From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Aug 1 02:41:40 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:41:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> <4E324A57.2020203@digsys.bg> <20110729194806.55E0F15C252@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4E364AA4.7070001@digsys.bg> On 30.07.11 02:46, Paul Lehto wrote: > If this "private, non-corporate governance" works at all well, I'd > first have to ask For Whom does it Work Well? Glad you asked. It has worked for over a billion people, worldwide. The Internet. Would you deny that? Even the fact that today, you, personally have the ability to share your ideas with many people, without restrictions and at minimal costs is only because of this private governance. Here I address all of 'you' reading this, including myself. None of this would be possible if the Internet was government controlled. Or controlled by large corporations. > I realize that > educated, talented and resourceful few such as those on this list and > our colleagues may sometimes convince a Microsoft to do a minor > change, but this is mostly because the lawyers for Microsoft have > reserved truly sweeping rights and won't really be hurt at all by a > minor concession. Governance is not about persuading anybody anything. Governance is all about making sure resources are used responsibly and that there are enough resources for those who need them. In my country we have a saying: The one who pays orders the music. > Even despotic kings are known to do likewise, it is > referred to as "the Grace of the king." Kings save people's lives > from time to time, and all that. But it's only when and if they want > to, and it's not pursuant to the rule of law. Ah.. I understand now. :) Do you know, that decades ago, some "me too" people created a legend about DNS: John Postel is the King and all ccTLD managers are his vassals. Funny enough, those same people later tried to create their own kingdom in a similar fashion, but eventually failed... Because Internet is different. > I always concede that an at least apparently more "efficient" and > workable private governance or private dictatorship can be set up. > One might set themselves up as the autocratic dictator of a listserv > and many or even most might find that quite workable if I often act in > the mode like one of Plato's philosopher kings and regularly dispense > at least some grace. Very good example. Anyone may set up an mailing list on Internet. This has been true at least for the last twenty years. The cost to become governor, or dictator is indeed very small. And your power is absolute! Internet is such a heaven for those who want power :) > But this is no comfort to those in the minority > (or majority) who have their rights and dignity denied by the autocrat > or corporate plutocrat, and in most instances (except where > democratically-passed laws still apply) there's nothing that anybody > outside the corporation can do about it, except beg for grace. Let's forget for a moment your fixation on corporations. Those who are unhappy, can have their recourse on the Internet. Of course! They can set up their own mailing list, pretty much like the dictator's. And yes, they will then become dictators too. What is more, they even have the choice to not be dictators. They could have democratic elections, by their membership, or better yet, by their town, state or country people. If they are true democrats, of course they will turn to a democratically elected Government, to run the mailing list. The small boring question remains is who will do the actual work and who will pay the bill, but we need not worry about this, as long as it is all democratic. > You might not literally be down on your knees with Microsoft, but unless > you are arguing based on democratically-passed laws with the actual or > implied threat of legal action behind it, you are truly at the grace > and mercy of Microsoft. Or, you might just not care about Microsoft. Or Oracle. Or IBM. Or McDonnalds. > If one is part of, or connected to, what amounts to an internet > aristocracy of private governance, I understand that if you know the > ropes a bit you may find it easier to pull some strings in that > smaller aristocracy than it is to move or influence larger, > democratically established governments. The first thing people noticed about Internet is, that it is 'flat'. It has not hierarchy. Internet changed the structure of many corporations by the way, made them flatter. It also changed the structure of many Governments 'democratic' or not. It changed the structure of everybody's relationship and communications. Internet is different. > For very analogous reasons, a very rich person willing to use bribery > might strongly favor the continuation of a corrupt, bribery-based > system of governance because it very much helps the rich person to get > things done in a quick way. So you believe that it would be possible to bribe CIRA, to influence their decisions instead of demonstrating that something they do it not proper and not in line with their mandate? > I hope it's obvious that I interpret my own experiences in effecting > change in non-democratic or private institutions to be due to my > temporary admission into that part of the internet aristocracy, > combined with the unilateral decision on the part of the private > governor to grant me some grace, relief or mercy. Yes, it is. But you wrongly assume that involving a "democratic" Government will make your experience better. All you can do is inflict damage on your opposing "King". But history remembers that each time you ally with a stranger things do not get better. > I don't think you or I will ever succeed in getting such a private > governor to do something in this manner that is in any way > fundamentally against their interests -- our arguments are limited to > what's in the long term best interests of our kingly private governor > (or the threat of asserting democratically-derived