centric approaches • Variability and configuration of process models • Process simulation and static analysis • Process data query languages • Process data mining • Privacy-aware process data mining • Process metadata and semantic reasoning • Process patterns and standards • Foundations of business process models • Security and privacy aspects • Resource management in business process execution • Process tracing and monitoring • Process change management • Business process lifecycle • Case studies and experience reports * Call for PhD Research Plans * The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their research results. Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an extended abstract describing their research. Submissions are sought relating to any aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions, interaction and design advances, and innovative applications, social implications. > SIMPDA PhD award A doctoral award will be recognized by the SIMPDA PhD Jury for the best research plan submitted. > Tutored research activities Interested PhD students can apply to carry out pre-symposium tutored research activities. Such activities provide a unique way to identify research questions and will culminate with presentations to be given at the symposium. In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it > Student Scholarships An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at students coming from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP. In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it * Call for Demonstrations and Posters * Demonstrations showcase innovative technology and applications, allowing you to share your work directly with your colleagues in a high-visibility setting. Demonstration proposals should consist of a title, extended abstract, and contact information for the authors and should not exceed 2 pages. Posters permit presentation of late-breaking results in an informal, interactive manner. Poster proposals should consist of a title, extended abstract, and contact information for the authors, and should not exceed 2 pages. Accepted demonstrations or posters will be displayed at the conference. Abstracts will appear in the proceedings. * Submissions * Contributions to all calls should be submitted electronically to the Symposium management system connecting to http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=simpda2011. At least one author of each accepted paper is expected to participate in the conference and present his/her work. Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceedings volume with ISBN. Authors of accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles in a IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology Series (http://www.springer.com/series/6102), scheduled for late 2011. Extended versions will be selected for publication in the volume after a second review round of review. * Keynote Speakers* >June 29th 2011 Process Mining: Enabling Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis Using ProM Wil van der Aalst Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands >June 29th 2011 Privacy-preserving Analytics Florian Kerschbaum SAP, Germany >June 30th 2011 Variability and Configurability of Business Processes: Why, What, When, and How? Dragan Gasevic Athabasca University, Canada >July 1st 2011 Monitoring services for adaptivity: the case of energy efficiency Barbara Pernici Politecnico di Milano, Italy * Industrial Invited Talks * >June 30th 2011 Case Study in Process Mining in a Multinational Enterprise Marcello Leida EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE >July 1st 2011 Business opportunities in applying Process Mining to operational and management enterprise processes: the point of view of a Systems Integrator Antonio Majori and Stefano Scamuzzo Engineering Group. Italy * Organizers * > Conference Co-Chairs - Karl Aberer, EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Tharam Dillon, Curtin University of Technology, Australia > Steering Committee Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria Lionel Brunie, Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (INSA) de Lyon, France Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Elizabeth Chang, Curtin University, Australia Giuseppina Passiante, Univesrità del Salento, Italy > Conference Program Committee Peter Spyns, Vrije Universiteit Brussel - STAR Lab, Belgium Daniele Bonetta, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Switzerland Philippe Cudre-Mauroux, MIT-CSAIL, U.S.A. Maurice Van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands Avigdor Gal, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel Mohand-Said Hacid, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France Angelo Corallo, Università del Salento, Italy Irene Vanderfeesten, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany Farookh Khadeer Hussain, Curtin University, Australia Thomas Risse, University of Berlin, Germany Wolfgang Klas, University of Vienna, Austria Davide Storelli, Università del Salento, Italy Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE Gabriele Ruffatti, Engineering Group, Italy Jerzy Korczak, Louis Pasteur University, France * Important Dates * - Paper Submission: May 25, 2011. - Submission of PhD Presentations: May 25, 2011. - Submission of Demonstration Proposal: May 25, 2011. - Notification of Acceptance: June 7, 2011. - First International Symposium on Process Data: June 29 - July 1, 2011. * Registration * Registration is available through the following form: http://www.centrovolta.org/SIMPDA2011/ * Accommodation * All conference activities will take place in the municipal casino of Campione d'Italia. Hotel Campione is the closest to the casino. A less expensive option is HOTEL BELLEVUE, Corso Fratelli Fusina 1, Campione d’Italia, Tel. 0041916497566. * Venue * 1. From Milan Campione can be reached by car following the A9 motorway MILANO-CHIASSO and then the A2 motorway CHIASSO-LUGANO, exit at Bissone Melide. A bus starts at Garibaldi square (the square before the Garibaldi railway station) Dep. time from Milano 15.00/20:30- Dep. from Campione 19:00/00:30/3.00. 2. From Malpensa Airport Campione can be reached by car or shuttle in approximately 50 minutes. 3. From Lugano Campione can be reached by boat, bus and car and although you have to cross the Swiss-Italian border line to reach it there are no formal border controls. Campione is approximately 9km from Lugano by road, and 15 minutes by boat across the lake. A ferry service runs regularly from Lugano to Campione throughout the day. More info on: www.campioneitalia.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 12:43:30 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:43:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <1302766143.14893.14.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: +1 M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 12:29 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:53 +0300, McTim wrote: > I think the tack I would take is that because there is a conflict > between those who want outputs and those who want to focus on capacity > building, the IGF spends too much time and energy on discussing > itself, and not enough time doing its main purpose, which is capacity > building. If workshops actually focused on teaching folk instead of > "shape of the table" issues it could be very useful indeed. I would have said the opposite. Any old conference can do capacity building; this is the IGF's least important function in my view. Not any conference can do multi-stakeholder deliberation on Internet policy issues. And I think the IGF spends too little time discussing institutional issues, which is why neither our Indian workshop proposal nor the mapping proposal fit within any of the substantive themes. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 12:46:25 2011 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:46:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] DEADLINE EXTENDED: First International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA 2011) In-Reply-To: <01a601cbfabc$c3edd350$4bc979f0$@unimi.it> References: <01a601cbfabc$c3edd350$4bc979f0$@unimi.it> Message-ID: Dear Fulvio Are you personally involved with this or are you merely passing on? Have you checked to make sure it is genuine? There is nothing about it on the IFIP website, http://www.ifip.or.at/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=76 , not on the events page, http://www.ifip.org/cal_even.htm#act not on their 'call-for-papers' page, http://www.ifip.org/Cfp/Call-for-Papers.htm Best regards, Rui 2011/4/14 Fulvio Frati > > > [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] > > *************** > > SUBMISSION DEADLINE EXTENDED: May 25, 2011. > > *************** > > First International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis > > SIMPDA 2011 > > IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12 > > http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/SIMPDA2011/ > > June 29th - July 1st, 2011 > > Campione d’Italia, Italy > > > > * About SIMPDA * > > With the increasing automation of business processes growing amounts of > process > > data become available. This opens new research opportunities for business > > process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6 - 2.12 > First > > International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to > > > offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the industry > can > > share their insight in this hot new field. > > The Symposium will feature a number of advanced keynotes illustrating new > > approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD > seminar > > and selected research and industrial demonstrations. All this in the nice > > setting of Campione d’Italia, the Italian enclave surrounded by Swiss > territory, > > on the shores of Lake Lugano. > > > > * Call for Papers * > > The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and > Analysis > > offers to researchers and practitioners working in business process data > > modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis a unique opportunity to > > > present new approaches and research results. > > The Symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and > scientists > > from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 10 pages. Short papers > are > > limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original contributions, not > > previously published or under review for publication elsewhere. All > > contributions must be written in English. > > Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceedings volume with ISBN. > Authors > > of accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles to a > > post-symposium volume of LNBIP (Lecture Notes in Business Information > > Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for late 2011 > > (extended papers length is between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 15-20 > papers > > will be selected for the publication after a second round of review. > > > > > Topics > > Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to: > > • Business Process modeling languages, > notations and methods > > • Data-aware and data-centric approaches > > • Variability and configuration of process > models > > • Process simulation and static analysis > > • Process data query languages > > • Process data mining > > • Privacy-aware process data mining > > • Process metadata and semantic reasoning > > • Process patterns and standards > > • Foundations of business process models > > • Security and privacy aspects > > • Resource management in business process > execution > > • Process tracing and monitoring > > • Process change management > > • Business process lifecycle > > • Case studies and experience reports > > > > * Call for PhD Research Plans * > > The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the > world. > > The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and research > plans > > by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their research > results. > > Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an > extended > > abstract describing their research. Submissions are sought relating to any > > aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, > policy > > analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions, > > > interaction and design advances, and innovative applications, social > > implications. > > > > > SIMPDA PhD award > > A doctoral award will be recognized by the SIMPDA PhD Jury for the best > research > > plan submitted. > > > > > Tutored research activities > > Interested PhD students can apply to carry out pre-symposium tutored > research > > activities. Such activities provide a unique way to identify research > questions > > and will culminate with presentations to be given at the symposium. > > In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it > > > > > Student Scholarships > > An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at students > coming > > from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP. > > In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it > > > > * Call for Demonstrations and Posters * > > Demonstrations showcase innovative technology and applications, allowing > you to > > share your work directly with your colleagues in a high-visibility setting. > > > Demonstration proposals should consist of a title, extended abstract, and > > contact information for the authors and should not exceed 2 pages. > > Posters permit presentation of late-breaking results in an informal, > interactive > > manner. Poster proposals should consist of a title, extended abstract, and > > contact information for the authors, and should not exceed 2 pages. > > Accepted demonstrations or posters will be displayed at the conference. > > Abstracts will appear in the proceedings. > > > > * Submissions * > > Contributions to all calls should be submitted electronically to the > Symposium > > management system connecting to > > http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=simpda2011. At least one author > of > > each accepted paper is expected to participate in the conference and > present > > his/her work. > > Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceedings volume with ISBN. > Authors > > of accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles in a IFIP > > Advances in Information and Communication Technology Series > > (http://www.springer.com/series/6102), scheduled for late 2011. Extended > > versions will be selected for publication in the volume after a second > review > > round of review. > > > > * Keynote Speakers* > > >June 29th 2011 > > Process Mining: Enabling Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis Using > ProM > > Wil van der Aalst > > Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands > > > > >June 29th 2011 > > Privacy-preserving Analytics > > Florian Kerschbaum > > SAP, Germany > > > > >June 30th 2011 > > Variability and Configurability of Business Processes: Why, What, When, and > How? > > Dragan Gasevic > > Athabasca University, Canada > > > > >July 1st 2011 > > Monitoring services for adaptivity: the case of energy efficiency > > Barbara Pernici > > Politecnico di Milano, Italy > > > > * Industrial Invited Talks * > > >June 30th 2011 > > Case Study in Process Mining in a Multinational Enterprise > > Marcello Leida > > EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE > > > > >July 1st 2011 > > Business opportunities in applying Process Mining to operational and > management > > enterprise processes: the point of view of a Systems Integrator > > Antonio Majori and Stefano Scamuzzo > > Engineering Group. Italy > > > > * Organizers * > > > > > Conference Co-Chairs > > > > - Karl Aberer, EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland > > - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy > > - Tharam Dillon, Curtin University of Technology, Australia > > > > > Steering Committee > > Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria > > Lionel Brunie, Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (INSA) de Lyon, > France > > Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy > > Elizabeth Chang, Curtin University, Australia > > Giuseppina Passiante, Univesrità del Salento, Italy > > > > > Conference Program Committee > > Peter Spyns, Vrije Universiteit Brussel - STAR Lab, Belgium > > Daniele Bonetta, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Switzerland > > Philippe Cudre-Mauroux, MIT-CSAIL, U.S.A. > > Maurice Van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands > > Avigdor Gal, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel > > Mohand-Said Hacid, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France > > Angelo Corallo, Università del Salento, Italy > > Irene Vanderfeesten, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands > > Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany > > Farookh Khadeer Hussain, Curtin University, Australia > > Thomas Risse, University of Berlin, Germany > > Wolfgang Klas, University of Vienna, Austria > > Davide Storelli, Università del Salento, Italy > > Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE > > Gabriele Ruffatti, Engineering Group, Italy > > Jerzy Korczak, Louis Pasteur University, France > > > > * Important Dates * > > - Paper Submission: May 25, 2011. > > - Submission of PhD Presentations: May 25, 2011. > > - Submission of Demonstration Proposal: May 25, 2011. > > - Notification of Acceptance: June 7, 2011. > > - First International Symposium on Process Data: June 29 - July 1, 2011. > > > > * Registration * > > Registration is available through the following form: > > http://www.centrovolta.org/SIMPDA2011/ > > > > * Accommodation * > > All conference activities will take place in the municipal casino of > Campione > > d'Italia. > > Hotel Campione is the closest to the casino. A less expensive option is > HOTEL > > BELLEVUE, Corso Fratelli Fusina 1, Campione d’Italia, Tel. 0041916497566. > > > > * Venue * > > 1. From Milan Campione can be reached by car following the A9 > motorway > > MILANO-CHIASSO and then the A2 motorway CHIASSO-LUGANO, exit at Bissone > Melide. > > A bus starts at Garibaldi square (the square before the Garibaldi railway > > station) Dep. time from Milano 15.00/20:30- Dep. from Campione > 19:00/00:30/3.00. > > 2. From Malpensa Airport Campione can be reached by car or > shuttle in > > approximately 50 minutes. > > 3. From Lugano Campione can be reached by boat, bus and car and > although > > you have to cross the Swiss-Italian border line to reach it there are no > formal > > border controls. Campione is approximately 9km from Lugano by road, and 15 > > minutes by boat across the lake. A ferry service runs regularly from Lugano > to > > Campione throughout the day. > > > > More info on: www.campioneitalia.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- _________________________ I am out of town - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou de viagem - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 14 12:56:53 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:56:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <4DA6E7C2.1040708@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA6E7C2.1040708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A4F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> OK, grande Carlos that is a reasonable view. I certainly agree that wksps should be WORKshops, organized around proposals for action. And there is some room for norm-building, spirit-building and knowledge exchange among transnational groups on NN as any other issue. But in this case, what I see brewing is another one of your "one-speaks-everyone-else-listens-(or-not)" affairs airing very familiar and predictable views. Perhaps it could be framed and defined more specifically. What "mechanisms and decision from above" are you going to confront? What actions contemplated? What new information will be brought in? What new ideas for action? One reason I plan to _not_ be at IGF this year is that I will be at TPRC (academic conference) in the U.S. presenting the results of a comparative study of how US and Canada are handling the bandwidth management/DPI issue. Canada has a law that embodies what US NN advocates would love to have, and yet DPI may be even more widespread there. Can you give me a reason why I should want to have that conversation in Nairobi instead of in the US where I will be heard and interacting with North American regulators, policy experts, advocacy groups who will directly affect what happens here? --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:26 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Cc: cstd at igf-online.net > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance? > > Milton, your argument is killed by your second phrase: "This is an issue > that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities." > Yes, like crime, privacy rights and so on -- aren't so many gov > decisions on these and other issues done by simple ministerial decrees, > directed at specific or all sectors, which are not really different from > regulatory determinations? > > The point is not discarding wksps because the thematic field is one > regulated by the State. Is to get us (at least non-govs) a space to > exchange ideas and develop proposals on how precisely to confront those > mechanisms and decisions from above. > > My point is that wksps are generally too academic, too > one-speaks-everyone-else-listens-(or-not), and little is left in terms > of what many of us defend for the IGF itself -- at least a consensus > around proposals for action organized in a document. For me this is the > main problem which makes most of them useless (like a stream of > first-world phds presenting generalist views on "development and ICTs" > etc etc), not because some of the themes relate to State's regulatory > mechanisms or because the theme is already well discussed. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 04/14/2011 12:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a > > Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will > > be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the > > various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. > > Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in > > this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC > > rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find > > some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter > > into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and > > national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is > > the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law > > that matter, not IGF. > > > > On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry > > out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, > > see this recent IGP blog article: > > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html > > > > > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but > go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a > public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? > > > > It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, > > ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate > > globalized institutions. > > > > One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to > > be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where > > it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional > > environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute > > anything. It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN > > organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and > > others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic > > problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding > > the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can > > actually do something about. > > > > --MM > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > __ You > > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and > > to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 12:57:27 2011 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:57:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Leadership? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BE1B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <450EE0FF7413444E8CFEE87F4452034403A8FDA4@MAIL01.umic.pt> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BE1B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear all, Wolfgang wrote : *Nairobi is much more than another IGF.* +1 The May preparatory meeting will offer an opportunity to prove that self-organization can work and actually improve the IGF on its own. And Nairobi (with the slightly improved format decided during the february MAG discussions) could actually mark a new milestone if we all are convinced that it is the opportunity to really become serious about what this format can produce. Bertrand 2011/4/14 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Milton: > > One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be > utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be > entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and > issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. > > Wolfgang: > The problem is, that there is NO IGF leadership at the moment. The dilemma > is that the two key individuals who steered IGF - Nitin and Markus - are > gone, the MAG is in a limbo and the "overseeing body", the UN CSTD, is > unable to find a consensus beyond the simple decision to continue until > 2015. However, there is not only bad news. The opportunity is that a new > bottom up emerging self-organized leadership could constitute itself during > the forthcoming MAG meeting in May 2011 as a driving force which both > understands the issues and has a vision what to do (step by step) in the > coming years. A bottom up self organized successful IGF in Nairobi (this > would be before the 2nd Committee of the UNGA will start negotiations on > "IGF improvement") would demonstrate that there is no need to wait for > CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA recommendations to "improve" the IGF. The people themselves > (the "stakeholders") will understand what they have to do and they will > hopefully do it (without waiting for "permission"). > > The general problem is that the multistakeholder approach was accepted by > the heads of states in 2005 as a "theoretical" concept, but there was no > common understanding what it means in practice. Five years later we still > see more lip service than real implementation if ot comes to new forms of > (global) policy development and decision making. Nobody really knows what > the "respective roles" of the main stakeholders are and how the interaction > among the stakeholders should be organized and implemented. What we need is > indeed a set of (multistakeholder) guiding principles and formal procedures > for stakeholder interaction. A good subject for an IGF workshop. A great > challenge for a new "Framework of Commitments" (FoC). > > The risk is that the whole new MS approach could fail and could fall back > into traditional intergovernmental powerplay with opposing non-governmental > global mechanisms outside the (state) power structure. This is what you can > see now within the G 8 under the French Presidency and the Russian efforts > to get the issue into the 1st Committee of the UNGA, which deals with > security issues (and where non-governmental stakeholders have nothing to > say). > > As Thomas Schneider has recently put it nicely in a panel on > multistakeholderism (during the IGF-D), there is not yet a real > multistakeholder model in the world. ICANN and IGF as the two main > playgrounds for the new global governance model are still in their infant > stage and do not really offer opportunities "on equal footing". ICANN has > multistakeholder participation but it is under private sector leadership. > IGF has multistakeholder participation but it is (as we can see now) under > governmental (UN) leadership. We see the Board/GAC battle and we see the > CSTD WG composition battle between governments and non-governmental > stakeholder (with an deep dissens among the governments themselves in the > background). > > But the good news here is that the "patt", this "inter-governmental > agony", offers a "window of opportunity" for the further development of the > IGF and a new MAG which should move from "giving advice" to "steer the > process". Such a new (open) IGF Multistakeholder Steering Group for an IGF > 2.0 could become the first real model of an multistakeholder process which > offers equal opportunities to each stakeholders. > > With other words, workshop proposers and MAGgers should think big. Nairobi > is much more than another IGF. > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 13:08:11 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:08:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Report Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached the official report of the chair. He concludes: "The wealth of information as well as the complexity and political sensitivity of the subject and a significant divergence of views among member States on a number of concrete proposals did not, within the short time frame it had been given to complete its task, allow the Working Group to finalize a set of recommendations on improving the Internet Governance Forum. Some member States therefore suggested to extend the mandate of the Working Group beyond the fourteenth session of the CSTD in order for the Group to be able to debate the issues in greater detail and to submit recommendations, if appropriate, to the CSTD at its fifteenth session, in May 2012, as an input from the Commission to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council." ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: cstdwg-igf Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:55 PM Subject: Report Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum To: frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch Cc: hassane.makki at bakom.admin.ch, thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch, Mongi Hamdi Dear Sir/Madam, On behalf of the Chairman of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum, please find attached the report of the Working Group which will be transmitted to the CSTD at its 14th session. (As agreed during the Working Group's second meeting, Geneva 24 and 25 March, the Chair has drafted a short report on the outcomes of the Working Group. Another document, a summary by the Chair of the second meeting of the Working Group, will be finalised and sent to you shortly). With best regards, ********************************************* * Mongi Hamdi Head of the Secretariat of the United Nations Commission* * on Science and Technology for Development* * Palais des Nations* * Room E-7077, UNCTAD* * Geneva, Switzerland Tel. 004122 917 5069* -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: A_66_67?E_2011_79.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 67548 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 15:53:37 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:53:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [kictanet] Extension of the deadline for IGF workshop proposal submissions In-Reply-To: <4DA746D0.4040604@apc.org> References: <4DA746D0.4040604@apc.org> Message-ID: gives us more time to organise! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alice Munyua Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:11 PM Subject: [kictanet] Extension of the deadline for IGF workshop proposal submissions To: dogwallah at gmail.com Cc: DigAfrica at yahoogroups.com, KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Dear all, Please note deadline for submission of workshop proposals for the IGF taking place in September 27-30 in Nairobi has been extended to April 22nd. best Alice ---------------------- The Sixth Annual IGF Meeting will be held in Nairobi on 27-30 September 2011 at the United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON) Gigiri. The proposed main theme of the meeting is: 'Internet as a catalyst for change: access, development, freedoms and innovation'. The call for workshop proposals deadline  has now been extended to 22nd April 2011 Steps to submitting proposals see here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011 and below Thank you and looking forward to those proposals. p.s no payment required to propose and organize a workshop during the IGF Best Alice ------------------ Steps to submitting proposals Log in to the IGF Website with your username and password If you do not have a username and password you can register here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/user/register Once you have logged in click the menu item: Workshops ---> New Proposal. Once your proposal is submitted you can edit your proposal by going to the  "Manage your proposals" menu item under the Workshops menu The template for submitting can be viewed below. Proposals should respect the organizational principles and criteria for the selection of workshops. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) will assess the proposals. The final schedule will be determined in light of the number of proposals submitted. Organizational Principles The guiding organizational principle for holding workshops is the multi-stakeholder approach. Geographical diversity is an equally relevant factor. All proposals fulfilling the selection criteria and using the template will be posted on the IGF Web site. Proposals should preferably be submitted in English. 15 April 2011 is set as the final deadline for submitting proposals. Interested parties are encouraged to submit their proposals as early as possible, as the selection process will take place on an ongoing basis. An early decision will facilitate the planning of workshops. The rooms reserved for workshops and all equipment, including a screen and a PC or laptop for projections and a projector (XGA/SVGA Data), will be available free of charge. Details related to the logistics will be made available in due course. No Secretariat funding is available for the organization of workshops. Workshops should have a plan of incorporating remote participation into their sessions and organizers should identify a remote moderator. The workshops will be Web cast and have live transcription. There will be no interpretation provided for workshops.  If interpretation is desired the workshop organizers are free to make their own arrangements in coordination with the IGF Secretariat. The organizers will be responsible for all associated costs.  Selection criteria Relevance to the main themes and sub-themes. Priority will be given to proposals related to the main themes and relation to the theme questions. Demonstratively proposed or organized following the multi-stakeholder principle (e.g. at least three relevant stakeholder groups being represented in the organization of the workshop). Capacity to improve understanding of the IGF themes and topics. Proven experience, expertise and capacity to manage the staging of the workshop, including the raising of funds necessary to do so. Timeliness, completeness and adherence to deadlines. The provision of background papers. Developing country support Gender balance Balance of speakers to participant discussion in the design of the workshop; that is, the degree of interaction planned Youth participation Suitability for remote participation, for example linkages to a hub event. A name of a remote moderator is also required for each workshop. Content and format They are two general workshop types: - Feeder workshops: which will focus on the specific issues relevant to the Nairobi meeting themes and will act as leaders to the relevant main sessions. These workshops should also address themselves in part to one or some of the questions of its main session. As was done in previous years in the relevant main sessions, the moderators of these sessions will call on the feeder workshop rapporteurs to relate the viewpoints expressed in the workshops. Each feeder workshop will be asked to assign a rapporteur whose role will include attending the relevant main session, giving a brief overview of the session's discussions and take part in a one hour round table session that will immediately proceed the main session on that topic. They should also be available to act as a resource to the moderators of the relevant main session. To the extent possible participants from the feeder workshops are also encouraged to attend the main sessions related to the feeder workshops in order to broaden the discussions on the sub-themes of the sessions. - Other workshops: Workshops on other topics of relevance to Internet Governance. (More details to both these types of workshops are available in the draft programme paper.) Workshops dealing with topics that are addressed in the main meeting will not be scheduled at the same time as the main meeting. Workshops should explore a theme from different angles and different stakeholders' perspectives. Pure advocacy workshops will not be considered. All workshops will be Webcast and have realtime transcription. Workshops should respect the general format of meetings and should be structured to be interactive, allowing a large portion of their time for open discussion and interaction with meeting attendees, such as a Q&A session. They could include keynote presentations, moderated panels and discussions both from the floor and from remote participants. Workshops should be designed with the format that is most appropriate to the particular topic under discussion. Template for submitting proposals An online form will be made available shortly for the submission of workshop proposals containing the following questions: Question 1: Title of proposed workshop. Question 2: Please provide a concise description of the proposed workshop. Question 3: Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your workshop fall under? Question 4a: Have you, or any of your co-organizers, organized an IGF workshop before? Question 4b: If so, please provide the link(s) to the report(s): Question 5: Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to invite. Question 5b: Name of Remote Moderator. Question 6: Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups. (Please note that workshops are expected to adhere to the multistakeholder principle, including geographical and gender diversity and to provide different perspectives on the issues under discussion.) Proposals should not exceed 1000 words. Workshop organizers are encouraged to read the draft programme paper before submitting their workshops. Additional information Contact Person: Contact person's phone number: Contact Person's E-mail Address: Reporting _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dogwallah%40gmail.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Apr 14 15:53:40 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:53:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Report Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13zE$hsED1pNFACJ@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 14:08:11 on Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Marilia Maciel quotes a report: >Some member States therefore suggested to extend the mandate of the >Working Group beyond the fourteenth session of the CSTD in order for >the Group to be able to debate the issues in greater detail and to >submit recommendations, if appropriate, to the CSTD at its fifteenth >session, in May 2012, as an input from the Commission to the General >Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council." Which, as one would expect from the CSTD process, adds an entire year to the timeline. In this scenario, what happens in respect of a 2012 meeting? Are there any countries bidding yet. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 16:01:58 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:01:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [kictanet] Extension of the deadline for IGF workshop proposal submissions In-Reply-To: References: <4DA746D0.4040604@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks, McTim! On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:53 PM, McTim wrote: > gives us more time to organise! > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alice Munyua > Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:11 PM > Subject: [kictanet] Extension of the deadline for IGF workshop > proposal submissions > To: dogwallah at gmail.com > Cc: DigAfrica at yahoogroups.com, KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > > > > Dear all, > > Please note deadline for submission of workshop proposals for the IGF > taking place in September 27-30 in Nairobi has been extended to April > 22nd. > > > best > > Alice > ---------------------- > > The Sixth Annual IGF Meeting will be held in Nairobi on 27-30 > September 2011 at the United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON) Gigiri. > The proposed main theme of the meeting is: 'Internet as a catalyst for > change: access, development, freedoms and innovation'. > The call for workshop proposals deadline has now been extended to > 22nd April 2011 > > Steps to submitting proposals see here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011 > > and below > > Thank you and looking forward to those proposals. > > p.s no payment required to propose and organize a workshop during the IGF > > Best > > Alice > > ------------------ > > Steps to submitting proposals > > Log in to the IGF Website with your username and password > If you do not have a username and password you can register here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/user/register > Once you have logged in click the menu item: Workshops ---> New Proposal. > Once your proposal is submitted you can edit your proposal by going to > the "Manage your proposals" menu item under the Workshops menu > > The template for submitting can be viewed below. Proposals should > respect the organizational principles and criteria for the selection > of workshops. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) will assess > the proposals. The final schedule will be determined in light of the > number of proposals submitted. > > Organizational Principles > > The guiding organizational principle for holding workshops is the > multi-stakeholder approach. Geographical diversity is an equally > relevant factor. > All proposals fulfilling the selection criteria and using the template > will be posted on the IGF Web site. > Proposals should preferably be submitted in English. 