laws, which is an > interjection of democracy into a non-democratic situation). Here you have hit the nail, I must admit! :) How do you know what are the interests of all current private Internet governors? You apparently assume, that it is all about profit. Or, all about domination over mankind. Or, some form of secret conspiracy that no doubt is anti-democratic and needs to be prosecuted. Could you imagine, just for a moment, that because those "Internet governors" are so many and the club is open to anyone and the admittance costs are very low, to negligible -- that this "internet aristocracy" covers pretty much a significant portion of Earth's population? If it is so, what is your proposal to create a 'democratic' governance, especially involving Governments. Internet Governance has already outgrown Governments. It is so since many, many years. Internet is different. > The acid test for democracy or any form of governance is what can be > called the "So What?" test. What can a person do if the power > exercising governance simply says "so what?" "What are you going to do > about it?" Right. Your mailing list King, when faced with absurd requests, especially such that would impact negatively their operation, or the experience of their membership is very likely to respond to your threats with "So what?". So what? What if they do so? We need to engage the Government to punish them? Like in the kindergarden, when one child runs crying to the teacher for support in their fight with the other one? Or threaten the other child, that their father (read: one Government) will beat their father (read: another Government). There is just one task for Governments with relation to Internet and human rights. To create adequate environment, to foster competition and innovation and provide support for the private initiatives. This is cheaper for everybody (because everybody pays the increasing costs of Government bureaucracy), does not create unnecessary tension and ensures rights of humans are protected. Many argue, that access to Internet is a human right. It is not. It is a privilege. This is especially because access to Internet is not restricted and as such everybody has access. But costs are different thing. Already there are initiatives to ensure access to Internet for those who cannot bear the costs themselves, but this is pretty much the same as any other charity effort. 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 Mon Aug 1 02:53:02 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 07:53:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4E361FEF.3070508@ciroap.org> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E361FEF.3070508@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4JlnQMTO1kNOFA8a@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4E361FEF.3070508 at ciroap.org>, at 11:39:27 on Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >The Dynamic Working Coalition for Internet Governance Mapping, of which >I am a part, is about to launch a survey of civil society organisations >to ascertain their interest in participating in bodies such as the CSTD >that are currently closed to them. Have those bodies been refused entry to CSTD meetings, even with the current "exceptional" rules? -- 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 Aug 1 02:53:17 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 07:53:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: In message , at 13:31:43 on Sun, 31 Jul 2011, Marilia Maciel writes > >Just to complement and make my previous message more clear, what Brazil >has successfully advanced (after difficult diplomatic negotiations with >US and Iran) was a request for CSTD Secretariat to make a list of CS >organizations that wish to participate in CSTD, but do not have >accreditation with WSIS (text of the resolution quoted below). In the >meantime, the current unequal arrangement was extended until 2015. What is the significance of 2015? On previous occasions, my understanding was that the various deadlines were in place in order for organisations to apply for ECOSOC Consultative Status (as discussed in the context of attending the recent ECOSOC meeting). >In order to make sure that the list will indeed be made and in order to >ensure that the process of making the list will be transparent, CS >needs to act. What should CS do Perhaps the first thing to decide is whether each CS entity wishes to participate in the "normal" way, by gaining ECOSOC Consultative Status (which several have already done), or do they wish the 'exceptional' arrangements to continue. They should also be clear within themselves whether the reason for being interested in CSTD is because, for the time being, it is where certain aspects of the future of the IGF are discussed. Or do these CS entities wish to become involved in the other activities of the CSTD, either today or in the future when IGF renewal is no longer on their agenda (for whatever reason it was removed). -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 1 03:13:17 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:13:17 +0800 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4JlnQMTO1kNOFA8a@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E361FEF.3070508@ciroap.org> <4JlnQMTO1kNOFA8a@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4E36520D.9010207@ciroap.org> On 01/08/11 14:53, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4E361FEF.3070508 at ciroap.org>, at 11:39:27 on Mon, 1 Aug > 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >> The Dynamic Working Coalition for Internet Governance Mapping, of which >> I am a part, is about to launch a survey of civil society organisations >> to ascertain their interest in participating in bodies such as the CSTD >> that are currently closed to them. > > Have those bodies been refused entry to CSTD meetings, even with the > current "exceptional" rules? Maybe or maybe not, but the survey is broader and looks at all of the barriers that impede