15 April 2011 is > set as the final deadline for submitting proposals. > Interested parties are encouraged to submit their proposals as early > as possible, as the selection process will take place on an ongoing > basis. An early decision will facilitate the planning of workshops. > The rooms reserved for workshops and all equipment, including a screen > and a PC or laptop for projections and a projector (XGA/SVGA Data), > will be available free of charge. Details related to the logistics > will be made available in due course. No Secretariat funding is > available for the organization of workshops. > Workshops should have a plan of incorporating remote participation > into their sessions and organizers should identify a remote moderator. > The workshops will be Web cast and have live transcription. > There will be no interpretation provided for workshops. If > interpretation is desired the workshop organizers are free to make > their own arrangements in coordination with the IGF Secretariat. The > organizers will be responsible for all associated costs. > > Selection criteria > > Relevance to the main themes and sub-themes. Priority will be given to > proposals related to the main themes and relation to the theme > questions. > Demonstratively proposed or organized following the multi-stakeholder > principle (e.g. at least three relevant stakeholder groups being > represented in the organization of the workshop). > Capacity to improve understanding of the IGF themes and topics. > Proven experience, expertise and capacity to manage the staging of the > workshop, including the raising of funds necessary to do so. > Timeliness, completeness and adherence to deadlines. > The provision of background papers. > Developing country support > Gender balance > Balance of speakers to participant discussion in the design of the > workshop; that is, the degree of interaction planned > Youth participation > Suitability for remote participation, for example linkages to a hub event. > A name of a remote moderator is also required for each workshop. > > Content and format > > They are two general workshop types: > > - Feeder workshops: which will focus on the specific issues relevant > to the Nairobi meeting themes and will act as leaders to the relevant > main sessions. These workshops should also address themselves in part > to one or some of the questions of its main session. As was done in > previous years in the relevant main sessions, the moderators of these > sessions will call on the feeder workshop rapporteurs to relate the > viewpoints expressed in the workshops. Each feeder workshop will be > asked to assign a rapporteur whose role will include attending the > relevant main session, giving a brief overview of the session's > discussions and take part in a one hour round table session that will > immediately proceed the main session on that topic. They should also > be available to act as a resource to the moderators of the relevant > main session. To the extent possible participants from the feeder > workshops are also encouraged to attend the main sessions related to > the feeder workshops in order to broaden the discussions on the > sub-themes of the sessions. > > - Other workshops: Workshops on other topics of relevance to Internet > Governance. > > (More details to both these types of workshops are available in the > draft programme paper.) > > Workshops dealing with topics that are addressed in the main meeting > will not be scheduled at the same time as the main meeting. > Workshops should explore a theme from different angles and different > stakeholders' perspectives. Pure advocacy workshops will not be > considered. > All workshops will be Webcast and have realtime transcription. > Workshops should respect the general format of meetings and should be > structured to be interactive, allowing a large portion of their time > for open discussion and interaction with meeting attendees, such as a > Q&A session. They could include keynote presentations, moderated > panels and discussions both from the floor and from remote > participants. Workshops should be designed with the format that is > most appropriate to the particular topic under discussion. > > Template for submitting proposals > > An online form will be made available shortly for the submission of > workshop proposals containing the following questions: > > Question 1: Title of proposed workshop. > Question 2: Please provide a concise description of the proposed workshop. > Question 3: Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting > Priorities does your workshop fall under? > Question 4a: Have you, or any of your co-organizers, organized an IGF > workshop before? > Question 4b: If so, please provide the link(s) to the report(s): > Question 5: Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you > are planning to invite. > Question 5b: Name of Remote Moderator. > Question 6: Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and > their affiliation to various stakeholder groups. (Please note that > workshops are expected to adhere to the multistakeholder principle, > including geographical and gender diversity and to provide different > perspectives on the issues under discussion.) > > > > Proposals should not exceed 1000 words. > > Workshop organizers are encouraged to read the draft programme paper > before submitting their workshops. > > Additional information > > Contact Person: > Contact person's phone number: > Contact Person's E-mail Address: > > Reporting > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dogwallah%40gmail.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder > platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT > policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for > reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled > growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and > bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, > respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or > qualifications. > > > > -- > 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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 16:14:58 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:14:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A45@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409799E2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1302056257.4324.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A45@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > “capacity building” is not the IGF’s purpose, that is the purpose foisted > upon it by people who want to neuter it. Guess what? They have succeeded, > which is why fewer and fewer people care about what the IGF does. para 72 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: . . . h. Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. > > > > I think the tack I would take is that because there is a conflict between > those who want outputs and those who want to focus on capacity building, the > IGF spends too much time and energy on discussing itself, and not enough > time doing its main purpose, which is capacity building. ok, maybe I should have said "mandate" and not main purpose. In either case, I'm waiting for that biz class ticket ;-) -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 17:00:36 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:00:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Europe commits to self-regulation Message-ID: http://www.iabuk.net/en/1/europecommitstoselfregulation140411.mxs industry self-regulation anyone? -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 18:00:57 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:00:57 +1200 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: If there is a Network Neutrality Workshop, I would suggest that both developed and developing countries' perspectives are shared so that we can have a global holistic picture of the topic and issues and how they are interconnected to each other. Sala On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only give the > developing world perspective. What I have felt on NN issues is lobbies > fighting with each other while keeping out the developing world segment that > will be truly affected by the Internet. > > I want to add the capacity building element here. I don't see a single > activity on the ground where a certain NN advocacy group has gone to > regulators to educate them on NN related issues and how to/not to develop a > stand on the issue. The fact remains that the larger portion of Internet and > Web resources remain in the developed West and the developing east and south > are usually outside the picture. > > Not having the knowledge nor capacity leads regulators to regulate the > Internet in such a way that is not beneficial for their citizenry and in the > long run not at all beneficial for the governments themselves because they > cap themselves from providing their social and economic setup the > opportunity that a neutral network would actually offer. This is a whole > different debate. > > Within the NN debate I am yet to see corporations from the developing world > step into the discussion or fight on issues pertaining to the topic at any > global Internet discussion forum so the issue remains, do we want to bring > in those that continue to blur the NN debate and give them the opportunity > to continue to do so or should we now move the whole NN discussion towards > the developing countries. > > I appreciate the fact that such detailed documentation is being identified > but it really does not reflect an opportunity but more of a blurring > activity that should be avoided and a very subjective approach to addressing > the NN realities keeping developing countries as the focus should be > adopted. > > _-- FoO > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > >> Janna, Jeremy, Parminder, colleagues, >> >> >> >> Let me reflect briefly on NN proposal. >> >> >> >> Searching for common sets of norms is the right next step, I agree. >> Summarising the discussion of previous years, and especially of the latest >> workshop at the IGF in Vilnius, there are two major open issues related to >> such a common set of norms: >> >> 1) *Format of the "document",* if any: >> >> · business is inclined to support "ex post" (case-by-case) rather >> than "ex ante" regulation, justifying it with competition and need for space >> for innovations in business models; >> >> · users are inclined to ask for a more formal "safeguards" from >> the big telco business, not trusting the market only (esp. after the >> economic crises); >> >> · regulators (some of them - like Norway) work towards >> "collaborative regulation" with finding the win-win approach for all sides >> and formulising it in the "guidelines"/"recommendations" format, yet leaving >> the option of the "stick" to move it to "hard law" if needed >> >> *2) **"Exceptions" from these norms* >> >> · business presents the challenges in broadband delivery and qos >> - especially with wireless internet - in light of "next billion users" and >> new high-bandwidth services that are still to come; they argue that, while >> NN for "Internet as we know it" is fine, space should be given to "new >> services" (and they/we don't know yet what these will be) to develop without >> limitations - therefore allowing the "exceptions" >> >> · users are eager to hear more on what these services will really >> be and if there is really a need for exceptions - especially in developing >> countries where it is expected the next billion users will start using "the >> new services" immediately as well >> >> · regulators are cautious - on one hand they need to assure >> consumers protection and innovations at ends, while on the other hand they >> need to create the environment to business for further investments and >> possible innovations in business models as well >> >> Based on these two components, the discussion on possible effects of NN >> set of norms on business and users - especially on developing countries - >> can be analysed. >> >> >> >> Diplo supports this workshop and will be happy to co-sponsor it and assist >> with preparations. >> >> >> >> Since we will likely again bring number of successful participants of our >> capacity building programmes from developing countries - from governments, >> regulators, civil society... - to the IGF, we may get them involved directly >> as well. >> >> >> >> Best! >> >> >> >> Vlada >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *** >> >> The latest from Diplo... >> >> >> >> E-Diplomacy – edip.diplomomacy.edu >> >> Exploring the appropriate use of new tools for diplomacy. Join our >> network! >> >> www.facebook.com/ediplomacy >> >> *** >> >> >> >> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ >> >> >> >> Vladimir Radunovic >> >> Coordinator >> >> Internet Governance Programmes >> >> DiploFoundation >> >> email: vladar at diplomacy.edu >> >> web: www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> >> >> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ >> >> >> >> * * >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> >> *Subject: * >> >> Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops (summary) >> >> *Date: * >> >> Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:07:46 -0400 >> >> *From: * >> >> Janna Anderson >> >> *Reply-To: * >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org,Janna Anderson >> >> *To: * >> >> , Jeremy Malcolm >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy, >> >> >> >> Thanks for all of your work; as usual wonderful at all levels. >> >> >> >> If you need a co-sponsor to list for any of these if you think Imagining the >> >> Internet may be helpful to list, please do so. I will try to provide >> >> assistance as is possible. I'm not completely certain that we are funded for >> >> the Nairobi journey, but I hope and expect that I or another faculty leader >> >> from Imagining the Internet will be there with as many as three or four >> >> students to do documentary coverage and provide support in any way we can >> >> for all at IGF and the IGC. >> >> >> >> I want to add that Diplo Foundation has been leading net neutrality >> >> discussions at the past two IGFs. I do not know if Vladimir Radinovich and >> >> the others want to be involved or not, but I thought I would pass that along >> >> to you. You or Ginger might want to contact them directly, so this can be >> >> value-added work. >> >> >> >> Janna >> >> >> >> On 4/11/11 1:11 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >> >> >> >> > I'm not proposing to do an actual consensus call poll over the three IGC >> >> > workshops, since they are not in the nature of statements and there is >> >> > room for many viewpoints within all of them, but this is a summary of >> >> > the status of our three workshop proposals so far, to which any more >> >> > suggestions or serious objections are invited. We also need volunteers >> >> > to co-organise and to serve as remote moderators as noted below. >> >> > >> >> > These are listed here in the order they were proposed. We will be >> >> > submitting the workshop proposals by this Friday. >> >> > >> >> > 1. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 >> >> > >> >> > As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to >> >> > the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of >> >> > "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN >> >> > General Assembly Mandate". Although there was no consensus >> >> > around this proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect >> >> > proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups >> >> > have also previously aired. It is also one of the only >> >> > relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to >> >> > emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a >> >> > convenient starting point for further discussion. >> >> > >> >> > It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key >> >> > questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group >> >> > for each issue develop background material on it, to be >> >> > considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable >> >> > discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that >> >> > discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on >> >> > each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other >> >> > relevant bodies for their action and feedback. >> >> > >> >> > Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully >> >> > discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide >> >> > a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an >> >> > opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the >> >> > proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether >> >> > and how to take such proposals forward. >> >> > >> >> > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC (possibly ISOC Chennai) >> >> > >> >> > Organisers for IGC: Jeremy Malcolm and Marilia Maciel >> >> > >> >> > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) >> >> > >> >> > Speakers: TBC >> >> > >> >> > 2. Mapping Internet Governance >> >> > >> >> > This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance >> >> > decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and >> >> > decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make >> >> > decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals >> >> > and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints >> >> > and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? >> >> > >> >> > Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the >> >> > workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for >> >> > creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses >> >> > these questions, and for thereafter keeping this document >> >> > up-to-date. >> >> > >> >> > Sponsors: IGC, others TBC >> >> > >> >> > Organisers for IGC: Nobert Bollow (another needed!) >> >> > >> >> > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) >> >> > >> >> > Speakers: TBC >> >> > >> >> > 3. A possible framework for global Net Neutrality >> >> > >> >> > Network Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet public >> >> > policy issues in many countries, over the last year; US's >> >> > Federal Communications Commission came out with NN guidelines >> >> > that built over an agreement between two principal corporate >> >> > players in the area, EU has bene conducting a pulbic hearing on >> >> > the issue, French telecom regulatory authority have come out >> >> > with a set of NN proposals and recommendations, Brazil a >> >> > drafting a new civil rights framework for the Internet of which >> >> > NN is an important issue. Earlier, in 2009, Norway came out with >> >> > a much acclaimed set of NN guidelines. >> >> > >> >> > In the background, since Internet is essentially a global >> >> > network and finally there must be common global norms on whether >> >> > content can be prioritised across global digital highways >> >> > including across global interconnection points) on payments by >> >> > the content providers or not. Interesting, cross border network >> >> > neutrality is a subject being dealt with by an experts committee >> >> > on the Council of Europe. If we do not start talking about >> >> > global norms, taking into consideration the interests and >> >> > viewpoints of all involved, we will eventually be faced by a >> >> > default regime of global traffic flows which will be whatever >> >> > gets decided by the key economic powers. This is undemocratic >> >> > way of subjecting the global public to the political choices of >> >> > a few, most powerful. On the other hand, it is also true that >> >> > even in the more powerful nations, policy making in this area >> >> > may become hostage to the interests of multinational digital >> >> > corporations at the cost of the national public interest. It it >> >> > therefore of considerable value even for the more powerful >> >> > countries to seek global norms on NN. >> >> > >> >> > The proposed workshop will explore the emerging progressive >> >> > regimes in different countries and explore the possibility of >> >> > coming up with a common set of global norms on NN. >> >> > >> >> > Sponsors: IGC, IT for Change (I presume), others TBC >> >> > >> >> > Organisers for IGC: Parminder Jeet Singh >> >> > >> >> > Remote moderator: TBC (volunteer needed!) >> >> > >> >> > Speakers: TBC >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Janna Quitney Anderson >> >> Director of Imagining the Internet >> >> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >> >> >> >> Associate Professor of Communications >> >> Director of Internet Projects >> >> School of Communications >> >> Elon University >> >> andersj at elon.edu >> >> (336) 278-5733 (o) >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 01:46:26 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:46:26 +0300 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Foo On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only give the > developing world perspective. Is there such a thing? I've never seen one. Here in Africa, it's just not on many agendas. > What I have felt on NN issues is lobbies fighting with each other while > keeping out the developing world segment that will be truly affected by the > Internet. > > I want to add the capacity building element here. I don't see a single > activity on the ground where a certain NN advocacy group has gone to > regulators to educate them on NN related issues and how to/not to develop a > stand on the issue. > I'm all about capacity building, so this could be a useful project. > The fact remains that the larger portion of Internet and Web resources > remain in the developed West and the developing east and south are usually > outside the picture. > What resources are you talking about, and how does this impact NN? > Not having the knowledge nor capacity leads regulators to regulate the > Internet in such a way that is not beneficial for their citizenry and in the > long run not at all beneficial for the governments themselves because they > cap themselves from providing their social and economic setup the > opportunity that a neutral network would actually offer. > Can you give examples? > This is a whole different debate. > > Within the NN debate I am yet to see corporations from the developing world > step into the discussion or fight on issues pertaining to the topic at any > global Internet discussion forum so the issue remains, do we want to bring > in those that continue to blur the NN debate and give them the opportunity > to continue to do so or should we now move the whole NN discussion towards > the developing countries. > I can't parse this. I don't know who is guilty of blurring (except anti-NN lobbies), which may be who you mean. What is confusing is that you say that there is a lack of capacity in the developing world on the one hand, yet want to include only them? How is "the blind leading the blind" useful? NB this is not a slur or denigration of the visually impaired, rather "a metaphor used in antiquity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind I particularity like this one: "Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind. " from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/67150.html -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Apr 15 02:52:51 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:52:51 +0900 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: >Foo > >On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Fouad Bajwa ><fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote: > >It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only give >the developing world perspective. > > > >Is there such a thing? > >I've never seen one. Here in Africa, it's just not on many agendas. > > Interesting point. McTim, how about asking on the kictanet list and see if people there (various stakeholders) think it's an issue worth discussing, perhaps some might support the workshop. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 03:38:45 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:38:45 +0500 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi McTim, FCC discussing network freedom or NN has no concern for Pakistan because their gov doesn't know what their talking about and how does it impact the future of the Internet in Pakistan and the citizens of the country don't give a damn about the debate so why is the global community even talking about it, what's their problem, lets not have a workshop of NN anyways. Thats the weak link that has to be mitigated. They have to be concerned and why, that is the objective that I was trying to bring into the discussion and not attempting to go through an unwinding debate. At one point we talk about distribution and management of critical Internet resources, at the other end we say it the debate can't be done in developing countries because the debate is just on one side of the world. Thats the whole point, shift the dialogue to another part of the world and break the NN silos sustained by NN debate gurus and away from the sector that is afraid of improvements to the IGF the most. When you say that: > What is confusing is that you say that > there is a lack of capacity in the developing world on the one hand, yet > want to include only them? Now I am confused why you fall into the silo trap........I said developing country perspective only which means bring in the NN gurus that can tell developing countries after listening to the developing country's perception of NN, that where they are right and wrong, thats the first case, create the awareness. You are definitely technically strong and that is why you refer to what resources and what examples and since I am not in an intervention with you here, I will reserve my right, energy and knowledge to explain and would be happy to discuss this out with only people coming from similar conditions as of mine. In the end, if workshops are only to feed the educated or give a few minutes of fame to the worthy, the whole point of workshop organizations fades. Secondly, my generation comes in with a different perspective and it can be changed or improved by failed perceptions. The NN debate can be developing country led and there is no opposition to it unless silos get threatened. Best Fouad On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, McTim wrote: > Foo > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only give the >> developing world perspective. > > Is there such a thing? > > I've never seen one.  Here in Africa, it's just not on many agendas. > > >> >> What I have felt on NN issues is lobbies fighting with each other while >> keeping out the developing world segment that will be truly affected by the >> Internet. >> I want to add the capacity building element here. I don't see a single >> activity on the ground where a certain NN advocacy group has gone to >> regulators to educate them on NN related issues and how to/not to develop a >> stand on the issue. > > I'm all about capacity building, so this could be a useful project. > > >> >> The fact remains that the larger portion of Internet and Web resources >> remain in the developed West and the developing east and south are usually >> outside the picture. > > What resources are you talking about, and how does this impact NN? > > >> >> Not having the knowledge nor capacity leads regulators to regulate the >> Internet in such a way that is not beneficial for their citizenry and in the >> long run not at all beneficial for the governments themselves because they >> cap themselves from providing their social and economic setup the >> opportunity that a neutral network would actually offer. > > Can you give examples? > > >> >> This is a whole different debate. >> Within the NN debate I am yet to see corporations from the developing >> world step into the discussion or fight on issues pertaining to the topic at >> any global Internet discussion forum so the issue remains, do we want to >> bring in those that continue to blur the NN debate and give them the >> opportunity to continue to do so or should we now move the whole NN >> discussion towards the developing countries. > > I can't parse this.  I don't know who is guilty of blurring (except anti-NN > lobbies), which may be who you mean.  What is confusing is that you say that > there is a lack of capacity in the developing world on the one hand, yet > want to include only them?  How is "the blind leading the blind" useful? NB > this is not a slur or denigration of the visually impaired, rather "a > metaphor used in antiquity" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind > > I particularity like this one: > > "Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, > fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind. " > > from > > http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/67150.html > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 03:42:22 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:42:22 +0500 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Typo: sorry, the last paragraph had a typo: can has to be read as can't as follows: "Secondly, my generation comes in with a different perspective and it can't be changed or improved by failed perceptions" -- Fouad -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 08:28:51 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:28:51 -0300 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Fouad, how about using whatever knowledge and experience on NN that is available in the US to improve the discussion on what NN means in developing countries? What if one or two NN experts from the US exposed the context and important details of the issue in their country to another two panelists from developing countries who then pitch in and comment on what aspects of NN are indeed relevant for developing countries. And then everyone - and hopefully (active) workshop participants from developing countries - will take the discussion on from there. This way the workgroup can benefit from this experience and knowledge while also preventing the debate from being steered by a developed-country interest on the subject. I do think we can meet in the middle on this. Best, Ivar On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:42, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Typo: > > sorry, the last paragraph had a typo: can has to be read as can't as > follows: > > "Secondly, my generation comes in with a different perspective and it > can't be changed or improved by failed perceptions" > > -- Fouad > > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 08:57:15 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:57:15 +0500 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I would propose to have a balance of perspectives then. If there was one member from each, say one from the FCC, one from Corporations or like Vint Cerf and Milton Mueller from Civil Society from the US and then on the developing country bench, one from the Brazilian Govt, one from Corporate Sector in Africa and Parminder from IGC, then we would have a strong debate and equal contribution. I would then propose going for a super workshop of 3 hours straight so that the participants can also have two minutes. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote: > Fouad, > how about using whatever knowledge and experience on NN that is available in > the US to improve the discussion on what NN means in developing countries? > What if one or two NN experts from the US exposed the context and important > details of the issue in their country to another two panelists from > developing countries who then pitch in and comment on what aspects of NN are > indeed relevant for developing countries. And then everyone - and hopefully > (active) workshop participants from developing countries - will take the > discussion on from there. > This way the workgroup can benefit from this experience and knowledge while > also preventing the debate from being steered by a developed-country > interest on the subject. > I do think we can meet in the middle on this. > Best, Ivar > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:42, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Typo: >> >> sorry, the last paragraph had a typo: can has to be read as can't as >> follows: >> >> "Secondly, my generation comes in with a different perspective and it >> can't be changed or improved by failed perceptions" >> >>  -- Fouad >> >> >> -- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 09:07:10 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:07:10 -0300 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I think that would be a great line-up, Fouad! Maybe this way we might convince prof. Mueller to attend the IGF after all =) I agree, there's no sense in gathering people like this to discuss an issue of such relevance in only 1-2 hours. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:57, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I would propose to have a balance of perspectives then. If there was > one member from each, say one from the FCC, one from Corporations or > like Vint Cerf and Milton Mueller from Civil Society from the US and > then on the developing country bench, one from the Brazilian Govt, one > from Corporate Sector in Africa and Parminder from IGC, then we would > have a strong debate and equal contribution. I would then propose > going for a super workshop of 3 hours straight so that the > participants can also have two minutes. > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann > wrote: > > Fouad, > > how about using whatever knowledge and experience on NN that is available > in > > the US to improve the discussion on what NN means in developing > countries? > > What if one or two NN experts from the US exposed the context and > important > > details of the issue in their country to another two panelists from > > developing countries who then pitch in and comment on what aspects of NN > are > > indeed relevant for developing countries. And then everyone - and > hopefully > > (active) workshop participants from developing countries - will take the > > discussion on from there. > > This way the workgroup can benefit from this experience and knowledge > while > > also preventing the debate from being steered by a developed-country > > interest on the subject. > > I do think we can meet in the middle on this. > > Best, Ivar > > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:42, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> > >> Typo: > >> > >> sorry, the last paragraph had a typo: can has to be read as can't as > >> follows: > >> > >> "Secondly, my generation comes in with a different perspective and it > >> can't be changed or improved by failed perceptions" > >> > >> -- Fouad > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 15 09:33:44 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:03:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> On Thursday 14 April 2011 08:34 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities. Can you tell me about some developing countries (other than Brazil, and perhaps recently Chile) where anything is happening on Net Neutrality? > The positions of the various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law that matter, not IGF. So that is where your world stops :). Yes, US and EU are doing fine at home on NN, but can we, rest of us, not just wait till US and EU NN rules are finalized and through their economic (also political and social) might imposed on the rest of the world? By your permission, we are just seeking democratic management of the medium that is touted as a great democratic force. Do you agree to such an objective? do you want to contribute? parminder > > > On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, see this recent IGP blog article: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? > > It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging from Wikileaks > to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions. > > One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. > It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about. > > --MM > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Apr 15 09:56:01 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:56:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Update Re: "Mapping IG" Message-ID: <20110415135601.E437015C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> FYI here's the current status of the "Mapping IG" workshop proposals. Many thanks to everyone who has provided valuable suggestiond and advice!!! There's still three open panelist slots where I'm still waiting for a response and may need to follow up by phone and/or ask someone else. Also the person who i hope will be co-organizer still needs to receive the ok from his employer. I think that we have a credible and important proposal here, and I fully expect it to be accepted. As soon as that has happened, I'll probably want to set up an "advisory group" and an "editing group" and try to get the preparatory work started. Greetings, Norbert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Question 1: Title of proposed workshop: Mapping Internet Governance Question 2: Please provide a concise description of the proposed workshop: This workshop will explore where and how Internet Governance decisions are currently taken. What are the relevant fora and decision-making bodies? In what topic areas do they make decisions and with what kinds of impacts? How can individuals and stakeholder organizations make sure that their viewpoints and concerns are appropriately taken into consideration? Besides having a discussion of these topics in Nairobi, the workshop aims at initiating a multistakeholder process for creating a document "Map of Internet Governance" which addresses these questions from a balanced, multistakeholder perspective, and for thereafter keeping this document up-to-date. As a starting point for the discussions, a list of already existing documents with similar goals and a rough draft for a first edition of the Map will be prepared in advance. At the workshop itself, it will be a main goal to learn from diverse stakeholders about what information is important to them to empower their effective participation in Internet Governance fora. There will be special emphasis on the challenges related to effective participation from developing countries in Internet Governance decision-making processes, with the objective of ensuring that the resulting decisions become more conductive to development goals. Question 4a: Have you, or any of your co-organizers, organized an IGF workshop before? no Question 4b: If so, please provide the link(s) to the report(s): Question 5: Provide the names and affiliations of the panelists you are planning to invite. Panelists: Definite or tentative acceptance of the invitation to participate as panelists has so far been received from the following: David Souter: Managing Director, ict Development Associates; author of http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/books/mapping-internet-public-policy ; Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde; Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics; Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development Bitange Ndemo: Permanent Secretary in The Ministry for Information And Communications, Republic of Kenya Jeremy Malcolm: Consumers International, Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East It is foreseen that there will be in total six panelists; efforts are underway to invite in addition * a second person with experience as an author or editor in mapping IG fora and decision-making procedures, * someone from a supranational organization in Latin America, such as e.g. ECLAC, * someone from the technical community with strong understanding of the needs of the private sector, e.g. a representative of AfriNIC or APNIC. Remote Moderator: Ginger Paque [Born in US, 35 year resident of Venezuela]: DiploFoundation, ISOC, IGC, RPWG Note on IGF Themes: The workshop falls under the Internet governance for development cross-cutting priority. In addition, all of the five broad IGF Themes will be explicitly addressed by discussing what are the main governance processes relevant to each of these themes. The workshop and its resulting "Map of Internet Governance" document will contribute to capacity building in all of these thematic areas, and to empowering individuals as well as stakeholder organizations to become directly involved in the Internet Governance processes which are relevant to their area of interest. Question 6: Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups. (Please note that workshops are expected to adhere to the multistakeholder principle, including geographical and gender diversity and to provide different perspectives on the issues under discussion.) Norbert Bollow: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus; Swiss Open Systems User Group /ch/open ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Apr 15 10:02:58 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:02:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A4F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> (message from Milton L Mueller on Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:56:53 -0400) References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA6E7C2.1040708@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A4F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20110415140258.486F015C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Milton L Mueller wrote: > Can you give me a reason why I should want to have that conversation > in Nairobi instead of in the US where I will be heard and > interacting with North American regulators, policy experts, advocacy > groups who will directly affect what happens here? As far as I can see, the only reason to have the conversation in Nairobi is if the conversation in Nairobi is set up in such a way that it results in some kind of output document that will be taken seriously in multiple countries. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 10:02:09 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:02:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Milton reading intervention and relying on that of Parminder, I think it would be wise not only for Africans but for all states to consider a targeted meeting with regulators in order to enable decision makers policies of African countries to assess the problem's only NN but also reviews the internal resources as a whole. Exchange of successful experience are required. In this context, it is necessary to keep the dynamic participation of all stakeholders. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/4/15 parminder > > > On Thursday 14 April 2011 08:34 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities. > > > Can you tell me about some developing countries (other than Brazil, and > perhaps recently Chile) where anything is happening on Net Neutrality? > > The positions of the various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law that matter, not IGF. > > > So that is where your world stops :). Yes, US and EU are doing fine at home > on NN, but can we, rest of us, not just wait till US and EU NN rules are > finalized and through their economic (also political and social) might > imposed on the rest of the world? By your permission, we are just seeking > democratic management of the medium that is touted as a great democratic > force. Do you agree to such an objective? do you want to contribute? > > parminder > > > > On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, see this recent IGP blog article: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? > > It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging from Wikileaks > > > to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions. > > One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. > It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about. > > --MM > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 10:12:18 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:12:18 +0200 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I fully agree with the suggestion by Ivar. I dare say that it would be desirable that all proposals be prepared and sent to African countries so that the debate be more objective and rewarding. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/4/15 Ivar A. M. Hartmann > Fouad, > how about using whatever knowledge and experience on NN that is available > in the US to improve the discussion on what NN means in developing > countries? > What if one or two NN experts from the US exposed the context and important > details of the issue in their country to another two panelists from > developing countries who then pitch in and comment on what aspects of NN are > indeed relevant for developing countries. And then everyone - and hopefully > (active) workshop participants from developing countries - will take the > discussion on from there. > This way the workgroup can benefit from this experience and knowledge while > also preventing the debate from being steered by a developed-country > interest on the subject. > I do think we can meet in the middle on this. > Best, Ivar > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:42, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Typo: >> >> sorry, the last paragraph had a typo: can has to be read as can't as >> follows: >> >> "Secondly, my generation comes in with a different perspective and it >> can't be changed or improved by failed perceptions" >> >> -- Fouad >> >> >> -- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 11:25:03 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:25:03 +0300 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Foo >> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Fouad Bajwa >> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only give the >> developing world perspective. >> >> >> >> Is there such a thing? >> >> I've never seen one.  Here in Africa, it's just not on many agendas. >> >> > > > Interesting point.  McTim, how about asking on the kictanet list and see if > people there (various stakeholders) think it's an issue worth discussing, > perhaps some might support the workshop. NB: this is the same point made by PJS, just comes at it from a different perspective. Sure I can do that. How shall I/we define what we mean by NN?? I think we are all for NN, just some of us have different definitions. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 15 12:26:01 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:56:01 +0530 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4DA87199.4030409@itforchange.net> On Friday 15 April 2011 08:55 PM, McTim wrote: > > NB: this is the same point made by PJS, just comes at it from a > different perspective. > > Sure I can do that. How shall I/we define what we mean by NN?? > > I think we are all for NN, just some of us have different definitions. > I dont think it is so. I completely agree with the definition that FCC uses for NN (available at the link http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutralnprm.htm forwarded earlier by Adam). And I have seen all serious advocates of NN agree to such a definition. This thing about different definitions is mostly a red herring. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri Apr 15 13:49:23 2011 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:49:23 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: All, I'm not sure if what I'm going to insert below pertains directly to the discussion on this list, but I found it useful. Dave Crocker makes a differentiation between two different concepts of what is called net neutrality: >Discussion about "neutrality" needs to distinguish between Service >Neutrality and Participant Neutrality. > > >Participant Neutrality means that email from or to me gets treated >the same as mail from or to you. Equally, web pages I retrieve from >Google get treated the same as web pages I retrieve from Yahoo! or >from ietf.org. Differential handling is based on >IP Address or Domain Name. > >Service Neutrality means that email, web, voip telephone calls, >real-time remote sensor data, and every other type of "application" >get treated equally. Differential handling is based on the IP >Protocol field or the TCP/UDP Port number. Real service neutrality >means that it is not possible for the network infrastructure to >support quality of service guarantees, such as inter-packet arrival >times (jitter.) > >The challenge of service neutrality is technical, such as dealing >with the potential that preference for one service will destroy the >ability to use another service. > >The challenge of participant neutrality is political, since it >relates to potentially unfair treatment of different people or >organizations. > >An example of Participant Neutrality that can be masked as Service >Neutrality is when two organizations have competing application >protocols and one is given preference. The preference appears to be >based on the protocol but is really concerned with who is operating >the service. > >Discussions about net neutrality typically fail to make this basic >distinction and therefore typically wind up with people talking past >each other or, worse, imposing policies that really do restrict the >ability of the Internet to properly support adequate operation of a >service. Further, it may be the case that you can have one or the other, but not both simultaneously. I haven't thought that through, but if it's true, then there's a whole space of net neutrality components that need more detailed analysis. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 6:25 PM +0300 4/15/11, McTim wrote: >On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Foo >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Fouad Bajwa >>> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only give the >>> developing world perspective. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is there such a thing? >>> >>> I've never seen one. Here in Africa, it's just not on many agendas. >>> >>> >> >> >> Interesting point. McTim, how about asking on the kictanet list and see if >> people there (various stakeholders) think it's an issue worth discussing, >> perhaps some might support the workshop. > >NB: this is the same point made by PJS, just comes at it from a >different perspective. > >Sure I can do that. How shall I/we define what we mean by NN?? > >I think we are all for NN, just some of us have different definitions. > >-- >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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Apr 15 14:04:55 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:04:55 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC9971D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Agreed Dave's distinctions are helpful. There's still another possible dimension AT&T has pushed at times - 'search neutrality;' which may relate to the current EU competition policy investigation of Google. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky [george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 1:49 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; Adam Peake Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO All, I'm not sure if what I'm going to insert below pertains directly to the discussion on this list, but I found it useful. Dave Crocker makes a differentiation between two different concepts of what is called net neutrality: Discussion about "neutrality" needs to distinguish between Service Neutrality and Participant Neutrality. Participant Neutrality means that email from or to me gets treated the same as mail from or to you. Equally, web pages I retrieve from Google get treated the same as web pages I retrieve from Yahoo! or from ietf.org. Differential handling is based on IP Address or Domain Name. Service Neutrality means that email, web, voip telephone calls, real-time remote sensor data, and every other type of "application" get treated equally. Differential handling is based on the IP Protocol field or the TCP/UDP Port number. Real service neutrality means that it is not possible for the network infrastructure to support quality of service guarantees, such as inter-packet arrival times (jitter.) The challenge of service neutrality is technical, such as dealing with the potential that preference for one service will destroy the ability to use another service. The challenge of participant neutrality is political, since it relates to potentially unfair treatment of different people or organizations. An example of Participant Neutrality that can be masked as Service Neutrality is when two organizations have competing application protocols and one is given preference. The preference appears to be based on the protocol but is really concerned with who is operating the service. Discussions about net neutrality typically fail to make this basic distinction and therefore typically wind up with people talking past each other or, worse, imposing policies that really do restrict the ability of the Internet to properly support adequate operation of a service. Further, it may be the case that you can have one or the other, but not both simultaneously. I haven't thought that through, but if it's true, then there's a whole space of net neutrality components that need more detailed analysis. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 6:25 PM +0300 4/15/11, McTim wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Foo >> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Fouad Bajwa >> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only give the >> developing world perspective. >> >> >> >> Is there such a thing? >> >> I've never seen one. Here in Africa, it's just not on many agendas. >> >> > > > Interesting point. McTim, how about asking on the kictanet list and see if > people there (various stakeholders) think it's an issue worth discussing, > perhaps some might support the workshop. NB: this is the same point made by PJS, just comes at it from a different perspective. Sure I can do that. How shall I/we define what we mean by NN?? I think we are all for NN, just some of us have different definitions. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 15:33:24 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:33:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: That is my feeling too. Everything seems to stop with EU and US centric NN discussions and debates. The rest of the world can sit quietly and wait while everything is okay on that side and the rules are set for the rest to follow. NN seems to be a no go area or no discuss issue for the developing world and thats where the primary questions arises to how can developing regions take on this debate because the neutrality of the network is as important for them and their sustainability too. The developed perspective usually is that what they say is what is authority over any other discussion and I cannot buy that. -- FoO On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:33 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Thursday 14 April 2011 08:34 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network > neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by > national regulatory authorities. > > Can you tell me about some developing countries (other than Brazil, and > perhaps recently Chile) where anything is happening on Net Neutrality? > > The positions of the various actors and interest groups are well known and > well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what > happens in this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC > rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find some other > way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter into the equation. > The same can be said for Europe: the EU and national regulatory authorities > are actively debating this, and it is the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG > MARKT and its competition law that matter, not IGF. > > So that is where your world stops :). Yes, US and EU are doing fine at home > on NN, but can we, rest of us, not just wait till US and EU NN rules are > finalized and through their economic (also political and social) might > imposed on the rest of the world? By your permission, we are just seeking > democratic management of the medium that is touted as a great democratic > force. Do you agree to such an objective? do you want to contribute? > > parminder > > > > On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for > a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, see this > recent IGP blog article: > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go > beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public > list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? > > It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging > from Wikileaks > > to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions. > > One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be > utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be > entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and > issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. > It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, > which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy > publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no > capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving > smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about. > > --MM > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 15:38:27 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:38:27 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA6E7C2.1040708@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Not exactly. As I read through the book, I learn another perspective and if one would continuously take the stance of neglecting the diversity of views, there would be nothing interesting to read? So I like the idea of reading through and learning how this writer approaches what he is trying to prove and where he heads with it. I've gone through other books as well on IG and have almost all the ones out there in my collection and everyone has a perspective of their own and where they come from takes time to understand. Its good to see some different material by a non-US or not your typical Internet issues writer :o) Now I am getting more interested in this after reading Milton's review and Charles comment. This guy really does have an interesting edge to him and I am happy reading some non-US and what the FCC says is the way content here :o) -- FoO On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Charles Mok (gmail) wrote: > I concur with Milton. I bought this book by mistake on my Kindle and it is a > waste of my money.  To me, it is a well-tried tactic of writing an opposite, > sensationalist view, and it is bound to sell books.  That's all.  For this > level of flawed arguments, I am actually quite amused by the level of > attention he got. > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Fouad >> I've reviewed Morozov's flawed arguments in detail here. >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/1/13/4726219.html >> >> all I have time to say for now. >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:33 AM >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso >> > Cc: Milton L Mueller; cstd at igf-online.net >> > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance? >> > >> > Hi Milton, you give a mixed opinion. By the way this would be of >> > interest to you: >> > >> > The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World >> > by Evgeny Morozov >> > http://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-How-Liberate- >> > World/dp/1846143535/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt >> > >> > Synopsis: "Does free information mean free people? >> > At the start of the twenty-first century we were promised that the >> > internet would liberate the world. We could come together as never >> > before, and from Iran's 'twitter revolution' to Facebook 'activism', >> > technological innovation would spread democracy to oppressed peoples >> > everywhere. >> > >> > We couldn't have been more wrong. In The Net Delusion Evgeny Morozov >> > destroys this myth, arguing that 'internet freedom' is an illusion, >> > and that technology has failed to help protect people's rights. Not >> > only that -- in many cases the internet is actually helping >> > authoritarian regimes. >> > >> > From China to Russia to Iran, oppressive governments are using >> > cyberspace to stifle dissent: planting clandestine propaganda, >> > employing sophisticated digital censorship and using online >> > surveillance. We are all being manipulated in more subtle ways too -- >> > becoming pacified by the net, instead of truly engaging. >> > >> > This book is a wake-up call. It shows us how our misplaced faith in >> > cyber-utopia means the West risks missing the real challenges. Morozov >> > argues that we must look at other ways of promoting democracy abroad, >> > and forces us -- policymakers and citizens alike -- to recognize that >> > all our freedoms are at stake." >> > >> > I actually bought the book and going through it I must agree to the >> > fact, network neutral for whom? For us, the developing world or for >> > the developed world and why? Maybe that is the primary question that >> > hasn't been answered at all. The debate cannot stop and the clarity >> > has to be sought! >> > >> > -- Fouad >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> > > Milton, your argument is killed by your second phrase: "This is an >> > > issue >> > > that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities." >> > > Yes, like crime, privacy rights and so on -- aren't so many gov >> > > decisions on these and other issues done by simple ministerial >> > > decrees, >> > > directed at specific or all sectors, which are not really different >> > > from >> > > regulatory determinations? >> > > >> > > The point is not discarding wksps because the thematic field is one >> > > regulated by the State. Is to get us (at least non-govs) a space to >> > > exchange ideas and develop proposals on how precisely to confront >> > > those >> > > mechanisms and decisions from above. >> > > >> > > My point is that wksps are generally too academic, too >> > > one-speaks-everyone-else-listens-(or-not), and little is left in terms >> > > of what many of us defend for the IGF itself -- at least a consensus >> > > around proposals for action organized in a document. For me this is >> > > the >> > > main problem which makes most of them useless (like a stream of >> > > first-world phds presenting generalist views on "development and ICTs" >> > > etc etc), not because some of the themes relate to State's regulatory >> > > mechanisms or because the theme is already well discussed. >> > > >> > > frt rgds >> > > >> > > --c.a. >> > > >> > > On 04/14/2011 12:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a >> > >> Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will >> > >> be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the >> > >> various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired. >> > >> Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in >> > >> this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC >> > >> rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find >> > >> some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter >> > >> into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and >> > >> national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is >> > >> the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law >> > >> that matter, not IGF. >> > >> >> > >> On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry >> > >> out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, >> > >> see this recent IGP blog article: >> > >> >> > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html >> > >> >> > >> >> > > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy >> > > but >> > > go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a >> > > public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the >> > > issue? >> > >> >> > >> It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, >> > >> ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate >> > >> globalized institutions. >> > >> >> > >> One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to >> > >> be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where >> > >> it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional >> > >> environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute >> > >> anything. It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN >> > >> organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and >> > >> others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic >> > >> problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding >> > >> the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can >> > >> actually do something about. >> > >> >> > >> --MM >> > >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Fri Apr 15 17:18:48 2011 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:18:48 +0200 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: hi, As usual Dave's terminology and distinctions make great sense. a. On 15 Apr 2011, at 19:49, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > I'm not sure if what I'm going to insert below pertains directly to the discussion on this list, but I found it useful. > > Dave Crocker makes a differentiation between two different concepts of what is called net neutrality: > >> Discussion about "neutrality" needs to distinguish between Service Neutrality and Participant Neutrality. >> >> >> Participant Neutrality means that email from or to me gets treated the same as mail from or to you. Equally, web pages I retrieve from Google get treated the same as web pages I retrieve from Yahoo! or from ietf.org. Differential handling is based on IP Address or Domain Name. >> >> Service Neutrality means that email, web, voip telephone calls, real-time remote sensor data, and every other type of "application" get treated equally. Differential handling is based on the IP Protocol field or the TCP/UDP Port number. Real service neutrality means that it is not possible for the network infrastructure to support quality of service guarantees, such as inter-packet arrival times (jitter.) >> >> The challenge of service neutrality is technical, such as dealing with the potential that preference for one service will destroy the ability to use another service. >> >> The challenge of participant neutrality is political, since it relates to potentially unfair treatment of different people or organizations. >> >> An example of Participant Neutrality that can be masked as Service Neutrality is when two organizations have competing application protocols and one is given preference. The preference appears to be based on the protocol but is really concerned with who is operating the service. >> Discussions about net neutrality typically fail to make this basic distinction and therefore typically wind up with people talking past each other or, worse, imposing policies that really do restrict the ability of the Internet to properly support adequate operation of a service. > > Further, it may be the case that you can have one or the other, but not both simultaneously. I haven't thought that through, but if it's true, then there's a whole space of net neutrality components that need more detailed analysis. > > George Sadowsky > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > At 6:25 PM +0300 4/15/11, McTim wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Foo >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Fouad Bajwa >> >> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only give the >> >> developing world perspective. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there such a thing? >> >> >> >> I've never seen one. Here in Africa, it's just not on many agendas. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > Interesting point. McTim, how about asking on the kictanet list and see if >> > people there (various stakeholders) think it's an issue worth discussing, >> > perhaps some might support the workshop. >> >> NB: this is the same point made by PJS, just comes at it from a >> different perspective. >> >> Sure I can do that. How shall I/we define what we mean by NN?? >> >> I think we are all for NN, just some of us have different definitions. >> >> -- >> 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, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Fri Apr 15 18:34:10 2011 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <160154.24571.qm@web161909.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thank you Parminder for bringing this up ! I agree ! Shaila Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ________________________________ From: parminder To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Fri, April 15, 2011 6:33:44 AM Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance? So that is where your world stops :). Yes, US and EU are doing fine at home on NN, but can we, rest of us, not just wait till US and EU NN rules are finalized and through their economic (also political and social) might imposed on the rest of the world? By your permission, we are just seeking democratic management of the medium that is touted as a great democratic force. Do you agree to such an objective? do you want to contribute? parminder > >On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for a >global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, see this recent IGP >blog article: >http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html >In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go >beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public list, >sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? > >It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging >from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions. > >One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be utterly >blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be >entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and >issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. > >It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, which is >to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy publicity to intone >pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no capacity to solve, >while completely avoiding the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous >problems it can actually do something about. > >--MM > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and >functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your >profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Apr 15 18:40:41 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:40:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Fouad, The good or bad news, depending upon one perspective, is that this issue will not really be 'settled' for years and years. So there is plenty of time for other nations to consider and weigh their interests, and views. Especially since the moral imperative underlying the discussion, fairness in treating others, is I believe commonly held in all cultures since ancient times. That is, if there is a ferry which may take you across a river, everyone knows the ferry must let you board, if you pay the fee. Only problem is determining the moral equivalent on the Internet is subject to more interpretations. Whereas in ancient times, if the ferryman would not let you on board, even though you were prepared to pay just like anyone else, you would beat him. People, and ferry operators, figured out thousands of years ago - it is best if anyone can get on. Giving ATT or anyone else the same kind of beat down for a violation of the Internet equivalent - is a bit harder. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:33 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance? That is my feeling too. Everything seems to stop with EU and US centric NN discussions and debates. The rest of the world can sit quietly and wait while everything is okay on that side and the rules are set for the rest to follow. NN seems to be a no go area or no discuss issue for the developing world and thats where the primary questions arises to how can developing regions take on this debate because the neutrality of the network is as important for them and their sustainability too. The developed perspective usually is that what they say is what is authority over any other discussion and I cannot buy that. -- FoO On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:33 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Thursday 14 April 2011 08:34 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network > neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by > national regulatory authorities. > > Can you tell me about some developing countries (other than Brazil, and > perhaps recently Chile) where anything is happening on Net Neutrality? > > The positions of the various actors and interest groups are well known and > well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what > happens in this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC > rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find some other > way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter into the equation. > The same can be said for Europe: the EU and national regulatory authorities > are actively debating this, and it is the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG > MARKT and its competition law that matter, not IGF. > > So that is where your world stops :). Yes, US and EU are doing fine at home > on NN, but can we, rest of us, not just wait till US and EU NN rules are > finalized and through their economic (also political and social) might > imposed on the rest of the world? By your permission, we are just seeking > democratic management of the medium that is touted as a great democratic > force. Do you agree to such an objective? do you want to contribute? > > parminder > > > > On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for > a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, see this > recent IGP blog article: > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go > beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public > list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? > > It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging > from Wikileaks > > to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions. > > One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be > utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be > entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and > issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. > It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, > which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy > publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no > capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving > smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about. > > --MM > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 18:57:38 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 03:57:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: That may be a good analogy of the ferryman but within the current context we cannot let down our hopes within the developing country impetus. It is as important for us as we deal other critical Internet resource issues. I was once asked this question that for how long will the NN debate remain US centric and though I did not have an answer to that question, what I did respond was by saying until we want to keep it off of our shoulders. In today's technology infrastructure environment and with the dropping costs of Internet access why can't we assume that there will be power shifts and the balance may be able to tilt soon. What if somewhere in the Asia-Pacific the internet started coming under siege within the context of a localized language, the Internet content will not always be English language would it, lets say for China, for Bengal or Bangladesh............similarly tech infrastructure could be initiated where the technical resourceful would be abundant and as markets continue to define themselves in the long run, the power to the Internet can also become very distributed and then how would the NN debate take shape........lets say that within the next 5 years, the idea of a global Internet council kicks off between various parties that assemble at the IGF and take on a cloud of their own within the Internet Policy Cloud ;oP how would the debate look, who would be the players, will UN be the organizer or a mere participant. For a world that changes at a rapid pace redefining our understandings of traditional discussion mechanisms, I see debates taking place in new regions beyond US and EU.....food for thought too, the ferryman wasn't plugged into the network ;o) -- FoO & fOo On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Fouad, > > The good or bad news, depending upon one perspective, is that this issue will not really be 'settled' for years and years. > > So there is plenty of time for other nations to consider and weigh their interests, and views.  Especially since the moral imperative underlying the discussion, fairness in treating others, is I believe commonly held in all cultures since ancient times. > > That is, if there is a ferry which may take you across a river, everyone knows the ferry must let you board, if you pay the fee. > > Only problem is determining the moral equivalent on the Internet is subject to more interpretations. > > Whereas in ancient times, if the ferryman would not let you on board, even though you were prepared to pay just like anyone else, you would beat him.  People, and ferry operators, figured out thousands of years ago - it is best if anyone can get on. > > Giving ATT or anyone else the same kind of beat down for a violation of the Internet equivalent - is a bit harder. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:33 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance? > > That is my feeling too. Everything seems to stop with EU and US > centric NN discussions and debates. The rest of the world can sit > quietly and wait while everything is okay on that side and the rules > are set for the rest to follow. > > NN seems to be a no go area or no discuss issue for the developing > world and thats where the primary questions arises to how can > developing regions take on this debate because the neutrality of the > network is as important for them and their sustainability too. > > The developed perspective usually is that what they say is what is > authority over any other discussion and I cannot buy that. > > -- FoO > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:33 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday 14 April 2011 08:34 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network >> neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by >> national regulatory authorities. >> >> Can you tell me about some developing countries (other than Brazil, and >> perhaps recently Chile) where anything is happening on Net Neutrality? >> >> The positions of the various actors and interest groups are well known and >> well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what >> happens in this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC >> rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find some other >> way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter into the equation. >> The same can be said for Europe: the EU and national regulatory authorities >> are actively debating this, and it is the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG >> MARKT and its competition law that matter, not IGF. >> >> So that is where your world stops :). Yes, US and EU are doing fine at home >> on NN, but can we, rest of us, not just wait till US and EU NN rules are >> finalized and through their economic (also political and social) might >> imposed on the rest of the world? By your permission, we are just seeking >> democratic management of the medium that is touted as a great democratic >> force. Do you agree to such an objective? do you want to contribute? >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for >> a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, see this >> recent IGP blog article: >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html >> In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go >> beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public >> list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? >> >> It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging >> from Wikileaks >> >>  to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions. >> >> One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be >> utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be >> entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and >> issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. >> It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, >> which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy >> publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no >> capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving >> smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about. >> >> --MM >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 15 21:45:41 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 07:15:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4DA8F4C5.7090804@itforchange.net> Hi Lee On Saturday 16 April 2011 04:10 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Fouad, > > The good or bad news, depending upon one perspective, is that this issue will not really be 'settled' for years and years. Bad news, because, as Lessig said, 'architecture is policy' and if the architecture is already made and well developed by default, there wont be much that policy can do long after. Hence the urgency in the matter from a developing country point of view. > So there is plenty of time for other nations to consider and weigh their interests, and views. Especially since the moral imperative underlying the discussion, fairness in treating others, is I believe commonly held in all cultures since ancient times. > > That is, if there is a ferry which may take you across a river, everyone knows the ferry must let you board, if you pay the fee. > > Only problem is determining the moral equivalent on the Internet is subject to more interpretations. > > Whereas in ancient times, if the ferryman would not let you on board, even though you were prepared to pay just like anyone else, you would beat him. People, and ferry operators, figured out thousands of years ago - it is best if anyone can get on. > > Giving ATT or anyone else the same kind of beat down for a violation of the Internet equivalent - is a bit harder. A very important question to ask. Where does the coercive power to ensure public interest based compliance lie. It used to lie with the nation states but with globalization, global capital escapes these controls by playing one state against the other, and developed country states against developing country ones. Whereby, even if by the logic of domestic pulbic interest NN is clearly important, this imperative has to be wieghed against the huge global economic advantage and benefits that developed country based global digital corporates bring for these countries. Developing country governments, on the other hand, have little political leverage over these global corporates. Try to regulate them in public interest, and they will abandon the country in a matter of days. This is 'the' key political issue in a globalised world, more so for the inherently global phenomenon of the Internet. And the only adequate response to it that comes to my mind is working towards stronger (democratic) global political institutions. Starting with framing global norms for NN would be a good thing to do in this regard. parminder > > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:33 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance? > > That is my feeling too. Everything seems to stop with EU and US > centric NN discussions and debates. The rest of the world can sit > quietly and wait while everything is okay on that side and the rules > are set for the rest to follow. > > NN seems to be a no go area or no discuss issue for the developing > world and thats where the primary questions arises to how can > developing regions take on this debate because the neutrality of the > network is as important for them and their sustainability too. > > The developed perspective usually is that what they say is what is > authority over any other discussion and I cannot buy that. > > -- FoO > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:33 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Thursday 14 April 2011 08:34 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a Network >> neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will be handled by >> national regulatory authorities. >> >> Can you tell me about some developing countries (other than Brazil, and >> perhaps recently Chile) where anything is happening on Net Neutrality? >> >> The positions of the various actors and interest groups are well known and >> well-aired. Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what >> happens in this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC >> rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find some other >> way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter into the equation. >> The same can be said for Europe: the EU and national regulatory authorities >> are actively debating this, and it is the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG >> MARKT and its competition law that matter, not IGF. >> >> So that is where your world stops :). Yes, US and EU are doing fine at home >> on NN, but can we, rest of us, not just wait till US and EU NN rules are >> finalized and through their economic (also political and social) might >> imposed on the rest of the world? By your permission, we are just seeking >> democratic management of the medium that is touted as a great democratic >> force. Do you agree to such an objective? do you want to contribute? >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry out for >> a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background, see this >> recent IGP blog article: >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html >> In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but go >> beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a public >> list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue? >> >> It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues, ranging >> from Wikileaks >> >> to IP addressing there are inadequate globalized institutions. >> >> One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be >> utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can be >> entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, and >> issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. >> It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN organizations, >> which is to create opportunities for politicians and others who enjoy >> publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic problems which it has no >> capacity to solve, while completely avoiding the hard work of solving >> smaller, less glamorous problems it can actually do something about. >> >> --MM >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 16 00:02:30 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:32:30 +0530 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> Regarding the distinction made between participant and service neutrality, FCC regulations as well as Norway's guidelines (as any other serious attempt at codifying what is NN) clearly makes allowance for different treatment for different kinds of services, if so required for 'public interest', this term being key. So, there is considerably less confusion about what constitutes NN than is often made out to be. About whether NN should be applied fully, or not (as in case of FCC's treatment of mobile Internet) remains contested though. This is not the same as having confusions about what NN means. I think this latter debate needs a rest for us to really look at why NN and the nature of public interest involved. (As for the below discussed case about participant neutrality being masked as service neutrality, any kind of serious application of a social regulation - as opposed to technical ones - will require looking at such one off cases as one off cases, tested against larger basic principles involved, in light of what is public interest. It is impossible to fix all such thing with complete precision in advance in any social law or regulation, something I do understand doesnt sit very well with minds trained for technical levels of precise clarity, . So lets not keep blaming an insufficient definition of NN for not going forward on this key global and national IG issue.) Parminder On Friday 15 April 2011 11:19 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > I'm not sure if what I'm going to insert below pertains directly to > the discussion on this list, but I found it useful. > > Dave Crocker makes a differentiation between two different concepts of > what is called net neutrality: > >> Discussion about "neutrality" needs to distinguish between Service >> Neutrality and Participant Neutrality. >> >> >> Participant Neutrality means that email from or to me gets treated >> the same as mail from or to you. Equally, web pages I retrieve from >> Google get treated the same as web pages I retrieve from Yahoo! or >> from ietf.org . Differential handling is based on >> IP Address or Domain Name. >> >> Service Neutrality means that email, web, voip telephone calls, >> real-time remote sensor data, and every other type of "application" >> get treated equally. Differential handling is based on the IP >> Protocol field or the TCP/UDP Port number. Real service neutrality >> means that it is not possible for the network infrastructure to >> support quality of service guarantees, such as inter-packet arrival >> times (jitter.) >> >> The challenge of service neutrality is technical, such as dealing >> with the potential that preference for one service will destroy the >> ability to use another service. >> >> The challenge of participant neutrality is political, since it >> relates to potentially unfair treatment of different people or >> organizations. >> >> An example of Participant Neutrality that can be masked as Service >> Neutrality is when two organizations have competing application >> protocols and one is given preference. The preference appears to be >> based on the protocol but is really concerned with who is operating >> the service. >> Discussions about net neutrality typically fail to make this basic >> distinction and therefore typically wind up with people talking past >> each other or, worse, imposing policies that really do restrict the >> ability of the Internet to properly support adequate operation of a >> service. > > Further, it may be the case that you can have one or the other, but > not both simultaneously. I haven't thought that through, but if it's > true, then there's a whole space of net neutrality components that > need more detailed analysis. > > George Sadowsky > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > At 6:25 PM +0300 4/15/11, McTim wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Foo >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Fouad Bajwa >> >> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only >> give the >> >> developing world perspective. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there such a thing? >> >> >> >> I've never seen one. Here in Africa, it's just not on many agendas. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > Interesting point. McTim, how about asking on the kictanet list >> and see if >> > people there (various stakeholders) think it's an issue worth >> discussing, >> > perhaps some might support the workshop. >> >> NB: this is the same point made by PJS, just comes at it from a >> different perspective. >> >> Sure I can do that. How shall I/we define what we mean by NN?? >> >> I think we are all for NN, just some of us have different definitions. >> >> -- >> 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, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Apr 16 04:54:57 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 10:54:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <4DA87199.4030409@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:56:01 +0530) References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA87199.4030409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110416085457.EA8C215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> parminder wrote: > On Friday 15 April 2011 08:55 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > NB: this is the same point made by PJS, just comes at it from a > > different perspective. > > > > Sure I can do that. How shall I/we define what we mean by NN?? > > > > I think we are all for NN, just some of us have different definitions. > > > I dont think it is so. I completely agree with the definition that FCC > uses for NN (available at the link > http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutralnprm.htm forwarded earlier by > Adam). And I have seen all serious advocates of NN agree to such a > definition. This thing about different definitions is mostly a red herring. There's a similar phenomenon in the context of the conflicts around "open standards". Those companies who benefit from having a dominant market position together with customer lock-in via proprietary communication protocols and/or data formats typically don't argue against "open standards", but rather they agree superficially while getting involved at verious levels in the processes that shape actual practical policy with the goal of making sure that when actually implemented, the "open standards" policy doesn't achieve the objectives that were intended by its initial proponents. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Apr 16 06:00:04 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:00:04 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <4DA8F4C5.7090804@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DA8F4C5.7090804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Very accurately put Parminder and your following points give good food for discussion during framing such a workshop: 1. Where does the coercive power to ensure public interest based compliance lie. 2. Developing country governments, have little political leverage over global corporates. 3. How to build stronger (democratic) global political institutions. (framing global norms for NN) 4. 'architecture is policy' and if the architecture is already made and well developed by default, there wont be much that policy can do long after. 5. The developing country perspective with regards to the NN debate. -- FoOfied! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Apr 16 06:08:10 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 05:08:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DA8F4C5.7090804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4DA96A8A.9030604@paque.net> Fouad... do you think that 'coercive power' exists? How about discussing 'how to develop' this power... Tx. gp On 4/16/2011 5:00 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > 1. Where does the coercive power to ensure public interest based > compliance lie. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Sat Apr 16 08:08:11 2011 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:38:11 +0530 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <20110416085457.EA8C215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA87199.4030409@itforchange.net> <20110416085457.EA8C215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4DA986AB.9090003@ITforChange.net> On 16/04/11 14:24, Norbert Bollow wrote: > parminder wrote: >> On Friday 15 April 2011 08:55 PM, McTim wrote: >>> NB: this is the same point made by PJS, just comes at it from a >>> different perspective. >>> >>> Sure I can do that. How shall I/we define what we mean by NN?? >>> >>> I think we are all for NN, just some of us have different definitions. >>> >> I dont think it is so. I completely agree with the definition that FCC >> uses for NN (available at the link >> http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutralnprm.htm forwarded earlier by >> Adam). And I have seen all serious advocates of NN agree to such a >> definition. This thing about different definitions is mostly a red herring. > There's a similar phenomenon in the context of the conflicts around > "open standards". Those companies who benefit from having a dominant > market position together with customer lock-in via proprietary > communication protocols and/or data formats typically don't argue > against "open standards", but rather they agree superficially while > getting involved at verious levels in the processes that shape > actual practical policy with the goal of making sure that when > actually implemented, the "open standards" policy doesn't achieve > the objectives that were intended by its initial proponents. > > Greetings, > Norbert Interestingly, this is actually happening in India - in the 'ICTs in education national policy' that the Federal govt is framing. The second draft of this policy had a section requiring 'free and open source software to be preferred' by schools/school systems. The third version added a clause that 'open standards to be used' (India has recently adopted a 'policy on open standards in e-governance' and provisionally notified ODF as the default document standard) and dropped the free and open source requirement ... Large (near) monopoly transnationals have huge muscle power to create sufficient confusion/grey to obsfuscate policy goals .... In our case, we have been able to network with eminent educationists to write clearly on this issue (http://www.itforchange.net/edu-policy) to the government yesterday and try and resist policy obfuscation.. regards, Guru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pbekono at gmail.com Sat Apr 16 09:49:51 2011 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:49:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Leadership? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <450EE0FF7413444E8CFEE87F4452034403A8FDA4@MAIL01.umic.pt> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BE1B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello All, The analysis made by Wolgang and Milton are really pertinent, I fully agree with that. Pascal 2011/4/14, Bertrand de La Chapelle : > Dear all, > > Wolfgang wrote : > > *Nairobi is much more than another IGF.* > > > +1 > > The May preparatory meeting will offer an opportunity to prove that > self-organization can work and actually improve the IGF on its own. > > And Nairobi (with the slightly improved format decided during the february > MAG discussions) could actually mark a new milestone if we all are convinced > that it is the opportunity to really become serious about what this format > can produce. > > Bertrand > > > 2011/4/14 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >> Milton: >> >> One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to be >> utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where it can >> be >> entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional environment, >> and >> issues where it has no real capacity to contribute anything. >> >> Wolfgang: >> The problem is, that there is NO IGF leadership at the moment. The dilemma >> is that the two key individuals who steered IGF - Nitin and Markus - are >> gone, the MAG is in a limbo and the "overseeing body", the UN CSTD, is >> unable to find a consensus beyond the simple decision to continue until >> 2015. However, there is not only bad news. The opportunity is that a new >> bottom up emerging self-organized leadership could constitute itself >> during >> the forthcoming MAG meeting in May 2011 as a driving force which both >> understands the issues and has a vision what to do (step by step) in the >> coming years. A bottom up self organized successful IGF in Nairobi (this >> would be before the 2nd Committee of the UNGA will start negotiations on >> "IGF improvement") would demonstrate that there is no need to wait for >> CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA recommendations to "improve" the IGF. The people >> themselves >> (the "stakeholders") will understand what they have to do and they will >> hopefully do it (without waiting for "permission"). >> >> The general problem is that the multistakeholder approach was accepted by >> the heads of states in 2005 as a "theoretical" concept, but there was no >> common understanding what it means in practice. Five years later we still >> see more lip service than real implementation if ot comes to new forms of >> (global) policy development and decision making. Nobody really knows what >> the "respective roles" of the main stakeholders are and how the >> interaction >> among the stakeholders should be organized and implemented. What we need >> is >> indeed a set of (multistakeholder) guiding principles and formal >> procedures >> for stakeholder interaction. A good subject for an IGF workshop. A great >> challenge for a new "Framework of Commitments" (FoC). >> >> The risk is that the whole new MS approach could fail and could fall back >> into traditional intergovernmental powerplay with opposing >> non-governmental >> global mechanisms outside the (state) power structure. This is what you >> can >> see now within the G 8 under the French Presidency and the Russian efforts >> to get the issue into the 1st Committee of the UNGA, which deals with >> security issues (and where non-governmental stakeholders have nothing to >> say). >> >> As Thomas Schneider has recently put it nicely in a panel on >> multistakeholderism (during the IGF-D), there is not yet a real >> multistakeholder model in the world. ICANN and IGF as the two main >> playgrounds for the new global governance model are still in their infant >> stage and do not really offer opportunities "on equal footing". ICANN has >> multistakeholder participation but it is under private sector leadership. >> IGF has multistakeholder participation but it is (as we can see now) under >> governmental (UN) leadership. We see the Board/GAC battle and we see the >> CSTD WG composition battle between governments and non-governmental >> stakeholder (with an deep dissens among the governments themselves in the >> background). >> >> But the good news here is that the "patt", this "inter-governmental >> agony", offers a "window of opportunity" for the further development of >> the >> IGF and a new MAG which should move from "giving advice" to "steer the >> process". Such a new (open) IGF Multistakeholder Steering Group for an IGF >> 2.0 could become the first real model of an multistakeholder process which >> offers equal opportunities to each stakeholders. >> >> With other words, workshop proposers and MAGgers should think big. Nairobi >> is much more than another IGF. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat Apr 16 10:42:20 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:42:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <4DA8F4C5.7090804@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DA8F4C5.7090804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Fouad, Lee, Parminder, Let's imagine for a minute a new topic, dubbed "road neutrality". It would cover: - keeping all roads in adequate conditions for all offered traffic, - defining driving rules, - managing agents and systems assigned to traffic regulation, - controlling cargo legality, and - insuring its delivery just in time. Would that be a good cause, specially in developing countries ? But doesn't it look like NN ? Trying to get some influence needs first to identify the power centers in a position to make (tolerate, allow, drive) changes. For networks there are legislators, operators, content providers, ISPs, and to some extent the media and the users. Vertical integration of operator, content provider and ISP roles is loaded with risks of unfair competition. Then it's none of a specific network issue, commerce legislation can handle that. Content inspection, however questionable it may be, should be dealt with at national level, normally defined by legislators. A solid bone of contention is financing network infrastructures. Why would competing operators chip in and let dominant content providers reap the profits ? This is a typical trade issue, raised mostly between major international stakeholders. Should discrete negotiations fail, it may land on WTO's table. A small to medium developing country cannot muster much weight against dominant transborder operators and content providers. Nor can she set the international regulatory scene. What's left is the national or regional level, which may become exemplary for other countries to follow. The old game still prevails, clay pot against iron pot. - - - On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 3:45 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi Lee > > > On Saturday 16 April 2011 04:10 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Fouad, > > The good or bad news, depending upon one perspective, is that this issue will not really be 'settled' for years and years. > > > Bad news, because, as Lessig said, 'architecture is policy' and if the > architecture is already made and well developed by default, there wont be > much that policy can do long after. Hence the urgency in the matter from a > developing country point of view. > > So there is plenty of time for other nations to consider and weigh their interests, and views. Especially since the moral imperative underlying the discussion, fairness in treating others, is I believe commonly held in all cultures since ancient times. > > That is, if there is a ferry which may take you across a river, everyone knows the ferry must let you board, if you pay the fee. > > Only problem is determining the moral equivalent on the Internet is subject to more interpretations. > > Whereas in ancient times, if the ferryman would not let you on board, even though you were prepared to pay just like anyone else, you would beat him. People, and ferry operators, figured out thousands of years ago - it is best if anyone can get on. > > Giving ATT or anyone else the same kind of beat down for a violation of the Internet equivalent - is a bit harder. > > A very important question to ask. Where does the coercive power to ensure > public interest based compliance lie. It used to lie with the nation states > but with globalization, global capital escapes these controls by playing one > state against the other, and developed country states against developing > country ones. Whereby, even if by the logic of domestic pulbic interest NN > is clearly important, this imperative has to be wieghed against the huge > global economic advantage and benefits that developed country based global > digital corporates bring for these countries. Developing country > governments, on the other hand, have little political leverage over these > global corporates. Try to regulate them in public interest, and they will > abandon the country in a matter of days. > > This is 'the' key political issue in a globalised world, more so for the > inherently global phenomenon of the Internet. And the only adequate response > to it that comes to my mind is working towards stronger (democratic) global > political institutions. Starting with framing global norms for NN would be a > good thing to do in this regard. > > parminder > > > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:33 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance? > > That is my feeling too. Everything seems to stop with EU and US > centric NN discussions and debates. The rest of the world can sit > quietly and wait while everything is okay on that side and the rules > are set for the rest to follow. > > NN seems to be a no go area or no discuss issue for the developing > world and thats where the primary questions arises to how can > developing regions take on this debate because the neutrality of the > network is as important for them and their sustainability too. > > The developed perspective usually is that what they say is what is > authority over any other discussion and I cannot buy that. > > -- FoO > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Apr 16 12:26:05 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:26:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20789929.74650.1302971165981.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f17> Dear members of the list Network neutrality was very high on the agenda of the list some time ago and it would be interesting to have a retro-look on the rich exchanges that took place at that time. More concretely,I fully agree Fouad's proposal for a better balance of perspectives. The US reference isn't universally valid for a lot of reasons and even lesser in DCs. Therefore inputs from emerging countries (Brazil, India? ...) are far more appropriate to the debate. May be that some interesting ideas and general concepts are to be found in the work undertaken under the auspices of the Council of Europe.  Please see the attached document as one example for "dealing with NN". Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT France > Message du 15/04/11 14:57 > De : "Fouad Bajwa" > A : "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" > Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : Re: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO > > I would propose to have a balance of perspectives then. If there was > one member from each, say one from the FCC, one from Corporations or > like Vint Cerf and Milton Mueller from Civil Society from the US and > then on the developing country bench, one from the Brazilian Govt, one > from Corporate Sector in Africa and Parminder from IGC, then we would > have a strong debate and equal contribution. I would then propose > going for a super workshop of 3 hours straight so that the > participants can also have two minutes. > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann > wrote: > > Fouad, > > how about using whatever knowledge and experience on NN that is available in > > the US to improve the discussion on what NN means in developing countries? > > What if one or two NN experts from the US exposed the context and important > > details of the issue in their country to another two panelists from > > developing countries who then pitch in and comment on what aspects of NN are > > indeed relevant for developing countries. And then everyone - and hopefully > > (active) workshop participants from developing countries - will take the > > discussion on from there. > > This way the workgroup can benefit from this experience and knowledge while > > also preventing the debate from being steered by a developed-country > > interest on the subject. > > I do think we can meet in the middle on this. > > Best, Ivar > > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:42, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> > >> Typo: > >> > >> sorry, the last paragraph had a typo: can has to be read as can't as > >> follows: > >> > >> "Secondly, my generation comes in with a different perspective and it > >> can't be changed or improved by failed perceptions" > >> > >>  -- Fouad > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> 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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CoE_Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on network neutrality.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30208 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Apr 16 16:22:01 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:22:01 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> George, the whole point of NN is to prevent discrimination based on the ownership, content or origin, not on service type. Any carrier who discriminates in the treatment of different applications based on their bandwidth needs in order to optimize service is not violating net neutrality norms. This is what is called "reasonable network management" and it is allowed in both countries that already have common carrier obligations for their ISPs (Canada) and those that don't but are trying to (US). Comcast's famous blocking of BitTorrent, e.g., was not reasonable NM because it was done regardless of the level of congestion. No way you can justify that, and Comcast backed off it a few months after the whistle was blown because it could not be justified. And Parminder, the standard is not "public interest," as this is a completely vague term that allows anyone to make an argument about anything, so let's hope that public interest never becomes the standard for determining what is and is not "NN". Making a public interest argument is a way of begging the question. We need to know what makes action X "in the public interest" and action Y "not in the public interest." At best, regulatory and legal precedents will establish clear criteria for what "public interest" means, but more specific standards such as reasonable network management are preferable. --MM From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:03 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO Regarding the distinction made between participant and service neutrality, FCC regulations as well as Norway's guidelines (as any other serious attempt at codifying what is NN) clearly makes allowance for different treatment for different kinds of services, if so required for 'public interest', this term being key. So, there is considerably less confusion about what constitutes NN than is often made out to be. About whether NN should be applied fully, or not (as in case of FCC's treatment of mobile Internet) remains contested though. This is not the same as having confusions about what NN means. I think this latter debate needs a rest for us to really look at why NN and the nature of public interest involved. (As for the below discussed case about participant neutrality being masked as service neutrality, any kind of serious application of a social regulation - as opposed to technical ones - will require looking at such one off cases as one off cases, tested against larger basic principles involved, in light of what is public interest. It is impossible to fix all such thing with complete precision in advance in any social law or regulation, something I do understand doesnt sit very well with minds trained for technical levels of precise clarity, . So lets not keep blaming an insufficient definition of NN for not going forward on this key global and national IG issue.) Parminder On Friday 15 April 2011 11:19 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: All, I'm not sure if what I'm going to insert below pertains directly to the discussion on this list, but I found it useful. Dave Crocker makes a differentiation between two different concepts of what is called net neutrality: Discussion about "neutrality" needs to distinguish between Service Neutrality and Participant Neutrality. Participant Neutrality means that email from or to me gets treated the same as mail from or to you. Equally, web pages I retrieve from Google get treated the same as web pages I retrieve from Yahoo! or from ietf.org. Differential handling is based on IP Address or Domain Name. Service Neutrality means that email, web, voip telephone calls, real-time remote sensor data, and every other type of "application" get treated equally. Differential handling is based on the IP Protocol field or the TCP/UDP Port number. Real service neutrality means that it is not possible for the network infrastructure to support quality of service guarantees, such as inter-packet arrival times (jitter.) The challenge of service neutrality is technical, such as dealing with the potential that preference for one service will destroy the ability to use another service. The challenge of participant neutrality is political, since it relates to potentially unfair treatment of different people or organizations. An example of Participant Neutrality that can be masked as Service Neutrality is when two organizations have competing application protocols and one is given preference. The preference appears to be based on the protocol but is really concerned with who is operating the service. Discussions about net neutrality typically fail to make this basic distinction and therefore typically wind up with people talking past each other or, worse, imposing policies that really do restrict the ability of the Internet to properly support adequate operation of a service. Further, it may be the case that you can have one or the other, but not both simultaneously. I haven't thought that through, but if it's true, then there's a whole space of net neutrality components that need more detailed analysis. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 6:25 PM +0300 4/15/11, McTim wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Foo >> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Fouad Bajwa >> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It would be advisable that for once, this workshop should only give the >> developing world perspective. >> >> >> >> Is there such a thing? >> >> I've never seen one. Here in Africa, it's just not on many agendas. >> >> > > > Interesting point. McTim, how about asking on the kictanet list and see if > people there (various stakeholders) think it's an issue worth discussing, > perhaps some might support the workshop. NB: this is the same point made by PJS, just comes at it from a different perspective. Sure I can do that. How shall I/we define what we mean by NN?? I think we are all for NN, just some of us have different definitions. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Apr 16 16:30:20 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:30:20 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Based on evidence we have gathered I can say that NN is certainly an issue in China and Brazil. Carriers there have installed DPI to manage bandwidth, block BitTorrent and other p2p applications, and to censor. Brazilian colleagues have told me stories (not confirmed, of course, as I haven't spent much time there) about big carriers acting worse than the worst of the US ones. I can refer you to academic papers by computer scientists and network engineers advocating the use of DPI on mobile networks to throttle traffic. So the issue is quite relevant to BRICs. In my 2007 paper I argued that content blocking and filtering was a deviation from the NN principle, and many LDCs organize their network in NN-hostile ways precisely because they want to censor content. So to answer Fouad, the NN debates in less developed countries like Pakistan often devolves into a debate over Internet freedom and censorship. Fouad may be right that the policy makers in those countries don't know what NN means and think it is not relevant. But they sure do know what "internet freedom" means, and many of them don't want it. From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ivar A. M. Hartmann Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 8:29 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO Fouad, how about using whatever knowledge and experience on NN that is available in the US to improve the discussion on what NN means in developing countries? What if one or two NN experts from the US exposed the context and important details of the issue in their country to another two panelists from developing countries who then pitch in and comment on what aspects of NN are indeed relevant for developing countries. And then everyone - and hopefully (active) workshop participants from developing countries - will take the discussion on from there. This way the workgroup can benefit from this experience and knowledge while also preventing the debate from being steered by a developed-country interest on the subject. I do think we can meet in the middle on this. Best, Ivar On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:42, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: Typo: sorry, the last paragraph had a typo: can has to be read as can't as follows: "Secondly, my generation comes in with a different perspective and it can't be changed or improved by failed perceptions" -- Fouad -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Apr 16 16:38:16 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:38:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B280@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > That is my feeling too. Everything seems to stop with EU and US centric > NN discussions and debates. The rest of the world can sit quietly and > wait while everything is okay on that side and the rules are set for the > rest to follow. [Milton L Mueller] Hah. You make me laugh, Parminder and Fouad. First, everything is NOT all right with NN in the US, far from it, the FCC's rules are almost certain to be overturned either by the courts or by congress. As for the EU, I do not know how things will come out. And that relates to my point, which was being misconstrued by Parminder as indifference. The point is that NN is driven by _local_ politics, by national regulators, legislatures, business interests and advocacy groups. Those vary from country to country. > The developed perspective usually is that what they say is what is > authority over any other discussion and I cannot buy that. [Milton L Mueller] That's the opposite of what I am saying. You want NN in Pakistan? Start organizing in Pakistan. Sure, you can learn from experience in many other countries, including both BRICS and OECDs, but if you want to make policy it will have to be local. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Apr 16 16:44:33 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:44:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <4DA8F4C5.7090804@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DA8F4C5.7090804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B281@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder Bad news, because, as Lessig said, 'architecture is policy' and if the architecture is already made and well developed by default, there wont be much that policy can do long after. Hence the urgency in the matter from a developing country point of view. [Milton L Mueller] Lessig was wrong about that. If architecture were policy then the issue would be settled, the Internet's architecture was end-to-end and freedom was architected into it. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A very important question to ask. Where does the coercive power to ensure public interest based compliance lie. It used to lie with the nation states but with globalization, global capital escapes these controls by playing one state against the other [Milton L Mueller] Hmm, is that why Google has been so effective at resisting China's censorship? Is that why India's dumb attempt to spy on all Blackberry users didn't work? Oh, it did happen, didn't it? I wish this so-called "global capital" were a bit more effective at escaping some of these controls. And as for that term, global capital, please don't foist upon us the silly neo-Marxist mistake of collapsing all commercial enterprise into a single category with a single interest. The NN debate, just to use one of about 10,000 examples, is primarily a fight between service providers and carriers. --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Apr 16 22:58:40 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 07:58:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B280@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B280@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <760DB5E6-837B-4A8E-A61E-7598C3FE0F39@gmail.com> Sorry Milton you also made me laugh as I have never said or indicated FCC rulings to have represented my understanding of NN so let's get that straight. As for EU, I don't agree to silo based eu or coe based approaches. This approach to sideline people to certain ruling systems in a particular domain just because they are being discussed is not a good approach Milton and I wasn't expecting this. What will happen in Pakistan will happen and what is required of in global for as like IGF will also happen and I don't think I need anyone to point out what's need to be done inPakistan. At least we don't try to strangle the opportunity that the net gives our nation's people despite we do have harsh regulations and there is some deregulation needed. It's interesting to in our local environment that local companies listen to the citizen and we are the only country in the region that gives free Internet to every citizen with a landline phone. Usually its the Foreign companies that come in and try to dictate, not locals. We are aware....Sir! Fouad Bajwa sent using my iPad On 17 Apr 2011, at 01:38 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> That is my feeling too. Everything seems to stop with EU and US centric >> NN discussions and debates. The rest of the world can sit quietly and >> wait while everything is okay on that side and the rules are set for the >> rest to follow. > > [Milton L Mueller] > > Hah. You make me laugh, Parminder and Fouad. > > First, everything is NOT all right with NN in the US, far from it, the FCC's rules are almost certain to be overturned either by the courts or by congress. As for the EU, I do not know how things will come out. > > And that relates to my point, which was being misconstrued by Parminder as indifference. The point is that NN is driven by _local_ politics, by national regulators, legislatures, business interests and advocacy groups. Those vary from country to country. > >> The developed perspective usually is that what they say is what is >> authority over any other discussion and I cannot buy that. > > [Milton L Mueller] > > That's the opposite of what I am saying. You want NN in Pakistan? Start organizing in Pakistan. Sure, you can learn from experience in many other countries, including both BRICS and OECDs, but if you want to make policy it will have to be local. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Apr 17 00:14:18 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:14:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B281@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DA8F4C5.7090804@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B281@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <765E3391-B446-4BA7-BAB5-A18D0AEDB5A3@gmail.com> Are you trying to imply that there is no public interest involved in NN when service providers and carriers are fighting? If so, can the rest of the world attempt to change the architecture of the Internet by slowly stepping away from this fight and find means to network without them? Hmm, interesting....Internet Evolution 2.0 ;p Fouad Bajwa sent using my iPad On 17 Apr 2011, at 01:44 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder > > Bad news, because, as Lessig said, 'architecture is policy' and if the architecture is already made and well developed by default, there wont be much that policy can do long after. Hence the urgency in the matter from a developing country point of view. > > > [Milton L Mueller] > > > > Lessig was wrong about that. If architecture were policy then the issue would be settled, the Internet’s architecture was end-to-end and freedom was architected into it. Wrong, wrong, wrong. > > > A very important question to ask. Where does the coercive power to ensure public interest based compliance lie. It used to lie with the nation states but with globalization, global capital escapes these controls by playing one state against the other > > [Milton L Mueller] > > > > Hmm, is that why Google has been so effective at resisting China’s censorship? > > Is that why India’s dumb attempt to spy on all Blackberry users didn’t work? Oh, it did happen, didn’t it? > > I wish this so-called “global capital” were a bit more effective at escaping some of these controls. > > And as for that term, global capital, please don’t foist upon us the silly neo-Marxist mistake of collapsing all commercial enterprise into a single category with a single interest. The NN debate, just to use one of about 10,000 examples, is primarily a fight between service providers and carriers. > > > > --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Apr 17 00:36:02 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:36:02 +0500 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD7FFAE-3197-4D4A-8B34-B9BCD2AAEDF2@gmail.com> Hi Milton, I will have to usher everyone to the basic fact that developing countries tend to group and find a leader amongst them to follow. This is true in the case reported by Freedom House that Pakistan may have worser Internet censorship and freedom limiting practices in place and most of this comes from the actions of corporate giants and western countries attempting to hurt the beliefs of the country's majority citizenry. Now that the country should take those stances and thanks to Boeing's Naurus technology sold from the US to Pakistan, the country is able to dpi, sniff and censor a lot of content over all carrier traffic from the trans connect inwards from Karachi through the Pakistan Internet exchange pie. The example is followed by many around the region and the news surfaced during Egypts revolution too. This is a game being played and there is a public interest that has what you say but also another logic that evolves that the public interest is born and led forward by people against this hypocrisy displayed by corporations in the west selling the tools to censor and limit participation and then like facebook going against it's own terms of service supporting the display of discriminating content to incite chaos and hurt the beliefs of people mostly from Muslim developing world and or Muslims anywhere. The NN debate limitation to just carriers and content providers is another display of hypocrisy. It has other issues included now and it's time the developing world also looked in to this and stepped out of the western public interest definition into an understanding that there is something called a developing country public interest. Policy makers do not know and they will not know in the developing world because western companies come here and educate and sell censorship technology, run a global security incident response network that encourages them to be afraid and do attempt to capitalize on a global capital! FoO....! On 17 Apr 2011, at 01:30 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Based on evidence we have gathered I can say that NN is certainly an issue in China and Brazil. Carriers there have installed DPI to manage bandwidth, block BitTorrent and other p2p applications, and to censor. Brazilian colleagues have told me stories (not confirmed, of course, as I haven’t spent much time there) about big carriers acting worse than the worst of the US ones. I can refer you to academic papers by computer scientists and network engineers advocating the use of DPI on mobile networks to throttle traffic. So the issue is quite relevant to BRICs. > > > > In my 2007 paper I argued that content blocking and filtering was a deviation from the NN principle, and many LDCs organize their network in NN-hostile ways precisely because they want to censor content. So to answer Fouad, the NN debates in less developed countries like Pakistan often devolves into a debate over Internet freedom and censorship. Fouad may be right that the policy makers in those countries don’t know what NN means and think it is not relevant. But they sure do know what “internet freedom” means, and many of them don’t want it. > > > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ivar A. M. Hartmann > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 8:29 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa > Subject: Re: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO > > > > Fouad, > how about using whatever knowledge and experience on NN that is available in the US to improve the discussion on what NN means in developing countries? > What if one or two NN experts from the US exposed the context and important details of the issue in their country to another two panelists from developing countries who then pitch in and comment on what aspects of NN are indeed relevant for developing countries. And then everyone - and hopefully (active) workshop participants from developing countries - will take the discussion on from there. > This way the workgroup can benefit from this experience and knowledge while also preventing the debate from being steered by a developed-country interest on the subject. > I do think we can meet in the middle on this. > Best, Ivar > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:42, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Typo: > > sorry, the last paragraph had a typo: can has to be read as can't as follows: > > > "Secondly, my generation comes in with a different perspective and it > > can't be changed or improved by failed perceptions" > > -- Fouad > > > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Apr 17 00:41:08 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:41:08 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF relevance? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B281@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7144098DE14@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DA84938.3030007@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99722@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DA8F4C5.7090804@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B281@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6CE57B90-5427-48C8-8F72-57191F2027A8@gmail.com> I am also now compelled to think that NN is becoming a necessary evil and can become a strong political tool for us to use to rationalize and enable developing country inclusion in NN in such a way that it will raise eyebrows to hah....these guys are nuts.....but wait....oh no.....they can't literally be stepping into this and understanding all this confusion..and holding stances and enabling a possible developing countries rights based approach to NN... FoO...! On 17 Apr 2011, at 01:44 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder > > Bad news, because, as Lessig said, 'architecture is policy' and if the architecture is already made and well developed by default, there wont be much that policy can do long after. Hence the urgency in the matter from a developing country point of view. > > > [Milton L Mueller] > > > > Lessig was wrong about that. If architecture were policy then the issue would be settled, the Internet’s architecture was end-to-end and freedom was architected into it. Wrong, wrong, wrong. > > > A very important question to ask. Where does the coercive power to ensure public interest based compliance lie. It used to lie with the nation states but with globalization, global capital escapes these controls by playing one state against the other > > [Milton L Mueller] > > > > Hmm, is that why Google has been so effective at resisting China’s censorship? > > Is that why India’s dumb attempt to spy on all Blackberry users didn’t work? Oh, it did happen, didn’t it? > > I wish this so-called “global capital” were a bit more effective at escaping some of these controls. > > And as for that term, global capital, please don’t foist upon us the silly neo-Marxist mistake of collapsing all commercial enterprise into a single category with a single interest. The NN debate, just to use one of about 10,000 examples, is primarily a fight between service providers and carriers. > > > > --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Apr 17 03:11:37 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:41:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409180CD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net> <4D8B9A0E.6030601@wzb.eu> <4D8BBE1D.3090401@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409180CD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4DAA92A9.7010604@itforchange.net> Milton, I am responding to old email from you, but since there are questions directly addressed to me, I must answer. On Saturday 26 March 2011 08:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Parminder: > > When did you become such an adherent of the ideology of > "stakeholderism"? I thought you were healthily critical of it. > I remain healthily critical of it. If you see below in my email, I am careful with my language :) "It is an **officially stated position**, especially in various MAG reforms discussions, that selection is stakeholder group based." And when I am speaking for myself, I directly move into talking about representation, speak more circumspectly of " stakeholder group or constituency basis of membership of the MAG.....". I can understand stakeholder groups as some form constituencies, in the political sense, but not otherwise. On the other hand, the reason that my email would have appeared to you as uncritical support for MS-ism is that if I have healthy suspicion of MSism, I have an absolute horror of the post-mod thinking (fantasy was the word I used) of each of us representing ourselves and ourselves alone at various political forums. While prima facie it looks most democratic, in actual practice, such a thinking can be even more harmful for representative democracy than under-theorized and fashionable MS-ist innovations. > One of the key problems with MSism is that there are no clear > boundaries between stakeholder groups, esp in civil society, > Yes, there are considerable 'boundary problems'. In fact on a larger level I can see only two kinds of representation - formal, through government kind of systems, and informal and open, through civil society grouping. To the extent real people involved in business are concerned, they too get represented by groups, like trade associations, that to me can be part of civil society mechanisms. Here what you call as boundaries within civil society become significant issues, and need contextual resolutions. > and the process of selecting "representatives" of such groups is > fraught with opportunities for manipulation. The claim, for example, > that marginalized people in developing countries are represented by > their governments, whose policies are often the cause of their lack of > resources and marginalization, needs to be questioned. > That the whole idea of 'deepening democracy', and using, and innovating about, civil society based representational means besides those through governments. Parminder > --MM > > It is an officially stated position, especially in varoius MAG reforms > discussions, that selection is stakeholder group based. The current > discussion here in the WG on IGF improvements is on increasing > 'representation' of under represented groups, including developing > countries. In this context, contesting stakeholder group or > constituency basis of membership of the MAG makes a discussion on > improving representation of marginalized group quite meaningless. That > is my problem, coming from being situated in the middle of such a > discussion here in the WG, which triggered my response. I am sorry > that the term offended you. It was used in the sense of a 'good > imagined thing that doesnt happen in reality' and not meant > specifically for what you said but for the general 'just representing > oneself' proposition often made in this kind of a discussion. > > Parminder > > > > jeanette > > > The member list is here: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010 > > jeanette > > > and the division between developing and developed > > countries? > > That would be much appreciated > > Marilia > -- > 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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Apr 17 04:51:14 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:51:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality..the big picture Message-ID: I've just read this piece; http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110412_will_blocking_a_tld_fracture_the_internet/ and realised that I was wrong re: NN and developing countries. NN is a major issue for the developing world, but we have overlooked it, as we don't call it NN, we call it censorship. Recent popular examples from the developing world of NN violations include, Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Burma, China and most recently in Uganda, where some ppl wanted to "walk to work" in protest of rising fuel prices. So of course, the GoU decided to shoot them, tear gas them arrest them, etc. This letter (ironically posted on FB) shows an ill-guided attempt to block "Tweeter" and the BookFace: http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/217030_210297612322112_100000256252380_785725_5681186_n.jpg Now these kinds of NN violations aren't restricted to the developing world, witness the recent ICE takedowns, Wikileaks kerflufle, etc in the USA. So our workshop should focus, IMHO on what the real current NN issues are at the moment, those things that currently violate our right to communicate with each other. So lets hold governments collective feet to the fire on this. If we want real NN, then we have to start from First Principles. Any website/content, any time on any device. If we focus on some alleged victimisation by Big Content and Big Providers that may or may not happen at some future point in time, we will be doing a disservice to all those whose rights are currently being violated by the biggest anti-NN violators out there, our governments! BTW, .xxx is in the root...has no one has noticed? -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 17 11:17:35 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:17:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality..the big picture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B297@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > and realised that I was wrong re: NN and developing countries. NN is a > major issue for the developing world, but we have overlooked it, as we > don't call it NN, we call it censorship. [Milton L Mueller] Yes! This was a major point I made in the 2007 IGP paper on NN. http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/NetNeutralityGlobalPrinciple.pdf > Recent popular examples from the developing world of NN violations > include, Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Burma, China and most recently in Uganda, > where some ppl wanted to "walk to work" in protest of rising fuel > prices. [Milton L Mueller] Yes, and while it is true, as Fouad points out, developed world businesses in some cases share responsibility for this, as for example by selling them the technology to make internet blocking easier, it is the states in those countries who create the demand and provide the funds for that technology. > So our workshop should focus, IMHO on what the real current NN issues > are at the moment, those things that currently violate our right to > communicate with each other. So lets hold governments collective feet > to the fire on this. If we want real NN, then we have to start from > First Principles. Any website/content, any time on any device. If we > focus on some alleged victimisation by Big Content and Big Providers > that may or may not happen at some future point in time, we will be > doing a disservice to all those whose rights are currently being > violated by the biggest anti-NN violators out there, our governments! > [Milton L Mueller] I agree but would phrase it a bit differently. Don't let big Content and big ISPs off the hook, but don't let states off the hook, either. For more info about the implications of this approach, see the http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/4/14/4795243.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Apr 17 14:36:33 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 06:36:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality..the big picture In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B297@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B297@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Ncube Benson from Botswana raised an interesting example at the last NN meeting on the impacts into various parts of Africa as well. On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > and realised that I was wrong re: NN and developing countries. NN is a > > major issue for the developing world, but we have overlooked it, as we > > don't call it NN, we call it censorship. > [Milton L Mueller] > > Yes! This was a major point I made in the 2007 IGP paper on NN. > http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/NetNeutralityGlobalPrinciple.pdf > > > Recent popular examples from the developing world of NN violations > > include, Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Burma, China and most recently in Uganda, > > where some ppl wanted to "walk to work" in protest of rising fuel > > prices. > > [Milton L Mueller] > > Yes, and while it is true, as Fouad points out, developed world businesses > in some cases share responsibility for this, as for example by selling them > the technology to make internet blocking easier, it is the states in those > countries who create the demand and provide the funds for that technology. > > > So our workshop should focus, IMHO on what the real current NN issues > > are at the moment, those things that currently violate our right to > > communicate with each other. So lets hold governments collective feet > > to the fire on this. If we want real NN, then we have to start from > > First Principles. Any website/content, any time on any device. If we > > focus on some alleged victimisation by Big Content and Big Providers > > that may or may not happen at some future point in time, we will be > > doing a disservice to all those whose rights are currently being > > violated by the biggest anti-NN violators out there, our governments! > > > [Milton L Mueller] > > I agree but would phrase it a bit differently. Don't let big Content and > big ISPs off the hook, but don't let states off the hook, either. > For more info about the implications of this approach, see the > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/4/14/4795243.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Apr 18 05:43:13 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:43:13 +0100 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 16:22:01 on Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Milton L Mueller writes >George, the whole point of NN is to prevent discrimination based on the >ownership, content or origin, not on service type. That definition excludes the possibility of blocking VoIP because the incumbent telco doesn't want the commercial competition. VoIP is a clearly a "service type"; there are many owners and origins, and the content could just as easily be people trying to book hotel rooms, as calls to organise an anti-government protest meeting. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Apr 18 05:48:34 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:48:34 +0100 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> Message-ID: In message , at 13:49:23 on Fri, 15 Apr 2011, George Sadowsky writes >Dave Crocker makes a differentiation between two different concepts of >what is called net neutrality: > >"Discussion about "neutrality" needs to distinguish between Service >Neutrality and Participant Neutrality. > >Participant Neutrality means that email from or to me gets treated the >same as mail from or to you. Equally, web pages I retrieve from Google >get treated the same as web pages I retrieve from Yahoo! or from >ietf.org.  Differential handling is based on IP Address or Domain Name. > >Service Neutrality means that email, web, voip telephone calls, >real-time remote sensor data, and every other type of "application" get >treated equally. Differential handling is based on the IP Protocol >field or the TCP/UDP Port number.  Real service neutrality means that >it is not possible for the network infrastructure to support quality of >service guarantees, such as inter-packet arrival times (jitter.) > >The challenge of service neutrality is technical, such as dealing with >the potential that preference for one service will destroy the ability >to use another service. > >The challenge of participant neutrality is political, since it relates >to potentially unfair treatment of different people or organizations. > >An example of Participant Neutrality that can be masked as Service >Neutrality is when two organizations have competing application >protocols and one is given preference.  The preference appears to be >based on the protocol but is really concerned with who is operating the >service. > >Discussions about net neutrality typically fail to make this basic >distinction and therefore typically wind up with people talking past >each other or, worse, imposing policies that really do restrict the >ability of the Internet to properly support adequate operation of a >service." > >Further, it may be the case that you can have one or the other, but not >both simultaneously.  I haven't thought that through, but if it's true, >then there's a whole space of net neutrality components that need more >detailed analysis You can have both forms of neutrality if there's infinite bandwidth. Although another of the pitfalls is failing to adequately examine where in the 'end-to-end' model the current bandwidth restrictions have their effect on neutrality. One of the results is that when you have a network with limited bandwidth, it looks like you've got problems with Service Neutrality [eg people can't watch YouTube on their mobiles, but can query Google] when it could also be characterised as Participant Neutrality [people who have only got a mobile phone, especially when paying per megabyte, can't watch YouTube as effectively as those with a landline]. Therefore, expanding upon the QoS dilemma above, how about a straw man called Congestion Neutrality; what happens in the absence of infinite bandwidth. Rather than have all communications degrade by whatever the mathematics physics of TCP/IP dictates (resulting in anything time critical being a casualty) networks are prone to introduce rules that discriminate between Services (all NNTP/Usenet will be slowed down, all VoIP will be accelerated) or discriminate between participants (all users will have a maximum Megabytes per month, all NNTP from servers outside our network will be throttled in the busy hours). Milton argues that Congestion Neutrality (or the lack of) is widely recognised as a necessary Network management tool, but argues strongly for Service Neutrality - and in my view to e consistent ought to also be arguing for Participant Neutrality. Hopefully this new concept of mine (or has someone else invented it before?) will help clarify the debate. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vladimir.radunovic at gmail.com Mon Apr 18 10:30:00 2011 From: vladimir.radunovic at gmail.com (Vladimir Radunovic) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:30:00 +0200 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <20789929.74650.1302971165981.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f17> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <20789929.74650.1302971165981.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f17> Message-ID: Colleagues, As the other discussion thread (Milton, McTim) well outlined, *there are two dimensions of threats to the openness*: 1) governments (censorship) and 2) business (inappropriate management for business advantage). The former (1) is more of an issue in developing world, where there are trends of some governments to misuse the network management for censorship; it is less or no issue in developed countries (or, is it?). The latter (2) is a clear issue in developed countries, from where the debate started: most of the business trends (as well as global services capacities) are coming from developed countries, and it comes as no surprise. In developing countries, there is lack of understanding of the issue still, since the primary problems relate to the infrastructure and pricing, and there is no much space/human capacity with regulators to follow the advanced business models. Nevertheless, the business in developing world does have capacity to follow such trends and introduce managed services, as we have seen in India and elsewhere. *Regarding the workshop proposal*, I would suggest that the two dimensions are treated separately, possibly within different sessions: The former (*censorship*) has much to do with freedom of speech and level of democracy in the country; the practice of network management is used sometimes to reach the goal of censorship. Regulators are usually not the ones that can help, but rather the governments only. To me, this is an issue of openness and democracy. The latter (*business advantage*) is, however, an issue in both developing and developed countries. It has to do with regulatory environment and awareness of various consequences – and in developing world it also sometimes has to do with competition and liberalisation of the market, which is commonly a political decision. Thus, this discussion is of interest of both developing and developed countries: while developed ones have more to say on various business models coming from their world (as they are “trend setters” commonly), the developing countries have much to say on possible implications having in mind weak infrastructure and unfair economic models of Internet etc. Thus the “west-driven” debate on NN has to be transferred to “south” and “east” as well, and discussed together. The IGF workshops on NN since Hyderabad have helped a lot to clarify what NN means to different actors, what differences are in various terms, what common ground of agreement is and what are the opened issues. The much missing component that should be encouraged now is the reflection of developing countries (business, users and regulators) on open issues, and a dialogue with leading global business on forthcoming trends (wireless, managed services) and the impact to both developed and developing countries access and openness. *Number of resources* collected on NN since then are available at: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/nn/ Please feel free to suggest more. I think the *proper format of the workshop* on NN for Nairobi would now be a (big) roundtable instead of a panel-audience approach. The discussion (and understanding, at least among IGF participating parties) have grown since Hyderabad and there are many actors that would have an equal meaningful say (neutrality of the panel :o) *Regarding the capacity building*, I agree with Fouad there is a great need for capacity building with regulators in developing countries on NN. Diplo has introduced NN chapter within its annual online capacity building programme, and will put more focus on it within its advanced online programmes starting in June. We also deliver a session on NN within every training workshop for higher level officials of developing countries we do (as we did now for AU, UNECA and NEPAD under our ACP programme supported by EC, or previously with NTRA of Egypt, even for Council of Europe). The experience shows it is firstly needed to analyse and explain well the way the Internet works, the layers, infrastructure and business models, in order to dive deeper into the issue of management and unfair practices. It is not simple, it takes time, and commonly it is not a top issue of concern by the policy makers. I would be happy to hear what other initiatives in capacity building on NN are, and how we can further enhance the outreach to the regulators and officials of developing countries. Best, Vlada On 16 April 2011 18:26, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear members of the list > > Network neutrality was very high on the agenda of the list some time ago > and it would be interesting to have a retro-look on the rich exchanges that > took place at that time. > > More concretely,I fully agree Fouad's proposal for a better balance of > perspectives. The US reference isn't universally valid for a lot of reasons > and even lesser in DCs. Therefore inputs from emerging countries (Brazil, > India? ...) are far more appropriate to the debate. > May be that some interesting ideas and general concepts are to be found in > the work undertaken under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Please see > the attached document as one example for "dealing with NN". > > Best regards > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT France > > > > > > > Message du 15/04/11 14:57 > > De : "Fouad Bajwa" > > A : "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" > > Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Objet : Re: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN > FYI DIPLO > > > > > I would propose to have a balance of perspectives then. If there was > > one member from each, say one from the FCC, one from Corporations or > > like Vint Cerf and Milton Mueller from Civil Society from the US and > > then on the developing country bench, one from the Brazilian Govt, one > > from Corporate Sector in Africa and Parminder from IGC, then we would > > have a strong debate and equal contribution. I would then propose > > going for a super workshop of 3 hours straight so that the > > participants can also have two minutes. > > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann > > wrote: > > > Fouad, > > > how about using whatever knowledge and experience on NN that is > available in > > > the US to improve the discussion on what NN means in developing > countries? > > > What if one or two NN experts from the US exposed the context and > important > > > details of the issue in their country to another two panelists from > > > developing countries who then pitch in and comment on what aspects of > NN are > > > indeed relevant for developing countries. And then everyone - and > hopefully > > > (active) workshop participants from developing countries - will take > the > > > discussion on from there. > > > This way the workgroup can benefit from this experience and knowledge > while > > > also preventing the debate from being steered by a developed-country > > > interest on the subject. > > > I do think we can meet in the middle on this. > > > Best, Ivar > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:42, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > >> > > >> Typo: > > >> > > >> sorry, the last paragraph had a typo: can has to be read as can't as > > >> follows: > > >> > > >> "Secondly, my generation comes in with a different perspective and it > > >> can't be changed or improved by failed perceptions" > > >> > > >> -- Fouad > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> 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, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Apr 18 10:31:35 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:31:35 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <4DA986AB.9090003@ITforChange.net> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA87199.4030409@itforchange.net> <20110416085457.EA8C215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch>,<4DA986AB.9090003@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC9972A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi Guru, A little slow responding, but I did want to comment, as someone who has been working with students and others modeling alternatives such as - strictly open source vs - open standards/open interfaces vs proprietary protocols/standards. And of course I am speaking generally, and perhaps others should re-run analyses in other nations to draw their own conclusions: Open source software often requires higher labor/maintenance cost since the technical personnel maintaining the system are more skilled and hence must be more highly paid - not that that is a bad thing. Whereas closed/packaged software/proprietary systems are more idiot-proof - that's part of what you pay for - so support/technical personnel are not as expensive hence lower recurring labor costs are incurred. Which is a good or bad thing depending upon one's point of view. And the intermediary open standard/open interface ground is - somewhere in between and probably requires case by case analysis of trade-offs and specific licensing terms/fine print. Allowing widespread use and open innovation, hopefully, while - again hopefully - leading to a reaonable and non-discriminatrory split of revenues, if new products are coimemrcialized on top of the 'open standard/interface.' In education sector, that would possibly translate to students and teachers being free to do whatever they wanted; but if they then tried to - sell to schools their new creations - then yeah someone might ask for a - fair and reasonable, ok possibly unreasonable - cut of the fee. Hypothetically speaking. Perhaps/probably in India the relative cost equation is different than US given prevailing local wages and availability of skilled in the art personnel, and cost of package software relative to labor and other costs, and it is more open and shut in favor of open source at all times; but in US there are practical reasons a lot of small businesses who can;t afford skilled techies on staff.....stick with those big multinational offering to make life easier for a small biz...or a government agency's front line personnel. Including school teachers. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Guru गुरु [Guru at ITforChange.net] Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 8:08 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO On 16/04/11 14:24, Norbert Bollow wrote: parminder wrote: On Friday 15 April 2011 08:55 PM, McTim wrote: NB: this is the same point made by PJS, just comes at it from a different perspective. Sure I can do that. How shall I/we define what we mean by NN?? I think we are all for NN, just some of us have different definitions. I dont think it is so. I completely agree with the definition that FCC uses for NN (available at the link http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutralnprm.htm forwarded earlier by Adam). And I have seen all serious advocates of NN agree to such a definition. This thing about different definitions is mostly a red herring. There's a similar phenomenon in the context of the conflicts around "open standards". Those companies who benefit from having a dominant market position together with customer lock-in via proprietary communication protocols and/or data formats typically don't argue against "open standards", but rather they agree superficially while getting involved at verious levels in the processes that shape actual practical policy with the goal of making sure that when actually implemented, the "open standards" policy doesn't achieve the objectives that were intended by its initial proponents. Greetings, Norbert Interestingly, this is actually happening in India - in the 'ICTs in education national policy' that the Federal govt is framing. The second draft of this policy had a section requiring 'free and open source software to be preferred' by schools/school systems. The third version added a clause that 'open standards to be used' (India has recently adopted a 'policy on open standards in e-governance' and provisionally notified ODF as the default document standard) and dropped the free and open source requirement ... Large (near) monopoly transnationals have huge muscle power to create sufficient confusion/grey to obsfuscate policy goals .... In our case, we have been able to network with eminent educationists to write clearly on this issue (http://www.itforchange.net/edu-policy) to the government yesterday and try and resist policy obfuscation.. regards, Guru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 18 11:28:31 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:28:31 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > That definition excludes the possibility of blocking VoIP because the > incumbent telco doesn't want the commercial competition. [Milton L Mueller] No, it doesn't. The telco doesn't block ALL VoIP, it blocks someone else's VoIP > VoIP is a clearly a "service type"; there are many owners and origins, > and the content could just as easily be people trying to book hotel > rooms, as calls to organise an anti-government protest meeting. [Milton L Mueller] VoIP is never blocked because it is a "service type," it is blocked because it is _your_ service and not" _my_ service, ergo it is discrimination based on the origin or owner of the service. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Apr 18 11:54:11 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:54:11 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> ,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99738@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Actually, Milton, many governments - specifically prohibit/make illegal VoIP still to this day. Not that all of them manage to successfully block all VoIP, but some are still pulling licenses and putting companies out of business, that dare of offer VoIP. Where they require ISPs to block all VoIP, and where individual carriers pick out particularly prominent services for blocking, makes a patchwork quilt of - non-open Internet access for various classes of subscribers and users. And yes they are doing that to protect revenues of incumbent operators and hence government tax revenues; though some may claim it is due to security concerns. Lee PS: I haven't updated the list myself from an ITU workshop 10 years ago when around 80 countries specifically treated VoIP was illegal. But see: http://www.powershow.com/view/240c76-NjhhM/HOW_TO_REGULATE_A_PLATYPUS_flash_ppt_presentation for my explanation to ITU workshop on 'How to Regulate a Platypus.' A more recent example: http://www.voip-sol.com/10-isps-and-countries-known-to-have-blocked-voip/ ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 11:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Subject: RE: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO > -----Original Message----- > > That definition excludes the possibility of blocking VoIP because the > incumbent telco doesn't want the commercial competition. [Milton L Mueller] No, it doesn't. The telco doesn't block ALL VoIP, it blocks someone else's VoIP > VoIP is a clearly a "service type"; there are many owners and origins, > and the content could just as easily be people trying to book hotel > rooms, as calls to organise an anti-government protest meeting. [Milton L Mueller] VoIP is never blocked because it is a "service type," it is blocked because it is _your_ service and not" _my_ service, ergo it is discrimination based on the origin or owner of the service. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Apr 18 12:33:42 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:33:42 +0100 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 11:28:31 on Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Milton L Mueller writes >> -----Original Message----- >> >> That definition excludes the possibility of blocking VoIP because the >> incumbent telco doesn't want the commercial competition. > >[Milton L Mueller] > >No, it doesn't. The telco doesn't block ALL VoIP, it blocks someone else's VoIP I wasn't thinking about VoIP that's blocked because it's a brand of VoIP in which an ISP/Telco has a lack of commercial interest, but those countries which block *all* VoIP because it offends their licencing conditions, which in turn are probably there to protect the incumbent. [And if you want to get complicated, maybe to protect the ability of the authorities to wiretap]. >> VoIP is a clearly a "service type"; there are many owners and origins, >> and the content could just as easily be people trying to book hotel >> rooms, as calls to organise an anti-government protest meeting. >[Milton L Mueller] > >VoIP is never blocked because it is a "service type," it is blocked because it is _your_ service and not" _my_ service, ergo it is >discrimination based on the origin or owner of the service. Even then, the extent to which (say) SIP is one service and Skype is a quite separate and non-interoperable service; if an ISP/Telco decided to block SIP voicemail because they[1] hadn't paid a levy and allow Skype because it had[2], that could also be regarded as a breach of Service Neutrality (SIP service being different from Skype), and not a breach of Participant Neutrality because all SIP providers/users were treated the same. What this may in fact be demonstrating is that "Voice over IP" is too broad a category to be used in this context, just as "Pictures over IP" or "Written word over IP" might also encompass too many different services to be taken as a single category. [1] A broad coalition of commercial and non-commercial operators, so without settlement-based peering, collecting money is going to be very difficult. [2] I'm not ruling out the possibility they might - one mobile network in the UK has an alliance with Skype and allows unlimited free Skype calls from its specially branded handsets. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Apr 18 20:00:20 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:00:20 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Freedom House study finds mounting threats to Internet freedom In-Reply-To: <4ae5b9fbdac943d8f5cf7e169a08de3f@lists.hrea.org> References: <4ae5b9fbdac943d8f5cf7e169a08de3f@lists.hrea.