participation in institutions that discuss policy for the information society. Formal accreditation rules are only one such barrier of many. Expect the survey to launch in the coming days. We will be asking IGC members to help disseminate it through their networks of contacts. The preliminary results will be discussed at our IGC-sponsored Mapping Internet Governance workshop at the IGF, and a follow-up paper will be published by Consumers International later in the year. -- *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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Aug 1 03:44:05 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:44:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC Follow Up References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C348@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Marilia good point and thank you for the analysis. I see two ways how to proceed into 2012: 1. we have to develop a more general position in form of a statement for the next CSTD meeting (probably in Fall 2011 and then again in May 2012) to ask for some clarifications and a greater sustainablity with regard to CS involvement in the WSIS follow up related activities of the CSTD. We should do this directly and via friendly governments. 2. My understanding is that the CSTD proposal to enhance the mandate of the CSTD IGF Improvement Working Group" was acceptey by ECOSOC. We have five members in this group and they should get a clear mandate from the IGC to raise this issue both in informal discussions as well as in formal presentations. BTW, has anybody more information about the future of this WG? What I know is that Switzerland stepped down as chair. There was some speculation about Portugal as a new chair, but I heard also Philipines and Indonesia had signalled interest. There is no working plan for the group and the risk is high that the group will loose again a lot of time, playing around the chair position, doing nothing substantially and start its work only at the end of the year (after the 2nd commitee of the UNGA has finished its debates in New York end of November/early December). There is certainly an alternative opportunity to kick start the process by using the 6th IGF in Nairobi end of September 2011. I do not know whether some governments want to do this. However, if nothing is happening with the WG until end of August/early September 2011, CS could take the lead and to invite the governmental and non-governmental members of the WG for an informal meeting to discuss both procedural and substantial issues with regard to the future work of the WG. We could certainly get a room for 50 or so people for two or three hours on Day 3 or 4 and I am sure that more than 50 percent of group-members will come to Nairobi. We should announce this in advance and mark this as ad-hoc "Informal Multistakeholder Consultations (IMC) on the Future of the UN CSTD IGF Improvement Working Group". Best regards 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 Mon Aug 1 04:09:09 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:09:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4E36520D.9010207@ciroap.org> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E361FEF.3070508@ciroap.org> <4JlnQMTO1kNOFA8a@internetpolicyagency.com> <4E36520D.9010207@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message <4E36520D.9010207 at ciroap.org>, at 15:13:17 on Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >> The Dynamic Working Coalition for Internet Governance Mapping, of >>which I am a part, is about to launch a survey of civil society >>organisations to ascertain their interest in participating in >>bodies such as the CSTD that are currently closed to them. > > Have those bodies been refused entry to CSTD meetings, even with the > current "exceptional" rules? > >Maybe or maybe not, I'll take that to mean "they haven't actually asked". > but the survey is broader and looks at all of the barriers that impede >participation in institutions that discuss policy for the information >society.  A survey of all such institutions is a good idea. I was wondering why you'd apparently singled out CSTD, when I've found it to be one of the more open. > Formal accreditation rules are only one such barrier of many.  In practice, getting hold of the agenda (so you know when to attend[1]) and knowing how to register are also significant barriers. That's without worrying about the financial issues, getting visas[2] and so on. >Expect the survey to launch in the coming days.  >We will be asking IGC members to help disseminate it through their >networks of contacts.  The preliminary results will be discussed at our >IGC-sponsored Mapping Internet Governance workshop at the IGF, and a >follow-up paper will be published by Consumers International later in >the year. [1] Picking the right two hours from a month, in the recent ECOSOC meeting is an extreme example, but it's helpful to understand for example that attending only the right day of a CSTD meeting isn't good enough and you probably need to plan on staying all week for those ad-hoc groups which aren't even on the printed agenda. [2] Despite being able to travel relatively freely as a Brit, I've still managed to fail to attend a IG meeting because the organisers failed to produce an invitation letter to support my visa application. So I do understand the issues. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 1 04:34:18 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:34:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E361FEF.3070508@ciroap.org> <4JlnQMTO1kNOFA8a@internetpolicyagency.com> <4E36520D.9010207@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4E36650A.1050705@ciroap.org> On 01/08/11 16:09, Roland Perry wrote: > A survey of all such institutions is a good idea. I was wondering why > you'd apparently singled out CSTD, when I've found it to be one of the > more open. To clarify, it will be a survey of all such institutions. -- *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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 1 04:37:44 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:37:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC Follow Up In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C348@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C348@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4E3665D8.4020305@ciroap.org> On 01/08/11 15:44, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > There is certainly an alternative opportunity to kick start the process by using the 6th IGF in Nairobi end of September 2011. I do not know whether some governments want to do this. However, if nothing is happening with the WG until end of August/early September 2011, CS could take the lead and to invite the governmental and non-governmental members of the WG for an informal meeting to discuss both procedural and substantial issues with regard to the future work of the WG. We could certainly get a room for 50 or so people for two or three hours on Day 3 or 4 and I am sure that more than 50 percent of group-members will come to Nairobi. We should announce this in advance and mark this as ad-hoc "Informal Multistakeholder Consultations (IMC) on the Future of the UN CSTD IGF Improvement Working Group". Our workshop "Reflection on the Indian Proposal Towards an IGF 2.0" was partly intended for this purpose, at least with respect to the substantive issues. -- *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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Aug 1 04:53:13 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:53:13 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ECOSOC Follow Up References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C348@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4E3665D8.4020305@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C349@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jeremy yes this is an important opportunity. My proposal is an addtional proposal. It would be an (formal) informal meeting of members of the group (in an open environment). Ni statements or speakers. Just to discuss what we want to do within the group until May 2012. w ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Mo 01.08.2011 10:37 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: Re: [governance] ECOSOC Follow Up On 01/08/11 15:44, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: There is certainly an alternative opportunity to kick start the process by using the 6th IGF in Nairobi end of September 2011. I do not know whether some governments want to do this. However, if nothing is happening with the WG until end of August/early September 2011, CS could take the lead and to invite the governmental and non-governmental members of the WG for an informal meeting to discuss both procedural and substantial issues with regard to the future work of the WG. We could certainly get a room for 50 or so people for two or three hours on Day 3 or 4 and I am sure that more than 50 percent of group-members will come to Nairobi. We should announce this in advance and mark this as ad-hoc "Informal Multistakeholder Consultations (IMC) on the Future of the UN CSTD IGF Improvement Working Group". Our workshop "Reflection on the Indian Proposal Towards an IGF 2.0" was partly intended for this purpose, at least with respect to the substantive issues. -- 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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Aug 1 07:04:01 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:04:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4JlnQMTO1kNOFA8a@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E361FEF.3070508@ciroap.org> <4JlnQMTO1kNOFA8a@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: Have those bodies been refused entry to CSTD meetings, even with the current "exceptional" rules? Yes, they have. The organization where I work was created after WSIS. To attend last CSTD I was invited by the Brazilian government and went as part of the delegation, not as CS. This is an awkward and an unacceptable solution for CS. Marília On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <4E361FEF.3070508 at ciroap.org>, at 11:39:27 on Mon, 1 Aug 2011, > Jeremy Malcolm writes > > The Dynamic Working Coalition for Internet Governance Mapping, of which >> I am a part, is about to launch a survey of civil society organisations >> to ascertain their interest in participating in bodies such as the CSTD >> that are currently closed to them. >> > > Have those bodies been refused entry to CSTD meetings, even with the > current "exceptional" rules? > > -- > 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Aug 1 07:24:05 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:24:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Please, see some comments below On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com>, > at 13:31:43 on Sun, 31 Jul 2011, Marilia Maciel > writes > > >> Just to complement and make my previous message more clear, what Brazil >> has successfully advanced (after difficult diplomatic negotiations with US >> and Iran) was a request for CSTD Secretariat to make a list of CS >> organizations that wish to participate in CSTD, but do not have >> accreditation with WSIS (text of the resolution quoted below). In the >> meantime, the current unequal arrangement was extended until 2015. >> > > What is the significance of 2015? On previous occasions, my understanding > was that the various deadlines were in place in order for organisations to > apply for ECOSOC Consultative Status (as discussed in the context of > attending the recent ECOSOC meeting). I do not believe that this is the main reason why the deadlines are there. The same deadlines apply to the business and technical and academic communities, even though they are not required to apply for ECOSOC (actually, I do not think they even can, formally