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Freedom House/IFEX Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:58 AM Subject: Freedom House study finds mounting threats to Internet freedom To: fouadbajwa (Freedom House/IFEX) - Washington, DC, April 18, 2011 - Cyberattacks, politically motivated censorship, and government control over internet infrastructure are among the diverse and growing threats to internet freedom, according to "Freedom on the Net 2011: A Global Assessment of Internet and Digital Media", a new study released today by Freedom House. These encroachments on internet freedom come at a time of explosive growth in the number of internet users worldwide, which has doubled over the past five years. Governments are responding to the increased influence of the new medium by seeking to control online activity, restricting the free flow of information, and otherwise infringing on the rights of users. "These detailed findings clearly show that internet freedom cannot be taken for granted," said David J. Kramer, executive director of Freedom House. "Nondemocratic regimes are devoting more attention and resources to censorship and other forms of interference with online expression." Freedom on the Net 2011, which identifies key trends in internet freedom in 37 countries, follows a pilot edition that was released in 2009. Freedom on the Net evaluates each country based on barriers to access, limitations on content, and violations of users' rights. The study found that Estonia had the greatest degree of internet freedom among the countries examined, while the United States ranked second. Iran received the lowest score in the analysis. Eleven other countries received a ranking of Not Free, including Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand. A total of 9 of the 15 countries in the original pilot study registered declines over the past two years. Conditions in at least half of the newly added countries similarly indicated a negative trajectory. Crackdowns on bloggers, increased censorship, and targeted cyberattacks often coincided with broader political turmoil, including controversial elections. Countries at Risk: As part of its analysis, Freedom House identified a number of important countries that are seen as particularly vulnerable to deterioration in the coming 12 months: Jordan, Russia, Thailand, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Key Trends * Explosion in social-media use met with censorship: In response to the growing popularity of internet-based applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, many governments have started targeting the new platforms as part of their censorship strategies. In 12 of the 37 countries examined, the authorities consistently or temporarily imposed total bans on these services or their equivalents. * Bloggers and ordinary users face arrest: Bloggers, online journalists, and human rights activists, as well as ordinary people, increasingly face arrest and imprisonment for their online writings. In 23 of the 37 countries, including several democratic states, at least one blogger or internet user was detained because of online communications. * Cyberattacks against regime critics intensifying: Governments and their sympathizers are increasingly using technical attacks to disrupt activists' online networks, eavesdrop on their communications, and cripple their websites. Such attacks were reported in at least 12 of the 37 countries covered. * Politically motivated censorship and content manipulation growing: A total of 15 of the 37 countries examined were found to engage in substantial online blocking of politically relevant content. In these countries, website blocks are not sporadic, but rather the result of an apparent national policy to restrict users' access to information, including the websites of independent news outlets and human rights groups. * Governments exploit centralized internet infrastructure to limit access: Centralized government control over a country's connection to international internet traffic poses a significant threat to free online expression, particularly at times of political turmoil. In 12 of the 37 countries examined, the authorities used their control over infrastructure to limit widespread access to politically and socially controversial content, and in extreme cases, cut off access to the internet entirely. "The ability to communicate political views, organize, debate, and have access to critical information is as important online as it is in the offline world," said Sanja Kelly, managing editor of the report. "A more urgent response is needed to protect bloggers and other internet users from the sorts of restrictions that repressive governments have already imposed on traditional media," Kelly added. Other Important Country Findings: * China: The Chinese government boasts the world's most sophisticated system of internet controls, and its approach has become even more restrictive in recent years. Blocks on Facebook and Twitter have become permanent, while domestic alternatives to these applications have risen in popularity despite being forced to censor their users. The authorities imposed a months-long shutdown of internet access in the western region of Xinjiang during the report's coverage period, and at least 70 people were in jail for internet-related reasons as of 2010. * Iran: Since the protests that followed the flawed presidential election of June 12, 2009, the Iranian authorities have waged a fierce campaign against internet freedom, including deliberately slowing internet speeds at critical times and using hacking to disable opposition websites. An increasing number of bloggers have been threatened, arrested, tortured, or kept in solitary confinement, and at least one died in prison. * Pakistan: In recent years - under both military rule and an ostensibly democratic civilian government - the authorities have adopted various measures to exert some control over the internet and the sharing of information online. In mid-2010, a new Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Evaluation of Websites was established to identify sites for blocking based on vaguely defined offenses against the state or religion. * United States: Access to the internet in the United States remains open and free compared with the rest of the world. Users face very few restrictions on their ability to access and publish content online, and courts have consistently held that prohibitions against government regulation of speech apply to material published on the internet. However, the United States lags behind many major industrialized countries in terms of broadband penetration and connection speeds, and the government's surveillance powers are cause for some concern. Read the full report at: http://www.ifex.org/international/2011/04/18/net_freedom/  -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Tue Apr 19 04:00:24 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:00:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Workshop on IGF improvements In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440979A3E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Being myself a CSTD WG member, I also support the approach Marilia and Jeremy put and pushed. izumi 2011/4/14 Marilia Maciel : > That´s the proposal. Jeremy and I have contacted themembers of the CSTD WG > from the technical community and the business sector, to ask them if they > want to co-sponsor and/or suggest speakers to this workshop. Panelists would > be short to maximize opportunities of interaction with participants. > > Best, > > Marília > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Would it be useful to have the IGC group that was involved in the CSTD >> working group and invite the technical community to have a dialogue in >> a round table format while also allowing participants to have their >> questions answered on an on-going basis? >> >> - FoO >> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > Another tardy intervention: >> > I like the idea of the workshop on IGF improvements, but the workshop >> > would best be focused on the whole concept of IGF Improvements, and one of >> > the panelists could promote or analyze the Indian proposal. >> > --MM >> > ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Apr 19 10:58:35 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:58:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality..the big picture In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B297@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B297@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Don't have any links for the EU statement/doc, but here is ISOC reaction: Internet Society welcomes European Commission backing for open Internet http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3614 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> and realised that I was wrong re: NN and developing countries.  NN is a >> major issue for the developing world, but we have overlooked it, as we >> don't call it NN, we call it censorship. > [Milton L Mueller] > > Yes! This was a major point I made in the 2007 IGP paper on NN. > http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/NetNeutralityGlobalPrinciple.pdf > >> Recent popular examples from the developing world of NN violations >> include, Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Burma, China and most recently in Uganda, >> where some ppl wanted to "walk to work" in protest of rising fuel >> prices. > > [Milton L Mueller] > > Yes, and while it is true, as Fouad points out, developed world businesses in some cases share responsibility for this, as for example by selling them the technology to make internet blocking easier, it is the states in those countries who create the demand and provide the funds for that technology. > >> So our workshop should focus, IMHO on what the real current NN issues >> are at the moment, those things that currently violate our right to >> communicate with each other.  So lets hold governments collective feet >> to the fire on this.  If we want real NN, then we have to start from >> First Principles.  Any website/content, any time on any device.  If we >> focus on some alleged victimisation by Big Content and Big Providers >> that may or may not happen at some future point in time, we will be >> doing a disservice to all those whose rights are currently being >> violated by the biggest anti-NN violators out there, our governments! >> > [Milton L Mueller] > > I agree  but would phrase it a bit differently. Don't let big Content and big ISPs off the hook, but don't let states off the hook, either. > For more info about the implications of this approach, see the > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/4/14/4795243.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Apr 19 13:05:25 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:05:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality..the big picture In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B297@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 17:58:35 on Tue, 19 Apr 2011, McTim writes >Don't have any links for the EU statement/doc, but here is ISOC reaction: >Internet Society welcomes European Commission backing for open Internet > >http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3614 -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Wed Apr 20 00:11:08 2011 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:11:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: All. A direct and sane statement regarding the properties of IP addresses from an Internet Governance perspective. Worth reading: >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110419_ipv4_addresses_not_property_canada_weighs_in_on_nortel_microsoft/ George ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Apr 19 18:57:12 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:57:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4DAE1348.50403@cafonso.ca> I am already propagating it as much as I can! --c.a. On 04/20/2011 01:11 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > All. > > A direct and sane statement regarding the properties of IP addresses > from an Internet Governance perspective. Worth reading: > >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110419_ipv4_addresses_not_property_canada_weighs_in_on_nortel_microsoft/ >> > > > George > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Apr 19 21:48:16 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:48:16 -0300 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I would like very much to hear what you think about the following way to formulate the principle of network neutrality: "Users should have the greatest possible access to Internet-based content, applications and services of their choice, whether or not they are offered free of charge, using suitable devices of their choice. Any traffic management measure or privilege should be non- discriminatory, justified by overriding public interest, and must meet the requirements of international law on the protection of freedom of expression and access to information." This was put forth by the CoE ad hoc Advisory Group on cross-border Internet. The aim is to draft a Declaration on Internet Governance Principles. The full set of principles can be found here: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media-dataprotection/conf-internet-freedom/Internet%20Governance%20Principles.pdf As far as I understand, comments to this document can be sent until May 13. On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message > <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, > at 11:28:31 on Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Milton L Mueller > writes > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> That definition excludes the possibility of blocking VoIP because the > >> incumbent telco doesn't want the commercial competition. > > > >[Milton L Mueller] > > > >No, it doesn't. The telco doesn't block ALL VoIP, it blocks someone else's > VoIP > > I wasn't thinking about VoIP that's blocked because it's a brand of VoIP > in which an ISP/Telco has a lack of commercial interest, but those > countries which block *all* VoIP because it offends their licencing > conditions, which in turn are probably there to protect the incumbent. > [And if you want to get complicated, maybe to protect the ability of the > authorities to wiretap]. > > >> VoIP is a clearly a "service type"; there are many owners and origins, > >> and the content could just as easily be people trying to book hotel > >> rooms, as calls to organise an anti-government protest meeting. > >[Milton L Mueller] > > > >VoIP is never blocked because it is a "service type," it is blocked > because it is _your_ service and not" _my_ service, ergo it is > >discrimination based on the origin or owner of the service. > > Even then, the extent to which (say) SIP is one service and Skype is a > quite separate and non-interoperable service; if an ISP/Telco decided to > block SIP voicemail because they[1] hadn't paid a levy and allow Skype > because it had[2], that could also be regarded as a breach of Service > Neutrality (SIP service being different from Skype), and not a breach of > Participant Neutrality because all SIP providers/users were treated the > same. > > What this may in fact be demonstrating is that "Voice over IP" is too > broad a category to be used in this context, just as "Pictures over IP" > or "Written word over IP" might also encompass too many different > services to be taken as a single category. > > [1] A broad coalition of commercial and non-commercial operators, so > without settlement-based peering, collecting money is going to be > very difficult. > [2] I'm not ruling out the possibility they might - one mobile network > in the UK has an alliance with Skype and allows unlimited free > Skype calls from its specially branded handsets. > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Apr 20 04:28:12 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:28:12 +0200 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Marilia This option would meet the national legal instruments. which means that the legislative and judicial institutions are sufficiently imbued with the regulatory provisions on the Internet. What is true in most countries. But the question is still pending with regard to some African countries, in this case the DR Congo, my country, which lacks adequate legislation and takes into account the dimension of Internet governance at the national level. The Council of Europe is present in all these processes qualitatively and could serve as a reference for other countries that have not yet thought to build this kind of management mechanism of the Internet to benefit communities. Danscette optics, not to be the link that is missing in the chain, would it not desirable to provide for the next IGF, after Nairobi, capitalizing on this experience the Council of Europe with African stakeholders? If this is possible in Nairobi, as much if not consider whether this proposal is accepted we can discuss the procedure. This is an idea that can also be rejected. But the daily reality obliges us to say things as they are. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/4/20 Marilia Maciel > I would like very much to hear what you think about the following way to > formulate the principle of network neutrality: > > > > "Users should have the greatest possible access to Internet-based content, > applications and services of their choice, whether or not they are offered > free of charge, using suitable devices of their choice. Any traffic > management measure or privilege should be non- discriminatory, justified by > overriding public interest, and must meet the requirements of international > law on the protection of freedom of expression and access to information." > > > > This was put forth by the CoE ad hoc Advisory Group on cross-border > Internet. The aim is to draft a Declaration on Internet Governance > Principles. > > The full set of principles can be found here: > http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media-dataprotection/conf-internet-freedom/Internet%20Governance%20Principles.pdf > > > > As far as I understand, comments to this document can be sent until May > 13. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message >> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, >> at 11:28:31 on Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Milton L Mueller >> writes >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> That definition excludes the possibility of blocking VoIP because the >> >> incumbent telco doesn't want the commercial competition. >> > >> >[Milton L Mueller] >> > >> >No, it doesn't. The telco doesn't block ALL VoIP, it blocks someone >> else's VoIP >> >> I wasn't thinking about VoIP that's blocked because it's a brand of VoIP >> in which an ISP/Telco has a lack of commercial interest, but those >> countries which block *all* VoIP because it offends their licencing >> conditions, which in turn are probably there to protect the incumbent. >> [And if you want to get complicated, maybe to protect the ability of the >> authorities to wiretap]. >> >> >> VoIP is a clearly a "service type"; there are many owners and origins, >> >> and the content could just as easily be people trying to book hotel >> >> rooms, as calls to organise an anti-government protest meeting. >> >[Milton L Mueller] >> > >> >VoIP is never blocked because it is a "service type," it is blocked >> because it is _your_ service and not" _my_ service, ergo it is >> >discrimination based on the origin or owner of the service. >> >> Even then, the extent to which (say) SIP is one service and Skype is a >> quite separate and non-interoperable service; if an ISP/Telco decided to >> block SIP voicemail because they[1] hadn't paid a levy and allow Skype >> because it had[2], that could also be regarded as a breach of Service >> Neutrality (SIP service being different from Skype), and not a breach of >> Participant Neutrality because all SIP providers/users were treated the >> same. >> >> What this may in fact be demonstrating is that "Voice over IP" is too >> broad a category to be used in this context, just as "Pictures over IP" >> or "Written word over IP" might also encompass too many different >> services to be taken as a single category. >> >> [1] A broad coalition of commercial and non-commercial operators, so >> without settlement-based peering, collecting money is going to be >> very difficult. >> [2] I'm not ruling out the possibility they might - one mobile network >> in the UK has an alliance with Skype and allows unlimited free >> Skype calls from its specially branded handsets. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> 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, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Apr 21 13:29:10 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:29:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, I have consulted other stakeholder groups (wrote to the members of the CSTD WG) and asked them if they would like to co-sponsor and/or participate as speakers in our workshop "reflections on the indian proposal". After some delay, both groups answered me that they are going to present their own workshop proposals about the CSTD process and IGF improvement. They said they would be open to talk about merging with us and asked me to convey this message to you. We know how merging can result in a "frankenstein" specially in a topic like this. So we have to carefully assess what to do next. I was really hoping that talking to other groups in advance would make us engage in fruitful dialogue and would allow us to present a unified proposal. Business sector has not yet a text of their proposal (to be advanced by ICC). The technical community has a draft proposal, that is too broad in my opinion, and will hardly advance the debate. The key-questions in their proposal are: - Compare and contrast the two IGF improvement processes [CSTD WG and MAG], identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each process, and where there is overlap in their work, if any. · Examine some example improvements contributed to each process, following through their implementation, or otherwise, to assess the real world constraints that have an affect on implementation · Discuss the best processes that can be used in future to identify and implement improvements to the IGF Looking forward to hearing from you. Marília On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > If there are no further comments about this workshop proposal (reflections > on the Indian proposal), then I believe that Jeremy and I will start > contacting other stakeholder groups by tomorow (Monday), ok? > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 08/04/2011, at 11:50 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder >> representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited >> and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD >> WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they >> did not say why. >> >> >> I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused >> India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but here is >> some more nuanced language for the former, with changes underlined (anyone >> else, feel free to make your own suggestions): >> >> *Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0* >> >> As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the >> IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of >> "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General >> Assembly Mandate". *Although only one stakeholder's proposal, *the ten >> suggested improvements reflect proposals that *some* other countries and >> other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. *It is also one of >> the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to >> emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting >> point for further discussion.* >> >> It was suggested *in the proposal* that the MAG identify key questions >> for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop >> background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, >> a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and >> that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on >> each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant >> bodies for their action and feedback. >> >> Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully >> discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to >> do so more fully. *The workshop will provide an opportunity for all >> stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well as their >> shortcomings, and* consider whether and how to take *such*proposals forward. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr 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 >> * >> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers >> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >> >> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join >> consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion >> on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >> >> Twitter #CICongress >> * >> >> 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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Apr 21 13:35:44 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:35:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Just to clarify, I have written to non-gov stakeholder groups only, not to gov reps. On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > I have consulted other stakeholder groups (wrote to the members of the CSTD > WG) and asked them if they would like to co-sponsor and/or participate as > speakers in our workshop "reflections on the indian proposal". > > After some delay, both groups answered me that they are going to present > their own workshop proposals about the CSTD process and IGF improvement. > They said they would be open to talk about merging with us and asked me to > convey this message to you. > > We know how merging can result in a "frankenstein" specially in a topic > like this. So we have to carefully assess what to do next. I was really > hoping that talking to other groups in advance would make us engage in > fruitful dialogue and would allow us to present a unified proposal. > > Business sector has not yet a text of their proposal (to be advanced by > ICC). The technical community has a draft proposal, that is too broad in my > opinion, and will hardly advance the debate. The key-questions in their > proposal are: > > - Compare and contrast the two IGF improvement processes [CSTD WG and MAG], > identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each process, and where > there is overlap in their work, if any. > > · Examine some example improvements contributed to each process, > following through their implementation, or otherwise, to assess the real > world constraints that have an affect on implementation > > · Discuss the best processes that can be used in future to identify > and implement improvements to the IGF > > Looking forward to hearing from you. > > Marília > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> If there are no further comments about this workshop proposal (reflections >> on the Indian proposal), then I believe that Jeremy and I will start >> contacting other stakeholder groups by tomorow (Monday), ok? >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 08/04/2011, at 11:50 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>> I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder >>> representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited >>> and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD >>> WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they >>> did not say why. >>> >>> >>> I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused >>> India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but here is >>> some more nuanced language for the former, with changes underlined (anyone >>> else, feel free to make your own suggestions): >>> >>> *Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0* >>> >>> As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the >>> IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of >>> "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General >>> Assembly Mandate". *Although only one stakeholder's proposal, *the ten >>> suggested improvements reflect proposals that *some* other countries and >>> other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. *It is also one of >>> the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to >>> emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting >>> point for further discussion.* >>> >>> It was suggested *in the proposal* that the MAG identify key questions >>> for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop >>> background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, >>> a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and >>> that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on >>> each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant >>> bodies for their action and feedback. >>> >>> Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully >>> discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to >>> do so more fully. *The workshop will provide an opportunity for all >>> stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well as their >>> shortcomings, and* consider whether and how to take *such*proposals forward. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr 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 >>> * >>> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers >>> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >>> >>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join >>> consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion >>> on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! >>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >>> >>> Twitter #CICongress >>> * >>> >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Apr 21 13:39:59 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:39:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <302C8321-ADA4-44DE-863B-0F35DF12158C@acm.org> On 21 Apr 2011, at 19:29, Marilia Maciel wrote: > · Examine some example improvements contributed to each process, following through their implementation, or otherwise, to assess the real world constraints that have an affect on implementation > > how do you do this when no improvements have yet been implemented that derive from the CSTD process. Or do I completely misunderstand. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 10:16:07 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:16:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal In-Reply-To: <302C8321-ADA4-44DE-863B-0F35DF12158C@acm.org> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D9E9039.1010709@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99698@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D9EE8A1.4070107@itforchange.net> <20110408132401.5807215C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <0F2E40CC-9278-40F4-9F87-953DF8940DC6@ciroap.org> <302C8321-ADA4-44DE-863B-0F35DF12158C@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear all, I share with you below the workshop proposal from the business sector. Ayesha said it is a place holder and they are willing to merge their proposal with ours and with the one from the technical community. Best wishes, Marília *Concise description of the workshop proposal:* Improvements in the IGF are an ongoing item within the IGF, and have been a topic within the public consultations and the MAG. The UN CSTD Working group [chartered by ECOSOC resolution 2010/2 ] is undertaking an examination of proposed improvements, based on a number of public consultations. A workshop on IGF improvements is useful as one of the workshops during the IGF 2011. We propose a roundtable workshop format that includes the full range of stakeholders to discuss a broad range of ideas and provide an opportunity to exchange perspectives on proposed improvements. Participation in this Roundtable will include representation from the CSTD Working Group members and other invited participants. Remote participation will be an integral part of this workshop including real-time transcription, remote participation support and we would designate a remote moderator. Substantive discussion within this Roundtable workshop will focus on responses to the CSTD Working Group Questionnaire and efforts underway. We envision an interactive discussion to promote exchange and understanding from a broad range of stakeholders on the range of proposed improvements. We understand that other stakeholders are interested in proposing a workshop on IGF improvements as well, and thus we would be pleased to work with others to organize an effective workshop. Given the deadline for submitting proposals we are submitting this as a placeholder and look forward to discussing ways to collaborate with other proposers on this topic area. On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 21 Apr 2011, at 19:29, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > · Examine some example improvements contributed to each process, > following through their implementation, or otherwise, to assess the real > world constraints that have an affect on implementation > > > > > > how do you do this when no improvements have yet been implemented that > derive from the CSTD process. > > Or do I completely misunderstand. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Fri Apr 22 10:36:29 2011 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:36:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] HAppy easter to all!!!! Message-ID: <016401cc00fa$acce7fa0$066b7ee0$@uol.com.br> Peace , Joy and lot of chocolate!!! 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: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Marilia Maciel Enviada em: quinta-feira, 21 de abril de 2011 14:36 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Assunto: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal Just to clarify, I have written to non-gov stakeholder groups only, not to gov reps. On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Dear all, I have consulted other stakeholder groups (wrote to the members of the CSTD WG) and asked them if they would like to co-sponsor and/or participate as speakers in our workshop "reflections on the indian proposal". After some delay, both groups answered me that they are going to present their own workshop proposals about the CSTD process and IGF improvement. They said they would be open to talk about merging with us and asked me to convey this message to you. We know how merging can result in a "frankenstein" specially in a topic like this. So we have to carefully assess what to do next. I was really hoping that talking to other groups in advance would make us engage in fruitful dialogue and would allow us to present a unified proposal. Business sector has not yet a text of their proposal (to be advanced by ICC). The technical community has a draft proposal, that is too broad in my opinion, and will hardly advance the debate. The key-questions in their proposal are: - Compare and contrast the two IGF improvement processes [CSTD WG and MAG], identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each process, and where there is overlap in their work, if any. · Examine some example improvements contributed to each process, following through their implementation, or otherwise, to assess the real world constraints that have an affect on implementation · Discuss the best processes that can be used in future to identify and implement improvements to the IGF Looking forward to hearing from you. Marília On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: If there are no further comments about this workshop proposal (reflections on the Indian proposal), then I believe that Jeremy and I will start contacting other stakeholder groups by tomorow (Monday), ok? On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 08/04/2011, at 11:50 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they did not say why. I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but here is some more nuanced language for the former, with changes underlined (anyone else, feel free to make your own suggestions): Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly Mandate". Although only one stakeholder's proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. It is also one of the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting point for further discussion. It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies for their action and feedback. Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether and how to take such proposals forward. -- Dr 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 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress 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 -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2817 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1020 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 11:47:04 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:47:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Conservative activist: Bible, Ben Franklin, Pilgrims all opposed to net neutrality Message-ID: Hmmmm.... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/20/conservative-activist-bible-ben-frankl in-pilgrims-all-opposed-to-net-neutrality/ Conservative activist: Bible, Ben Franklin, Pilgrims all opposed to net neutrality By Eric W. Dolan The idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally is against the teachings of the Bible and America's Founding Fathers, according to evangelical Christian minister and political activist David Barton. During his radio show on Tuesday, he said that net neutrality violated the Biblical principle of free markets, a principle upheld by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. "That is part of the reason we have prosperity," Barton said. "This is what the Pilgrims brought in, the Puritans brought in, this is free market mentality. Net neutrality sounds really good, but it is socialism on the Internet." "This is really, I'm going to use the word wicked stuff, and I don't use that word very often, but this is wicked stuff," he added. Barton was a co-chair of the Texas Republican Party for eight years, is the founder of WallBuilders, an organization dedicated to "America's forgotten history," and a lecturer for Glenn Beck's online Beck University. TIME magazine has named him one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the United States. As TalkingPointMemo noted, Barton has also appeared as an expert witness in Texas Board of Education textbook hearings and argued that homosexuality should be regulated by the government. "This is the Fairness Doctrine applied to the Internet, and I'll go back to what I believed for a long time is: fair is a word no Christian should ever use in their vocabulary," Barton continued. "Fair has nothing to do with anything. What you want is justice, you don't want fairness. Fairness is subjective, what I think is fair, what you think, what happened to Jesus wasn't fair. That's right, but we needed justice so God did that for us." New net neutrality rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in December banned Internet service providers from blocking lawful Internet traffic, but allowed them to "reasonably" manage their networks and charge consumers based on usage. The regulations are meant prevent corporations that own the physical infrastructure of the Internet from acting as "gatekeepers" by allowing faster access to certain content and slower access to other content. "I mean, this is crazy stuff," Barton said. "This is redistribution of wealth through the Internet and it really is redistribution. This is socialism on the Internet." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Apr 22 15:51:18 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:51:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> This is a very ignorant statement and frankly it is out of touch with what is already happening. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of George Sadowsky > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:11 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim > Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet > Governance > > All. > > A direct and sane statement regarding the properties of IP addresses > from an Internet Governance perspective. Worth reading: > > >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110419_ipv4_addresses_not_property_c > anada_weighs_in_on_nortel_microsoft/ > > > George > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Apr 22 16:23:21 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:23:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> Which one? George's, Canada's, or McTim's? You might find Industry Canada's declaration innocuous, but... ignorant?? --c.a. On 04/22/2011 04:51 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > This is a very ignorant statement and frankly it is out of touch with what is already happening. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> Behalf Of George Sadowsky >> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:11 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim >> Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet >> Governance >> >> All. >> >> A direct and sane statement regarding the properties of IP addresses >> from an Internet Governance perspective. Worth reading: >> >>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110419_ipv4_addresses_not_property_c >> anada_weighs_in_on_nortel_microsoft/ >> >> >> George >> __________________________________________________________ >> __ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Fri Apr 22 21:16:16 2011 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:16:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4DB22860.2080009@cavebear.com> On 04/22/2011 01:23 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Which one? George's, Canada's, or McTim's? You might find Industry > Canada's declaration innocuous, but... ignorant?? A lot of people treat the word "property" as some sort of mystical talisman full of deep meaning and overwhelming portent. But to do so is silly. "Property" is nothing more than the accumulation of human-defined rights and obligations that people (and fake-people, i.e. corporations) have towards a tangible or intellectual thing. Only the laws of physics - things like gravity and inertia -supersede what we humans decide are those rights and obligations. In other words there is no "natural" or god given law of property. Yet so many people think that if they label a thing as "property" that an "owner's" rights are paramount over every other interest. That, of course, is nonsense best left where it belongs - in the middle ages. Leaping to IP addresses - they are just numbers - and the only reason they are useful is that there is a binding between a computer interface and one of those numbers that is honored by one or more people/companies that route IP packets. It is that honoring of the use of one of those numbers by a particular person that is what makes an "IP address" into something more useful than a random number. Most folks who do the routing of IP packets honor the allocations made by Jon Postel and by the RIRs. It is that honoring of allocations that give IP addresses their value. What is being bought and sold when people "sell" IP addresses is more than the number itself - it is the "good will", that honoring of the number for the purposes of routing IP packets, that is being sold. Yet even that is a weak right - because just because you or I have an IP address that comes from Jon Postel or a RIR does not mean that those who do IP routing are obligated to honor me by routing packets towards that address number. In other words, even if I have a RIR/Postel granted IP address I have no right to require that other people configure their routers so that packets bearing my address are, in fact, routed towards me and not to someone else. What I am getting at with all of this is that when we start to talk about IP addresses, let's drop the heavily overloaded word "property" and start to talk about who obtains what legally enforceable rights *and duties* as the result of an address allocation. (And, of course, this includes the question of who can do such allocations. I am busy writing a note on why I feel that IPv6 will not take off - because we have already begun to take steps towards what I call a "lumpy" internet, in which the end-to-end principle has been lost in favor of a view of the net as a platform for a few popular applications. This lumpy net is formed from several *complete* IP address spaces that join to one another through well defined (and thus easily controlled, regulated, and taxed) application layer gateways.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Apr 23 00:35:19 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 07:35:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks milton, i appreciate the feedback. Hower, what you dont understand is the "what is going on now" has been going on for over a decade. People have been trying to "sell" internet resources for a very long time. Karl is correct, its the routing (largely based on what is in irr that is important.. In terms of ig and the developing world, this issue has flared up again in the african region yesterday. Ironically, in africa, we have more v4 numbering resources than in asia, us or eu left to give out. Should we sell them to corporate america hoping to maximise revenue for the african rir and speed up v6 deployment, or hold on to these resources, allowing for a longer transition to v6? If i wasnt in the bush, staring down rhinos (literally), i could write a more nuanced description of these issues. Rgds, mctim On 4/22/11, Milton L Mueller wrote: > This is a very ignorant statement and frankly it is out of touch with what > is already happening. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> Behalf Of George Sadowsky >> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:11 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim >> Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet >> Governance >> >> All. >> >> A direct and sane statement regarding the properties of IP addresses >> from an Internet Governance perspective. Worth reading: >> >> >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110419_ipv4_addresses_not_property_c >> anada_weighs_in_on_nortel_microsoft/ >> >> >> George >> __________________________________________________________ >> __ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Apr 23 06:10:16 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:10:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4DB22860.2080009@cavebear.com> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> <4DB22860.2080009@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message <4DB22860.2080009 at cavebear.com>, at 18:16:16 on Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Karl Auerbach writes >A lot of people treat the word "property" as some sort of mystical >talisman full of deep meaning and overwhelming portent. > >But to do so is silly. > >"Property" is nothing more than the accumulation of human-defined >rights and obligations that people (and fake-people, i.e. corporations) >have towards a tangible or intellectual thing. What's important is whether people think the courts can be used to enforce the rights and obligations. And courts are much more interested in things which can be regarded as property. Hence all the fuss about that other IP: Intellectual Property. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat Apr 23 07:18:21 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:18:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: An IP address is nothing else than a unique identifier in a data delivery service provided by the internet. Same thing as a postal address. Pretending to own such things pertains to fetishism. Trading them for money is a variety of fraud, not uncommon when it's a scarce resource, like phone numbers in some countries. - - - On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 6:35 AM, McTim wrote: > Thanks milton, i appreciate the feedback. Hower, what you dont > understand is the "what is going on now" has been going on for over a > decade. People have been trying to "sell" internet resources for a > very long time. Karl is correct, its the routing (largely based on > what is in irr that is important.. In terms of ig and the developing > world, this issue has flared up again in the african region yesterday. > Ironically, in africa, we have more v4 numbering resources than in asia, > us or eu left to give out. Should we sell them to corporate america hoping > to maximise revenue for the african rir and speed up v6 deployment, or hold > on to these resources, allowing for a longer transition to v6? If i wasnt > in the bush, staring down rhinos (literally), i could write a more nuanced > description of these issues. > Rgds, mctim > > On 4/22/11, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > This is a very ignorant statement and frankly it is out of touch with > what > > is already happening. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > >> Behalf Of George Sadowsky > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:11 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim > >> Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet > >> Governance > >> > >> All. > >> > >> A direct and sane statement regarding the properties of IP addresses > >> from an Internet Governance perspective. Worth reading: > >> > >> >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110419_ipv4_addresses_not_property_c > >> anada_weighs_in_on_nortel_microsoft/ > >> > >> > >> George > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Sat Apr 23 07:38:07 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:38:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4DB22860.2080009@cavebear.com> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> <4DB22860.2080009@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <857E1BE0-8E8C-4276-9DE6-FD5013C45887@arin.net> On Apr 22, 2011, at 9:16 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > ... > What I am getting at with all of this is that when we start to talk about IP addresses, let's drop the heavily overloaded word "property" and start to talk about who obtains what legally enforceable rights *and duties* as the result of an address allocation. Well said Karl. Here's a reply to Milton I posted the other day with the same basic emphasis: To be clear, ARIN has never asserted that registrants have no rights with respect address blocks registered to them; that would actually run contrary to one of the key goals of the registry itself in making address blocks available for exclusive use of the registrant. As part of the registry services offered by ARIN, address block holders have various rights (such as the right to be the exclusive registrant, to update their registration information, and even the right to transfer their address blocks to another party), all in compliance with policies developed by the community. The rights to do these things in ARIN"s registration database are quite real, but do not create a "personal property interest" in the IP addresses. Arguing that one "owns" IP addresses is akin to arguing that you "own" the number on the coat check tag you were given; you were actually assigned the unique number for a particular purpose, and while one might argue that you have certain rights to it, the tag becomes meaningless when removed from the system. As a result of our involvement, the references in the documents filed by the parties have been changed accordingly, e.g. "all of the Seller’s right, title and interest in and to the Legacy Number Blocks" is now "Seller's Rights in and to the Legacy Number Blocks". ARIN's intervention was simply to clarify the status of IP addresses, and we are pleased that the parties will perform the transfer in compliance with the community developed policies. Despite your rhetoric to the contrary, the ARIN community encourages a limited *market-based* approach to improving utilization of IP number resources, including developing the specified transfer policy to allow qualified recipients to obtain additional address space from other registrants as needed. This is a perfect example of how private-sector, community-based leadership can evolve Internet policy as needed to adapt to changing circumstances yet still maintain the Internet stability that we all value. ARIN remains quite able and willing to intervene in the future if it should prove necessary to protect these principles. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Apr 23 16:17:55 2011 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:17:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4DB333F3.8030508@wzb.eu> On 23.04.2011 06:35, McTim wrote: > Thanks milton, i appreciate the feedback. Hower, what you dont > understand is the "what is going on now" has been going on for over a > decade. People have been trying to "sell" internet resources for a > very long time. Karl is correct, its the routing (largely based on > what is in irr that is important.. In terms of ig and the developing > world, this issue has flared up again in the african region yesterday. > Ironically, in africa, we have more v4 numbering resources than in > asia, us or eu left to give out. Should we sell them to corporate > america hoping to maximise revenue for the african rir and speed up v6 > deployment, or hold on to these resources, allowing for a longer > transition to v6? If i wasnt in the bush, staring down rhinos > (literally), i could write a more nuanced description of these issues. > Rgds, mctim Hi McTim, please do once your are finished with the rhinos. jeanette > > On 4/22/11, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> This is a very ignorant statement and frankly it is out of touch with what >> is already happening. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >>> Behalf Of George Sadowsky >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:11 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim >>> Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet >>> Governance >>> >>> All. >>> >>> A direct and sane statement regarding the properties of IP addresses >>> from an Internet Governance perspective. Worth reading: >>> >>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110419_ipv4_addresses_not_property_c >>> anada_weighs_in_on_nortel_microsoft/ >>> >>> >>> George >>> __________________________________________________________ >>> __ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 17:57:39 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:57:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4DB333F3.8030508@wzb.eu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DB333F3.8030508@wzb.eu> Message-ID: HI jeannette, On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Hi McTim, please do once your are finished with the rhinos. Several months ago, Andrew Alston from the South African Research and Education Network (called TENET) made this policy proposal: http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-003-draft-02.htm NB: TENET gave back a large amount of legacy space via AfriNIC several years ago, thus setting a precedent whereby legacy adressess can be returned to an RIR, which is an interesting aside, but not germaine to this discussion. Now Andrew thinks we should get rid of v4 ASAP and all move to v6, and his network is fully v6 AFAIK, and kudos to TENET for being a v6 pioneer, but I do not support his proposal ( I support the Soft-Landing Policy that recently gained consensus after several years of discussion and revision). However, if the AfriNIC community does support it (and they haven't so far) I would suggest that it be changed so that in addition to the 100% extra increase in the LIR fee to cater for out of region membership, I would say that they should pay as a "capital levy" One Million Dollars If such a levy raised sufficient resources, it would allow an endowment to be set up to support the NIC indefinitely (not that the BoD of the NIC would go for such a scheme), it's just an idea that springs to mind in case this policy looks like it might move forward. In any case, we have a number of options ranging from passing this policy as written to amending it, to rejecting it outright, etc, etc. So far, none of the RIR communities has given a green light to IP address "monetisation" as IGP seems to advocate. Most observers of this potential "market" seem to think it would be very short lived, since it would be cheaper for network operators to move to IPv6. The latest comment on the CircleID blog says: "Is this a case of some interested parties trying to make as much noise a possible so as to keep a possible PONZI scheme working?" I'm not sure I would call it that per se, but the fact that ICANN has the "deep pockets" in this arena AND the proposal floated by at least on of the nascent companies to ICANN: http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accreditation-policy-31mar11-en.pdf Seems to suggest that ICANN may be the forum where this is played out, at least in part. If ICANN says "no" to this kind of proposal, I'm sure there are some lawyers out there who may be eager to make money by suing ICANN on the grounds that they are stopping companies from making money from IP address sales or post-registration services. Would IGP support a registry/registrar model for IP address distribution? What would be the public interest there? It certainly wouldn't make Internet connectivity any cheaper for consumers, wouldn't make using WHOIS any easier or more accurate. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 25 09:46:07 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:46:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > Which one? George's, Canada's, or McTim's? You might find Industry > Canada's declaration innocuous, but... ignorant?? > Industry Canada's. Ignorant. Yes, quite ignorant. First, it claims that organizations that were given IP addresses without a contract are contractually bound to obligations created by organizations (RIRs) that didn't exist when the addresses were handed out. Legally, just flat wrong. Second, it invents a ridiculous category of "black" addresses (and uses typical securitization scare-talk) to imply that unless ISPs' address holdings are placed under centralized control that we will all die from cyberterrorism or be victims of cybercrime, when in fact the addresses were legitimately obtained and the RIRs do not - and should not! - have anything to do with law enforcement. Third, it fusses over the word "property" but fails to recognize that unless legacy address block holders' rights to use and/or trade those blocks are recognized, they will continue to hoard those increasingly valuable resources and/or engage in black market transactions that will actually undermine the addresses' inclusion in a globally recognized registry system, thereby actually increasingly the risk of so-called "black" addresses. IPv4 addresses are scarce and increasingly valuable and there is and will continue to be competitive bidding for them. Nothing can change this. You don't make IPv4 addresses less scarce by declaring them not to be property. On the contrary. You create shortages, just as every form of price control has historically. Further, the intervention had to be withdrawn from the Nortel bankruptcy proceeding because it was late, procedurally clueless and the intervenor had no standing in the process. I won't go any further - the intervention is an unworthy target of any more of my time - but you might look into a bit more detail as to who made this intervention and the person's connections to certain ARIN board members. Let's just say it did not come from an uninterested party. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 25 09:59:18 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:59:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Thanks milton, i appreciate the feedback. Hower, what you dont > understand is the "what is going on now" has been going on for over a > decade. People have been trying to "sell" internet resources for a > very long time. No, the IPv4 situation is completely different from what has happened before. It has not been going on for a long time. Due to the full occupation of the IANA free pool, we are approaching a situation in which access to address resources is competitive and can only be allocated to their best use via transfers; i.e., one person must give up for another to get any. > what is in irr that is important.. In terms of ig and the developing > world, this issue has flared up again in the african region yesterday. > Ironically, in africa, we have more v4 numbering resources than in > asia, us or eu left to give out. Should we sell them to corporate > america hoping to maximise revenue for the african rir and speed up v6 You mean corporate Asia. That is where the strongest demand is. > deployment, or hold on to these resources, allowing for a longer > transition to v6? If i wasnt in the bush, staring down rhinos My advice: hold on to them. If you want any more investment advice you'll have to pay me. ;-) --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Apr 25 10:54:26 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:54:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> ,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> McTim, Following on with Milton, markets allocate scarce resources most of the time. IP numbers may have no intrinsic value. So what, the right to use 'fresh' IPv4, like spectrum in a national market - has a value independent of the 'price' of bits. Milton's suggestion to hold and wait for market forces to work their magic is the way to play imho; but note I am not a licensed broker/dealer ; ). Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:59 AM To: 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] RE: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance > -----Original Message----- > > Thanks milton, i appreciate the feedback. Hower, what you dont > understand is the "what is going on now" has been going on for over a > decade. People have been trying to "sell" internet resources for a > very long time. No, the IPv4 situation is completely different from what has happened before. It has not been going on for a long time. Due to the full occupation of the IANA free pool, we are approaching a situation in which access to address resources is competitive and can only be allocated to their best use via transfers; i.e., one person must give up for another to get any. > what is in irr that is important.. In terms of ig and the developing > world, this issue has flared up again in the african region yesterday. > Ironically, in africa, we have more v4 numbering resources than in > asia, us or eu left to give out. Should we sell them to corporate > america hoping to maximise revenue for the african rir and speed up v6 You mean corporate Asia. That is where the strongest demand is. > deployment, or hold on to these resources, allowing for a longer > transition to v6? If i wasnt in the bush, staring down rhinos My advice: hold on to them. If you want any more investment advice you'll have to pay me. ;-) --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 25 15:11:32 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:11:32 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99738@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> ,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99738@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight > > Actually, Milton, many governments - specifically prohibit/make illegal VoIP > still to this day. Not that all of them manage to successfully block all VoIP, but Lee, Governments, like Telcos, block VoIP only insofar as it competes with another service, usually an officially licensed voice telephone service of some sort. No one blocks VoIP just because it is VoIP > some are still pulling licenses and putting companies out of business, that > dare of offer VoIP. They are doing that because it competes with an established voice telephone tariff that requires substantial payments to be made to the government, the telco, etc. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 15:16:15 2011 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:16:15 +0000 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com><4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net><75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99738@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu><75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1626316560-1303758979-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1978394913-@bda059.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> +1 for MM statement.. -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:11:32 To: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight > > Actually, Milton, many governments - specifically prohibit/make illegal VoIP > still to this day. Not that all of them manage to successfully block all VoIP, but Lee, Governments, like Telcos, block VoIP only insofar as it competes with another service, usually an officially licensed voice telephone service of some sort. No one blocks VoIP just because it is VoIP > some are still pulling licenses and putting companies out of business, that > dare of offer VoIP. They are doing that because it competes with an established voice telephone tariff that requires substantial payments to be made to the government, the telco, etc. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Apr 25 17:10:54 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:10:54 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <1626316560-1303758979-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1978394913-@bda059.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com><4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net><75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99738@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu><75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<1626316560-1303758979-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1978394913-@bda059.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D72@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> There are 2 reasons for blocking continuing, only one of which is market-related. The other reason is...governments. Which may prefer that all voice calls are channeled through specific mechanisms which are easier for them to overhear. Not that it is impossible to do with VoIP. So still today, whether blocking is being done at behest of commercial providers, or other government agencies, or both, may vary. As incumbent telcos have clout, so do particular agencies. Like, in particular, the ones that like to listen in to calls, whether VoIP or circuit switched. Lee PS: Yeah I know government agencies have ways of getting what they want even from VoIP providers, but that is more of a bother than tried and true methods, for some countries, still, than trying to limit VoIP. ________________________________________ From: Carlos Vera Quintana [cveraq at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 3:16 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; Lee W McKnight; Roland Perry Subject: Re: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO +1 for MM statement.. -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:11:32 To: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight > > Actually, Milton, many governments - specifically prohibit/make illegal VoIP > still to this day. Not that all of them manage to successfully block all VoIP, but Lee, Governments, like Telcos, block VoIP only insofar as it competes with another service, usually an officially licensed voice telephone service of some sort. No one blocks VoIP just because it is VoIP > some are still pulling licenses and putting companies out of business, that > dare of offer VoIP. They are doing that because it competes with an established voice telephone tariff that requires substantial payments to be made to the government, the telco, etc. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 01:14:41 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:14:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Lee, On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > McTim, > > Following on with Milton, markets allocate scarce resources most of the time. Correct, and I am a big fan of markets in general, especially in an Internet context. The desire for people to find stuff they need and want has contributed greatly to Internet growth. However, markets are not appropriate in all situations. For example, human trafficking and derivatives based on toxic mortgages. NB: I am NOT comparing those situations to the IP address distribution arena, comparing them would be silly, its just to make the point that there are some things which should not be subject to what is called the "free market" In any case, if you define a "market" as a place to go when you need something, then its clear there has ALWAYS been a "market" for Internet numbering resources. Back in the day, before the network was commercialised you would go to the IANA. After commercialisation, you would get it from your upstream (the vast majority of Internet users get their IP address space from their providers, I'm guessing that 9x% of the "market need" is satisfied by this channel. It's only if you are a large (for the most part) corporate or ISP that you go to your RIR to satisfy your IP addressing needs. > > IP numbers may have no intrinsic value. > > So what, the right to use 'fresh' IPv4, like spectrum in a national market - has a value independent of the 'price' of  bits. That seems to be about right, however, a "right to use" is not the same as a "right to sell or own". The general rule, even in legacy assignments is that you are allocated/assigned numbering resources for a specific purpose or purposes. If you don't need them for those reasons, you have to give them back. > > Milton's suggestion to hold and wait for market forces to work their magic is the way to play imho; but note I am not a licensed broker/dealer I don't see this as being in the public interest, nor do I think that "deepest pockets wins" is a position that we as a CS Caucus should espouse. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue Apr 26 03:45:16 2011 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:45:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <68BCA0CA-72D5-4AE9-9120-5D28B9B88958@ella.com> On 26 Apr 2011, at 07:14, McTim wrote: > However, markets are not appropriate in all situations. For example, > human trafficking and derivatives based on toxic mortgages. NB: I am > NOT comparing those situations to the IP address distribution arena, > comparing them would be silly, its just to make the point that there > are some things which should not be subject to what is called the > "free market" Even so, a false comparison. The two examples you give are things that have ethically negative value : slavery, theft, fraud and usury but an open market in things that are ethically wrong says nothing about an open market in bits which has not ethical value attached to them. they are different categories of things and produce a false inference. i am not sure where I stand on the notion on a free market in IP addresses. as I think of it, i would tend toward a regulated market and not the free market. but i must say other than being sure i don't want ARIN or anyone else to grab the class C Postel allocate to me, and wishing i could find someone to route them to me, I have not done deep analysis on the kind of market that would be right. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Apr 26 04:03:04 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:03:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 08:14:41 on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, McTim writes >It's only if you are a large (for the most part) corporate or ISP that >you go to your RIR to satisfy your IP addressing needs. Or if you are an organisation such as an IXP or perhaps a cctld operator, that wants to be neutral and independent from a commercial upstream. I realise that some people would characterise such organisations as ISPs, but that definition is often clouded by assumptions that ISPs need to have "connectivity customers" in order to be differentiated from "end users". -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Apr 26 04:16:22 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:16:22 +0100 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99738@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1BzkyZ$W9ntNFABu@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 15:11:32 on Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Milton L Mueller writes >Governments, like Telcos, block VoIP only insofar as it competes with >another service, usually an officially licensed voice telephone service >of some sort. No one blocks VoIP just because it is VoIP Does it matter why they are blocking VoIP; the fact that they are, is what causes the lack of neutrality. And it's not being blocked because of the "origin or owner of the service", but simply because it is voice (over IP). If they had a system whereby (generally foreign-based) VoIP operators could pay for a licence in order to enable their customers to roam in that country - then, and only then, it would turn into a participant neutrality situation, rather than service neutrality. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Apr 26 04:37:36 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:37:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4DB68450.7080607@digsys.bg> On 26.04.11 11:03, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at > 08:14:41 on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, McTim writes > >> It's only if you are a large (for the most part) corporate or ISP that >> you go to your RIR to satisfy your IP addressing needs. > > Or if you are an organisation such as an IXP or perhaps a cctld > operator, that wants to be neutral and independent from a commercial > upstream. > > I realise that some people would characterise such organisations as > ISPs, but that definition is often clouded by assumptions that ISPs > need to have "connectivity customers" in order to be differentiated > from "end users". This assumption is grossly distorted. You are an ISP, if you provide any "Internet" services, to anyone. That would classify DNS operators as ISPs as well. The RIR's assumption about ISPs is that these entities lease the IP addresses to end users for the duration of the service. Thus the ISP gets allocated larger chunk that they need for their own operation, in order to accommodate such activity. By this definition, hosting and collocation companies would also fall in the ISP category, although they do not provide end connectivity. There needs to be clear balance with future IP address distribution however. In Europe, if you want to be an independent resource holder, you have to pay RIPE about as much, as a small ISP would. This only makes trading the IP addresses cheaper more attractive option. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 06:25:53 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:25:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4DB68450.7080607@digsys.bg> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DB68450.7080607@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > The RIR's assumption about ISPs is that these entities lease the IP > addresses to end users for the duration of the service. Thus the ISP gets > allocated larger chunk that they need for their own operation, in order to > accommodate such activity. LIRs (Local Internet Registries, which are usually ISPs, but can be hosting/colo providers or ccTLDs or a Google or an IBM) get what they say the need (and can prove) for a specified time frame. By this definition, hosting and collocation > companies would also fall in the ISP category, although they do not provide > end connectivity. but they can become LIRs. > > There needs to be clear balance with future IP address distribution however. > In Europe, if you want to be an independent resource holder, you have to pay > RIPE about as much, as a small ISP would. This only makes trading the IP > addresses cheaper more attractive option. Then its a good thing that RIPE policy prevents sub-assignment of PI space. Setting fees a bit higher also discourages consumption of routing slots. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Apr 26 08:53:19 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:53:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79AD8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> McTim, All valid points. Except I would not think of IPv4 addresses held by African entities as 'deepest pockets.' So if an incidental byproduct of IPv4 scarcity is prices paid well above costs to - Africa - well, that might be a transfer of value CSers would be sympathetic to. But larger issue is that not addressing a market as a market, can lead to lower consumer welfare; and specifically, opens door to incentives for - private markets. Which is another way of saying, assume bakshish. Classic example is current mess in India where government - inefficiencies - have everyone now 'shocked!' that mobile operators - really want spectrum to provide services to their paying customers. Who could have guessed? Anyway, better an open market than one in which we are later 'shocked' to learn that money changed hands along with IPv4 addresses. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:14 AM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance Lee, On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > McTim, > > Following on with Milton, markets allocate scarce resources most of the time. Correct, and I am a big fan of markets in general, especially in an Internet context. The desire for people to find stuff they need and want has contributed greatly to Internet growth. However, markets are not appropriate in all situations. For example, human trafficking and derivatives based on toxic mortgages. NB: I am NOT comparing those situations to the IP address distribution arena, comparing them would be silly, its just to make the point that there are some things which should not be subject to what is called the "free market" In any case, if you define a "market" as a place to go when you need something, then its clear there has ALWAYS been a "market" for Internet numbering resources. Back in the day, before the network was commercialised you would go to the IANA. After commercialisation, you would get it from your upstream (the vast majority of Internet users get their IP address space from their providers, I'm guessing that 9x% of the "market need" is satisfied by this channel. It's only if you are a large (for the most part) corporate or ISP that you go to your RIR to satisfy your IP addressing needs. > > IP numbers may have no intrinsic value. > > So what, the right to use 'fresh' IPv4, like spectrum in a national market - has a value independent of the 'price' of bits. That seems to be about right, however, a "right to use" is not the same as a "right to sell or own". The general rule, even in legacy assignments is that you are allocated/assigned numbering resources for a specific purpose or purposes. If you don't need them for those reasons, you have to give them back. > > Milton's suggestion to hold and wait for market forces to work their magic is the way to play imho; but note I am not a licensed broker/dealer I don't see this as being in the public interest, nor do I think that "deepest pockets wins" is a position that we as a CS Caucus should espouse. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Apr 26 09:13:15 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:13:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4DB68450.7080607@digsys.bg> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DB68450.7080607@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4WsXHWNrTstNFAxm@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4DB68450.7080607 at digsys.bg>, at 11:37:36 on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >>> It's only if you are a large (for the most part) corporate or ISP that >>> you go to your RIR to satisfy your IP addressing needs. >> >> Or if you are an organisation such as an IXP or perhaps a cctld >>operator, that wants to be neutral and independent from a commercial >>upstream. >> >> I realise that some people would characterise such organisations as >>ISPs, but that definition is often clouded by assumptions that ISPs >>need to have "connectivity customers" in order to be differentiated >>from "end users". >This assumption is grossly distorted. You are an ISP, if you provide >any "Internet" services, to anyone. IXPs only provide services to their members (who in turn provide it to their customers). > That would classify DNS operators as ISPs as well. Not in the generally accepted meaning of the word. As this is a governance list I'll simply comment that the entities I mentioned did not qualify as recipients of IPv6 addresses direct from at least one (and possibly several) RIRs in the early days, where it was assumed end users would always have an upstream, and IXPs and cctlds looked like end users themselves because they didn't have a business model that included allocating IP address space to classic end users. And in the early days of IXPs, you often couldn't become a member unless you had classic end users - pure content providers were excluded. >The RIR's assumption about ISPs is that these entities lease the IP >addresses to end users for the duration of the service. And in what sense does Google's DNS server lease me an IP address while I query its server on 8.8.8.8? Does PIR lease me an IP address when I register a .org domain with them? >Thus the ISP gets allocated larger chunk that they need for their own >operation, in order to accommodate such activity. By this definition, >hosting and collocation companies would also fall in the ISP category, >although they do not provide end connectivity. Yes, hosting and co-location companies can and do qualify under the definition of ISP, but I didn't mention them. >There needs to be clear balance with future IP address distribution >however. In Europe, if you want to be an independent resource holder, >you have to pay RIPE about as much, as a small ISP would. This only >makes trading the IP addresses cheaper more attractive option. I'm unable to comment on address policy issues in the RIPE region at the moment. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Tue Apr 26 09:14:51 2011 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:14:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] CFP: First International Workshop on Securing Services on the Cloud (IWSSC 2011) Message-ID: <016201cc0413$ecfe99e0$c6fbcda0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] *************** CALL FOR PAPERS *************** FIRST INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON SECURING SERVICES ON THE CLOUD (IWSSC 2011) Held in conjunction with the 5th International Conference on Network and System Security (NSS 2011) September 6-8, 2011, Milan, Italy - http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/iwssc2011 IWSSC 2011 BACKGROUND AND GOALS The ongoing merge between Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) and the Cloud computation paradigm provides a new environment fostering the integration of services located within company boundaries with those on the Cloud. An increasing number of organizations implement their business processes and applications via runtime composition of services made available on the Cloud by external suppliers. This scenario is changing the traditional view of security introducing new service security risks and threats, and requires re-thinking of current development, testing, and verification methodologies. IWSSC 2011 aims to address the security issues related to the deployment of services on the Cloud, along with evaluating their impact on traditional security solutions for software and network systems. The workshop seeks submissions from academia and industry presenting novel research on all theoretical and practical aspects of security of services implemented on the Cloud, as well as experimental studies in Cloud infrastructures, the implementation of services, and lessons learned. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * Security in Cloud services * Software verification in critical services * Static code analysis of software services * Test-based verification of services * Authentication and access control on the Cloud * Challenges in moving critical systems to the Cloud * Cybercrime and cyberterrorism on the Cloud * Communication confidentiality and integrity * Data security and privacy on the Cloud * Formal methods for the Cloud * Homeland security * Information assurance and trust management * Intrusion detection on the Cloud * Model-based validation of services * Orchestration and choreography * RESTful service security * SOAP security * Security certification of services * Security metrics on the Cloud * Security models and architectures * Security patterns for the Cloud * Security protocols on the Cloud IMPORTANT DATES Paper submission due: June 1, 2011 (midnight Samoa time) Notification to authors: July 11, 2011 Camera-ready due: July 21, 2011 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Submissions must not substantially overlap papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or conference/workshop with proceedings. Each submission should be at most 8 pages in total including bibliography and well-marked appendices, and should follow the IEEE 8.5" x 11" Two-Column Format. The final version of the accepted papers must follow the IEEE guidelines available at http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/publishing/templates.html Submissions are to be made to the submission web site (http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=iwssc2011). Only pdf files will be accepted. Submissions not meeting these guidelines risk rejection without consideration of their merits. Authors of accepted papers must guarantee that their papers will be presented at the workshop. At least one author of each accepted paper is required to register with the main conference and present the paper. Accepted papers at the workshops will be published in the conference proceedings and in the IEEE digital library. IWSSC 2011 COMMITTEES AND CHAIRS General Chair (NSS General Chair) * Sabrina De Capitani di Vimercati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Program Chairs * Claudio A. Ardagna, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Publicity Chair * Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Publication Chair * Giovanni Livraga, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy Program Committee * Marco Aimar, Opera21, Italy * Marco Anisetti, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Luis Soares Barbosa, Universidade do Minho, Portugal * Michele Bezzi, SAP, France * Simona Brugnoni, Telecom Italia, Italy * Marco Casassa Mont, HP Labs, UK * Richard Chbeir, Universite de Bourgogne, France * Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Telecom Bretagne, France * Sergio Di Martino, Universita' di Napoli Federico II, Italy * Tharam Dillon, Curtin University of Technology, Australia * Eduardo Fernandez, Florida Atlantic University, USA * Nils Gruschka, NEC Laboratories Europe, Germany * Sigi Guergens, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany * Paul Hofmann, SAP Labs - Palo Alto, USA * Hejiao Huang, Harbin Institute of Technology, China * Renato Iannella, Semantic Identity, Australia * Meiko Jensen, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany * Michiharu Kudo, IBM Japan, Japan * Giovanni Livraga, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy * Luigi Lo Iacono, European University of Applied Sciences, Germany * Antonio Mana, Universidad de Malaga, Spain * Renato Menicocci, Fondanzione Ugo Bordoni, Italy * Domenico Presenza, Engineering, Italy * Jorg Schwenk, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany * George Spanoudakis, City University of London, UK * Yanjiang Yang, Institute for Infocomm Research, Singapore IWSSC is technically co-sponsored by IEEE Systems Council (http://www.ieeesystemscouncil.org/) This call for papers and additional information about the conference can be found at http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/iwssc2011 Program chairs can be contacted at iwssc2011 at unimi.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 26 09:47:37 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:47:37 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <1BzkyZ$W9ntNFABu@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99738@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1BzkyZ$W9ntNFABu@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > Does it matter why they are blocking VoIP; the fact that they are, is > what causes the lack of neutrality. Yes, it matters. What causes the lack of neutrality is the discrimination, not the blocking per se. If you institute an application neutral program that blocks malware or harmful effects it is different than blocking an application simply because you want to coerce your users into using a particular vendor's voice service. > And it's not being blocked because of the "origin or owner of the > service", but simply because it is voice (over IP). Incorrect. I guess I am not making my point, somehow. As I said, NO ONE blocks VoIP simply because it is VoIP, or at least no one I have ever heard of. They block it because it is a service that competes with another service they profit from. Give me a specific, real-world counter example or concede the point. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Apr 26 10:28:51 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:28:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4WsXHWNrTstNFAxm@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DB68450.7080607@digsys.bg> <4WsXHWNrTstNFAxm@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4DB6D6A3.1090504@digsys.bg> On 26.04.11 16:13, Roland Perry wrote: > >> This assumption is grossly distorted. You are an ISP, if you provide >> any "Internet" services, to anyone. > > IXPs only provide services to their members (who in turn provide it to > their customers). Some ISPs too, provide services to "members only". > > And in the early days of IXPs, you often couldn't become a member > unless you had classic end users - pure content providers were excluded. These are more like business, than policy decisions. > >> The RIR's assumption about ISPs is that these entities lease the IP >> addresses to end users for the duration of the service. > > And in what sense does Google's DNS server lease me an IP address > while I query its server on 8.8.8.8? Does PIR lease me an IP address > when I register a .org domain with them? I assume my English expression was inappropriate. I was referring to RIRs definition of "ISP". Google and other DNS operators are providing Internet Services (of various kinds). We need to make distinction between the TLD registry and the TLD DNS operator. For many ccTLDs these happen to be the same entities. For many gTLDs these are separate entities. For the expected large number of new gTLDs, in most cases the TLD manager and the TLD DNS operator will be different entities. It is only the TLD DNS operator, that provides any "Internet Services" (name resolution). The other part of the TLD operators business is merely keeping an up to date database. In any case, the DNS operator needs to be "independent" of their "upstream ISP" and in many cases these do not really have upstream ISPs, because their service is multihomed, especially when anycast is involved. This creates an entirely separate category of IP address space users. We have the option to either consider these "Internet infrastructure" or threat them just like any (other) hosting provider, because in essence what they provide as Internet Services is hosting DNS zones. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 11:09:28 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:09:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79AD8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79AD8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > McTim, > > All valid points. > > Except I would not think of IPv4 addresses held by African entities as 'deepest pockets.' nor did I mean that. I meant the deep pockets of corporates who sit on big piles of cash, and to whom a few million dollars for IPv4 space won't pinch their bottom line. > > So if an incidental byproduct of IPv4 scarcity is prices paid well above costs to - Africa - well, that might be a transfer of value CSers would be sympathetic to. so we would be encouraging the use of "African" resources by corporates in the developing world? > > But larger issue is that not addressing a market as a market, can lead to lower consumer welfare; and specifically, opens door to incentives for - private markets.  Which is another way of saying, assume bakshish. Well, I think we have the best opportunity for Jane Public to participate in helping to set policy around these resources with the status quo. In addition, RIRs run on a non-profit "cost-recovery" basis, so I fail to see how a profit making registry could undercut them. I think in a "free-market" for numbering resources, the "premium" that folks will be willing to pay to obtain said resources will be the baksheesh. > > Classic example is current mess in India where government - inefficiencies - have everyone now 'shocked!' that mobile operators - really want spectrum to provide services to their paying customers. Who could have guessed? > > Anyway, better an open market than one in which we are later 'shocked' to learn that money changed hands along with IPv4 addresses. The "market" we have now is truly open, the policies and procedures and fee structures for each RIR is online for all to see. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Apr 26 11:59:54 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:59:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: For those following this topic there is an informative synthesis on IPv4 adresses http://www.bgpexpert.com/addrspace2010.php by Iljitsch van Beijnum The grey/black market in trading v4 addresses is primarily a US affair, not due to shortage but to a huge reserve within US organizations, which got the lion's share of v4 allocations. In addition the "real" status of allocated v4 addresses is not clear. Attractive prospect of a lawyer's paradise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Apr 26 12:27:27 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:27:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4DB6D6A3.1090504@digsys.bg> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DB68450.7080607@digsys.bg> <4WsXHWNrTstNFAxm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DB6D6A3.1090504@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <1Q90WKYvJvtNFAAt@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4DB6D6A3.1090504 at digsys.bg>, at 17:28:51 on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >>> This assumption is grossly distorted. You are an ISP, if you provide >>>any "Internet" services, to anyone. >> >> IXPs only provide services to their members (who in turn provide it >>to their customers). >Some ISPs too, provide services to "members only". We have that concept, called private (versus public) service providers. >> And in the early days of IXPs, you often couldn't become a member >>unless you had classic end users - pure content providers were excluded. >These are more like business, than policy decisions. It reduced the business of the IXP. But was following the policy set by its members (and therefore owners). >>> The RIR's assumption about ISPs is that these entities lease the IP >>>addresses to end users for the duration of the service. >> >> And in what sense does Google's DNS server lease me an IP address >>while I query its server on 8.8.8.8? Does PIR lease me an IP address >>when I register a .org domain with them? > >I assume my English expression was inappropriate. I was referring to >RIRs definition of "ISP". I'm not sure they distinguish between ISPs and large end users. They are all LIRs. >Google and other DNS operators are providing Internet Services (of >various kinds). But don't need to issue IP addresses to the users, for the services I mentioned. >We need to make distinction between the TLD registry and the TLD DNS >operator. For many ccTLDs these happen to be the same entities. For >many gTLDs these are separate entities. For the expected large number >of new gTLDs, in most cases the TLD manager and the TLD DNS operator >will be different entities. > >It is only the TLD DNS operator, that provides any "Internet Services" >(name resolution). The other part of the TLD operators business is >merely keeping an up to date database. > >In any case, the DNS operator needs to be "independent" of their >"upstream ISP" and in many cases these do not really have upstream >ISPs, because their service is multihomed, especially when anycast is >involved. This creates an entirely separate category of IP address >space users. I can't argue with that. These are the people needing IP address allocations direct from an RIR, while not being large corporate end users, or ISPs in the normal sense of the word. >We have the option to either consider these "Internet infrastructure" >or threat them just like any (other) hosting provider, because in >essence what they provide as Internet Services is hosting DNS zones. They are hosting a database, whose entries reflect registrations made by others. Same as RIRs, actually. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Tue Apr 26 14:07:27 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:07:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Apr 25, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > First, it claims that organizations that were given IP addresses without a contract are contractually bound to obligations created by organizations (RIRs) that didn't exist when the addresses were handed out. Legally, just flat wrong. Milton - Is that your legal opinion? I'll note that at formation, ARIN agreed with the US Government to provide registration services for *all* registrations that were not within the RIPE and APNIC regions, and that we would have a private sector led policy development process which was open to all for establishing the policies for the registry. > Further, the intervention had to be withdrawn from the Nortel bankruptcy proceeding because it was late, procedurally clueless and the intervenor had no standing in the process. Actually, I'm told it was withdrawn because the the parties (NNI/Microsoft) had submitted their revised asset purchase agreement which was modified as requested by ARIN. ARIN has never asserted that registrants have no rights with respect address blocks registered to them (as that would actually run contrary to one of the key goals of the registry itself in making address blocks available for exclusive use of the registrant) As part of the registry services offered by ARIN, address block holders do have various rights (such as the right to be the exclusive registrant, to update their registration information, and even the right to transfer their address blocks to another party), but all of this occurs in compliance with policies developed by the community. The rights to do these things in ARIN"s registration database are quite real, but do not create any "personal property interest" in the IP addresses. Earlier today, the court approved the revised agreements, and the resources will indeed be transferred as a result. With the depletion of unissued IPv4 addresses looming globally, the ARIN community has developed a transfer policy designed to permit those with unneeded address space to transfer their right to use them to other organizations that can demonstrate the need for the resources. In this manner, the specified-transfer policy allows market incentives to drive better utilization of IPv4 address resources, and I am quite pleased that the parties were able to make the transaction work via this mechanism. Press release here: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Microsoft-Receives-Court-Approval-for-Transfer-as-Agreed-With-ARIN-1506594.htm Anyone who has questions feel free to drop me email. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 17:36:40 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:36:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] News about remote participation in EuroDIG Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to share with you some news about the first initiative of remote participation related to EuroDIG 2011. A an EuroDIG hub has been organized by the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications of the Republic of Moldova, in partnership with the “CMB” Training Center. The meeting took place on April 7th and focused on personal data protection, discussed from an european as well as from a local perspective. The report of the meeting is available here: http://www.guarder.net/eurodig/2011/Moldova_EuroDIG_2011_Report.pdf A video with messages from the organizers can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpFW_6cmlAc The participants advanced questions that will be forwarded to the speakers of the workshop on data protection, to take place in EuroDIG. A list of registered hubs to the EuroDIG 2001 can be found here: http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2011informationlist-of-hubs Options for remote participation will be made available soon in EuroDIG website. Best wishes, Marília -- DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 26 19:45:29 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:45:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71730517EA1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > > First, it claims that organizations that were given IP addresses > > without a contract are contractually bound to obligations created by > > organizations (RIRs) that didn't exist when the addresses were handed > > out. Legally, just flat wrong. > > Milton - > > Is that your legal opinion? [Milton L Mueller] It's ARIN's legal opinion, as you know. Or do I have to throw ARIN's testimony in the Kremen case at you again? ;-) > I'll note that at formation, ARIN agreed > with the US Government to provide registration services [Milton L Mueller] Yes, ARIN agreed to provide registration services to anyone and everyone in their region, but that doesn't mean it gained contractual obligations over them - i.e., over people who never signed a contract with it. > > Further, the intervention had to be withdrawn from the Nortel > > bankruptcy proceeding because it was late, procedurally clueless > > and the intervenor had no standing in the process. > > Actually, I'm told it was withdrawn because the parties > (NNI/Microsoft) had submitted their revised asset purchase agreement [Milton L Mueller] In other words, it was out of order and procedurally clueless. > which was modified as > requested by ARIN. [Milton L Mueller] ROTFL! I have to admire you John, for your persistence in putting the best possible face on what should be a sobering moment for ARIN. You are a good and loyal man. But the simple truth is that the asset purchase agreement was modified because Microsoft agreed to modify it, after ARIN begged it to. Full stop. It was not modified because the court told Microsoft it had to modify it to get approval. Had Microsoft told ARIN to get lost (as Nortel did) neither ARIN nor the clueless Canadian intervenor could have done anything about it. You are very lucky that Microsoft decided to play. > ARIN has never asserted that registrants have no > rights with respect address blocks registered to them [Milton L Mueller] Who said it ever asserted that? I agree, registrants have limited rights of exclusive use under ARIN contracts. I actually like the RIR system, in case you've forgotten, I just think it needs to be reformed in line with some very rapidly changing and important developments in the address space. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Tue Apr 26 20:38:55 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:38:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71730517EA1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71730517EA1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Apr 26, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's ARIN's legal opinion, as you know. Or do I have to throw ARIN's testimony in the Kremen case at you again? ;-) Feel free, although you might be better asking someone who was present at ARIN's formation. >> I'll note that at formation, ARIN agreed >> with the US Government to provide registration services > > Yes, ARIN agreed to provide registration services to anyone and everyone in their region, but that doesn't mean it gained contractual obligations over them - i.e., over people who never signed a contract with it. Yes (and indeed that cuts both ways...) > But the simple truth is that the asset purchase agreement was modified because Microsoft agreed to modify it, after ARIN begged it to. Full stop. Strange, that's not how I would characterize it, with the benefit of first hand knowledge. >> ARIN has never asserted that registrants have no >> rights with respect address blocks registered to them > > Who said it ever asserted that? I agree, registrants have limited rights of exclusive use under ARIN contracts. Actually, registrants have limited rights of exclusive use under ARIN *policies* as well. > I actually like the RIR system, in case you've forgotten, I just think it needs to be reformed in line with some very rapidly changing and important developments in the address space. To the extent that "it is time" for the Internet number resource registry system to evolve, then there should be international discussion of the new framework, including appropriate mechanisms for involvement of all under multistakeholder principles. I would look forward to seeing such proposals and discussing their merits compared to the present system. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 00:51:32 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:51:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1302156324.9898.265.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408085431.DAE0E15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4DB1E3B9.4090706@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEB@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71730517EA1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:38 AM, John Curran wrote: > >> I actually like the RIR system, in case you've forgotten, I just think it needs to be reformed in line with some very rapidly changing and important developments in the address space. > > To the extent that "it is time" for the Internet number resource registry system to evolve, I think the Internet number resource registry system has been constantly evolving, at least in the last decade or so since I have been involved in those processes (and "evolve" is a far better term than "reform" IMHO). We have seen the NRO come into existence, had ICP-2 adopted, great emphasis on outreach and capacity building (especially amongst gov'r entities), including support for the IGF, RPKI and DNSSEC to name but a few changes that are ongoing. I'm sure we will see more evolution of this system, and I would hope that more members of this Caucus come to one of the 5 tables (RIR policy discussion lists) at their disposal to help shape this ongoing change. As much as I disagree with MM on many issues, it is unquestionable that his voice has been heard, and has had some influence on the ARIN PPML. If more IGC members follow his example, then more CS perspectives can be heard in these fora. As I have said before, we can choose to focus on the actual IG issues, or continue our focus on meta-IG issues. -- 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, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Wed Apr 27 02:35:15 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:35:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1Q90WKYvJvtNFAAt@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DB68450.7080607@digsys.bg> <4WsXHWNrTstNFAxm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DB6D6A3.1090504@digsys.bg> <1Q90WKYvJvtNFAAt@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4DB7B923.5050909@digsys.bg> On 26.04.11 19:27, Roland Perry wrote: [on DNS operators] > We have the option to either consider these "Internet infrastructure" > or threat them just like any (other) hosting provider, because in > essence what they provide as Internet Services is hosting DNS zones. > > They are hosting a database, whose entries reflect registrations made > by others. Same as RIRs, actually. DNS operators are my pet subject and I am glad this term has gotten wider usage. Let's hope I am not going in unnecessary detail. This is small part of the governance perspective, but often overlooked one, as it is assumed to 'just work'. And it has, so far, due to the good will of so many people. There are two possible common things between RIRs and TLD managers. Registration Services and DNS services. As it was already mentioned, it is Registration Services that guarantee the various rights over the registered object, be it IP address allocation or domain name. This is the core function of both RIRs and TLD registries. The DNS services function is an auxiliary function, but it is the operational function that is necessary for the Internet's DNS to function. RIRs handle the reverse-DNS lookups via in-addr.arpa and TLD DNS operators, together with the root zone DNS operators handle the forward DNS resolution. It is this DNS service, that needs independent, globally routable and 'stable' IP address space. It is not the RIRs or TLD registries as such, but their DNS operators - sometimes a subdivision, sometimes external contractors, that need such assignments. I believe, with more widespread adoption of the 'DNS operator' concept, RIR policies will be adjusted. This may sound easier than it is, because currently everyone knows who the RIRs and TLD registries are. Not the same with DNS operators. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Apr 27 05:46:04 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:46:04 +0100 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99738@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1BzkyZ$W9ntNFABu@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <21Bkf9JcX+tNFATj@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C801 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 09:47:37 on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Milton L Mueller writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> Does it matter why they are blocking VoIP; the fact that they are, is >> what causes the lack of neutrality. > >Yes, it matters. What causes the lack of neutrality is the >discrimination, not the blocking per se. Of course it's based on a wish to discriminate, I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. It's almost a truism. Blocking is simply the manifestation (or if you like implementation) of the desire to discriminate. A desire to have a non-neutral network. >If you institute an application neutral program that blocks malware or >harmful effects it is different than blocking an application simply >because you want to coerce your users into using a particular vendor's >voice service. There's a different kind of political motivation, but all of these produce a situation where network neutrality has been breached. >> And it's not being blocked because of the "origin or owner of the >> service", but simply because it is voice (over IP). > >Incorrect. I guess I am not making my point, somehow. As I said, NO ONE >blocks VoIP simply because it is VoIP, or at least no one I have ever >heard of. They block it because it is a service that competes with >another service they profit from. I'm not sure (sorry) what point you are trying to make. I thought we were attempting to avoid some of the confusion surrounding NN by characterising each instance as either Service-based or Participant-based. I'll repeat why I don't think VoIP is normally participant-based: In the countries where VoIP is banned (for the admittedly commercial reasons discussed above, often with the State as actor rather than all the competing private sector network operators in concert) they ban it for all people in their country and all people trying to reach their country from outside. And for all VoIP products. So there's no discrimination based on persons or suppliers, simply on the nature of the service (eg being voice-over-IP rather than text-over-IP). >Give me a specific, real-world counter example or concede the point. I'd be happy to produce a counter-example, but not completely sure what it is I'm trying to counter. In case it helps I'll talk about one form of Network Neutrality which has caused upset for as long as I can remember: NNTP (Network News, aka Usenet). Originally conceived as a form of distributed "Bulletin Board", the volume of messages got out of hand when people started attaching pictures, and after that, files. Helpfully, the system is designed somewhat like a cache, with each server able to receive one copy of a posting, and deliver it many times to local recipients. ISPs, in order to preserve their bandwidth to the rest of the 'net (either local peering or international transit), would block access to so called "off-net" (outside their network) NNTP servers by their customers, arguing that Usenet was available from their local server. [Some customers would argue about the quality of service from the local server, but that's a different can of worms]. They'd also disallow off-net access (from other ISPs' customers) to their server, protecting their outbound connectivity, while arguing that those customers should be using their own ISP's server. Because they were blocking all users (in both directions) and access to all off-net servers, I'd characterise the exercise as participant-neutral, but clearly not service-neutral. Note that this had nothing to do with loss of revenue from selling access to their own server to their customers, as the cost was invariably bundled into the monthly subscription whether you wanted it or not. (Is that the counter-example you were seeking?) Fast forward ten years to today, and there's still a lack of NNTP neutrality (in the UK at least), but for different reasons. Let me know if you want to hear chapter 2. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Apr 27 07:42:01 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:42:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4DB7B923.5050909@digsys.bg> References: <1302154734.9898.237.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <20110408100448.9649A15C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <20110408134948.B1F8315C0F9@quill.bollow.ch> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CEC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034D3F0D64@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DB68450.7080607@digsys.bg> <4WsXHWNrTstNFAxm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DB6D6A3.1090504@digsys.bg> <1Q90WKYvJvtNFAAt@internetpolicyagency.com> <4DB7B923.5050909@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4DB7B923.5050909 at digsys.bg>, at 09:35:15 on Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >The DNS services function is an auxiliary function, but it is the >operational function that is necessary for the Internet's DNS to >function. RIRs handle the reverse-DNS lookups via in-addr.arpa and TLD >DNS operators, together with the root zone DNS operators handle the >forward DNS resolution. > >It is this DNS service, that needs independent, globally routable and >'stable' IP address space. It is not the RIRs or TLD registries as >such, but their DNS operators - sometimes a subdivision, sometimes >external contractors, that need such assignments. I'm not sure such distinctions are very useful (and as far as I know none of the RIRs outsources its operations). It's all a bit like saying an airline doesn't need an airport to land its planes at, instead it's only the pilot who does. In a sense, both are true, and as passengers we don't quibble about the details as long as we get there safely. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 27 09:10:02 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:10:02 -0400 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <21Bkf9JcX+tNFATj@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99738@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1BzkyZ$W9ntNFABu@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <21Bkf9JcX+tNFATj@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C815@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > I'm not sure (sorry) what point you are trying to make. I thought we > were attempting to avoid some of the confusion surrounding NN by > characterising each instance as either Service-based or > Participant-based. I'll repeat why I don't think VoIP is normally The purpose of my comments was exactly to challenge this unhelpful division of neutrality into "service" and "participant." One can differentiate between the treatment of services and participants in a nondiscriminatory way. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Apr 27 11:07:30 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:07:30 +0100 Subject: On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C815@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4DA32D5F.9040105@gmail.com> <4da36cf7.ccefd80a.6554.1669@mx.google.com> <4DA914D6.7080207@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B27E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7172066B2D7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99738@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D717268D9CF7@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1BzkyZ$W9ntNFABu@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C801@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <21Bkf9JcX+tNFATj@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C815@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C815 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 09:10:02 on Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Milton L Mueller writes >> I'm not sure (sorry) what point you are trying to make. I thought we >> were attempting to avoid some of the confusion surrounding NN by >> characterising each instance as either Service-based or >> Participant-based. I'll repeat why I don't think VoIP is normally > >The purpose of my comments was exactly to challenge this unhelpful >division of neutrality into "service" and "participant." One can >differentiate between the treatment of services and participants in a >nondiscriminatory way. Both kinds of treatment are infringements of network neutrality (also mindful that this doesn't mean everyone thinks a lack of neutrality is always a bad thing). But there are so many campaigns being waged under the "network Neutrality" banner that surely it must be helpful to try to categorise them in some way. For example, a network that wants to surcharge certain content providers for the pleasure of delivering their content to its (the network's) eyeballs, is a completely different issue to a network having a blacklist of websites whose politics or commercial attraction offend its (the network's) masters, or the situation where a network seeks to restrict non-time-sensitive bulk transfers during busy-hours so that real-time content deemed more important to the network's users can be delivered in better shape. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Apr 27 23:11:44 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:11:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] FCC Open Internet Advisory Committee Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79AEA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI, FCC is forming an 'Open Internet Advisory Committee.' See: http://benton.org/node/56699? and/or http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011-9723.pdf Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Apr 28 09:17:47 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:17:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Euro content charging coming? Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79AED@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> And now for news from a maybe less 'neutral' Euro net? ________________________________________ From: info at fiercemarkets.com [info at fiercemarkets.com] On Behalf Of lmcknigh at syr.edu [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:14 AM To: Lee W McKnight Subject: Lee McKnight has forwarded a page to you from FierceWireless:Europe [http://www.fiercewireless.com/europehttp://www.fiercewireless.com/images/fweurope.gif]FierceWireless:Europe Lee McKnight thought you would like to see this page from the FierceWireless:Europe web site. Message from Sender: Open Internet, European style? France Telecom, Telefónica push for content charging by paulr Having voiced their disquiet in the past over heavyweight content providers abusing their broadband mobile data networks, France Telecom and Telefónica are starting to become more serious Click here to read more on our site ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Apr 28 11:03:53 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:03:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Euro content charging coming? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79AED@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79AED@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79AED at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 09:17:47 on Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Lee W McKnight writes >And now for news from a maybe less 'neutral' Euro net? Proposing settlement-based peering, as I warned about a week or two ago. R. >________________________________________ >From: info at fiercemarkets.com [info at fiercemarkets.com] On Behalf Of >lmcknigh at syr.edu [lmcknigh at syr.edu] >Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:14 AM >To: Lee W McKnight >Subject: Lee McKnight has forwarded a page to you from FierceWireless:Europe > >[http://www.fiercewireless.com/europehttp://www.fiercewireless.com/image >s/fweurope.gif]FierceWireless:Europee/forward/emailref?path=news/frontpage> > >Lee McKnight thought you would like to see >this page from the FierceWireless:Europe web site. > >Message from Sender: > >Open Internet, European style? > >France Telecom, Telefónica push for content >charging/3200> > >by paulr > >Having voiced their disquiet in the past over heavyweight content >providers abusing their broadband mobile data networks, France Telecom >and Telefónica are starting to become more serious > >Click here to read more on our >site0> > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Apr 28 11:49:38 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:49:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] Euro content charging coming? In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79AED@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4DB98C92.2030908@digsys.bg> On 28.04.11 18:03, Roland Perry wrote: > > Proposing settlement-based peering, as I warned about a week or two ago. > Settlement based peering has existed since the commercialization of Internet. In general, the smaller provider is paying the larger provider for 'connectivity'. An old-time (90's) joke: "We in Europe pay the poor Americans, in order for them to have connectivity to our network(s)." I do not believe, this is the reason for the proposal, but -- telecoms historically understand settlements best. Probably, the real reason is that those telecoms try to be "competitive" by subsidizing their services by such settlements. Mobile Internet has always been expensive and is likely to continue to be. Mostly because of the highly regulated market. My opinion: Internet has been successful, because no one-to-one agreements and settlements needed to be made between participating parties. All other networks, that used that model (X.25 networks, X.400 networks) went to history. It is not likely this will fly in Internet. At the extreme, those mobile users will not receive service from the content providers. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 15:00:27 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:00:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] KSK CEREMONY 5 Message-ID: This was sent to the PACNOG Mailing list from Joe Abley from ICANN. KSK CEREMONY 5 The fifth KSK ceremony for the root zone will take place in Culpeper, VA, USA on Wednesday 2011-05-11. The ceremony is scheduled to begin at 1300 local time (1700 UTC) and is expected to end by 1600 local time (2000 UTC). Video from Ceremony 5 will be recorded for audit purposes. Video and associated audit materials will be published 1 to 2 weeks after the ceremony, and will be available as usual by following the "KSK Ceremony Materials" link at . ICANN will operate a separate camera whose video will not be retained for audit purposes, but which will instead be streamed live in order to provide remote observers an opportunity to watch the ceremony. The live stream will be provided on a best-effort basis. The live video stream will be available at . Ceremony 5 will include processing of a Key Signing Request (KSR) generated by VeriSign, and the resulting Signed Key Response (SKR) will contain signatures for Q3 2011. CONTACT INFORMATION We'd like to hear from you. If you have feedback for us, please send it to rootsign at icann.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 15:26:15 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:26:15 +1200 Subject: [governance] Phone Trackers - Privacy Rights??? Message-ID: I read this article this morning and found it interesting on a whole number of levels. Whilst it has become normal for people to expect invasion of privacy in the West (Asia, Russia etc), the East (US etc) has often been long associated with advocating civil liberties. However, the overdrive by commercial companies to take marketing to a new level, from beyond knowing where they live (jurisdictions like Fiji it is mandatory for operators to register every phone sold and to whom and if you lose a phone you must inform the companies that sold it to you), to desiring to know movement, what transactions take place via phones, what you eat etc in the desire to create and sell better products, lifestyle changes etc. I recall the NZ Cyber Crime Police investigating Google for taking unlawful shots and pictures of some of the towns and cities for Google Earth etc. Whilst it was somewhat "normal" to expect surveillance (however discreet) from governments, like in France etc, it was not and never normal for commercial entities to cross over. Now they have. Clearly where technology advancements in the past were locked down and secured by usually Military Laboratories, we are finding more and more that corporates who heavily invest into Research and Development since the 80s are at par if not way more tech savvy than their military research and development which is possibly one of the reasons why private corporates in some jurisdictions are contracted to develop for countries military systems etc. These phone trackers are very low level of course. iPhones don't track anyone; Google handsets do, says Steve Jobs Posted By TelecomTV One, 27 April 2011 | 0 Comments| (1) Tags: *iPhone * *Technology * *Google * * Android * * mobile * * Surveillance * It seems that although Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs, is off work on long-term sick leave he still keeps a god-like eye on us all and, from time to time, even answers our prayers - or perhaps he doesn't. Martyn Warwick reports. US politicians are taking seriously recent revelations that the likes of Apple and Google have been secretly tracking the locations of users of their devices. The House Energy and and Commerce Committee has written to the CEO's of these (and other) corporations asking them to provide information about such practices and why they are doing it. A Congressional investigation could follow. Senior executives at Apple are asked, "What location data do devices running your operating system track, use, store, or share?" and "Why does the device track, use, store, or share that data?" Those companies sent the letters (HP, Microsoft, Nokia and RIM are on the list as well as Apple and Google) have to respond by "no later than May 9, 2011." After last week's revelations that each iPhone stores a user's unencrypted location data for months at a time and routinely sends it back to the company without the user being aware, it has also come to light that Google's Android smartphones do exactly the same thing. The question is "why?" And now the concern that was initially confined to the US is spreading around the world. There is considerable disquiet in Europe and now the South Korean regulator is demanding information on the secretive and possibly illegal practice. And outraged reaction is also spreading across America. Advertisement In Tampa, Florida, two iPhone users have filed a federal class-action suit against Apple on the grounds that they would not have bought the devices had they been made aware that the company would clandestinely track their movements. Apple and Google have said almost nothing in response to the growing chorus of disapproval about their sneaky machinations but both companies have, in the past, confirmed that users can stop location data being collected via the simple expedient of turning-off the device's location-based services. However, when the news about the alleged tracking broke, the Wall Street Journal newspaper undertook an investigation of its own and found that the disablement of location-based services on the iPhone 4 it used had no effect on the collection and retention of location data. Then, yesterday evening London-time, the story got an extra twist when the MacRumors site reported that it had made email contact with Steve Jobs himself and asked him about the tracking allegations. Here is a transcript of the MacRumors exchange with the sainted Steve. "Q: Steve, Could you please explain the necessity of the passive location-tracking tool embedded in my iPhone? It's kind of unnerving knowing that my exact location is being recorded at all times. Maybe you could shed some light on this for me before I switch to a Droid. They don't track me." A: Oh yes they do. We don't track anyone. The info circulating around is false. Sent from my iPhone. Now, first off, we don't know that Jobs himself was the one who replied, and secondly, the response leaves much unanswered. For example is the responder denying that the iPhone's tracking capability doesn't exist? (When we know that it does and there's plenty of independent evidence to prove it). Or is the reply no more than a reiteration that although the embedded tracking facility exists, Apple does not actually collect and manipulate the data that is periodically downloaded from the devices? And, if that's the case, why does the location tracking and time stamping happen in the first place? I think we should be told. People will probably have something quite rude to say about their mobile handsets becoming de facto electronic tagging devices that just happen go in your pocket or purse rather than around the ankle. The effect is the same though - they know where you are. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Apr 28 17:42:26 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:42:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Euro content charging coming? In-Reply-To: <4DB98C92.2030908@digsys.bg> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0351B79AED@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4DB98C92.2030908@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4DB98C92.2030908 at digsys.bg>, at 18:49:38 on Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >> Proposing settlement-based peering, as I warned about a week or two ago. >> >Settlement based peering has existed since the commercialization of >Internet. In general, the smaller provider is paying the larger >provider for 'connectivity'. That's transit. The French were complaining about non-settlement peering. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t