speaking). These arrangements have been almost automatically renewed since 2008, without further discussion. The doors of CSTD remain open for business and tech organizations created after WSIS, but CS has been "frozen" to the list of WSIS accreditation. > > In order to make sure that the list will indeed be made and in order to >> ensure that the process of making the list will be transparent, CS needs to >> act. What should CS do >> > > Perhaps the first thing to decide is whether each CS entity wishes to > participate in the "normal" way, by gaining ECOSOC Consultative Status > (which several have already done), or do they wish the 'exceptional' > arrangements to continue. > Personally, I do not think ECOSOC accreditation should be required from all who wish to participate in IG discussions in CSTD because of the unique nature of this regime. Getting ECOSOC accreditation is a very cumbersome and difficult procedure, especially for some organizations. Additionally, we are living a bizarre situation: if we apply and receive ECOSOC status, only then we will be treated as equal to business and technical organizations that have only expressed their wish to participate in CSTD. That makes no sense! > > They should also be clear within themselves whether the reason for being > interested in CSTD is because, for the time being, it is where certain > aspects of the future of the IGF are discussed. Or do these CS entities wish > to become involved in the other activities of the CSTD, either today or in > the future when IGF renewal is no longer on their agenda (for whatever > reason it was removed). CSTD will probably receive the task of discussing Enhanced cooperation as well; IG issues will stay in the agenda for some time. I think that we (CS) should know more about what CSTD does. A lot of things we discuss here are deeply related to the work of the Commission. But I personally never knew about CSTD until I was dragged there by IGF discussions. So awareness must be raised before we decide if we want to follow it or not. And even if just a few of us do wish to participate, it is wrong that this kind of ad hoc unequal arrangement exists, so we should fight to change it weather or not we (our organizations) are personally interested on CSTD. Marília > > -- > 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Aug 1 08:18:44 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:18:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E361FEF.3070508@ciroap.org> <4JlnQMTO1kNOFA8a@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 08:04:01 on Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >>Have those bodies been refused entry to CSTD meetings, even with the >>current "exceptional" rules? > >Yes, they have. The organization where I work was created after WSIS. >To attend last CSTD I was invited by the Brazilian government and went >as part of the delegation, not as CS. This is an awkward and an >unacceptable solution for CS Thanks for the clarification. I was perhaps getting confused with other forums where they seemed to ask for WSIS accreditation or "demonstrated expertise". One of the things which worries me slightly (and should be included in Jeremy's survey of all forums perhaps) is the way in which CSTD has signalled since 2007 an "understanding that, in the meantime, the said organizations and entities will apply for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council". Which is why I was asking if we expect 2015 to be the final postponement for the "exceptional" admission, and everyone interested in continuing with CSTD will have at long last made their applications to ECOSOC; or alternatively is admission expected to be much easier for anyone. -- 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 Aug 1 08:53:35 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:53:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: In message , at 08:24:05 on Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >Please, see some comments below >> Just to complement and make my previous message more clear, what >> Brazil has successfully advanced (after difficult diplomatic >> negotiations with US and Iran) was a request for CSTD Secretariat >> to make a list of CS organizations that wish to participate in >> CSTD, but do not have accreditation with WSIS (text of the >> resolution quoted below). In the meantime, the current unequal >> arrangement was extended until 2015. > What is the significance of 2015? On previous occasions, my > understanding was that the various deadlines were in place in order > for organisations to apply for ECOSOC Consultative Status (as > discussed in the context of attending the recent ECOSOC meeting). > >I do not believe that this is the main reason why the deadlines are >there. The same deadlines apply to the business and technical and >academic communities, even though they are not required to apply for >ECOSOC (actually, I do not think they even can, formally speaking). RIPE NCC, ICC and ISOC have all achieved ECOSOC consultative status. >These arrangements have been almost automatically renewed since 2008, >without further discussion. The doors of CSTD remain open for business >and tech organizations created after WSIS, but CS has been "frozen" to >the list of WSIS accreditation. Academic and tech organisations are part of: "all non-governmental organizations and civil society entities" so civil society hasn't been singled out. And separately, private sector business has to be WSIS-accredited: "business sector entities including the private sector accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society" or: "Requested the secretariat of the commission to propose to the council lists of business sector entities including the private sector not accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society that express the wish to participate in the work of the Commission" So an exercise to extend that to non-WSIS Civil Society, Academia and Tech would indeed seem fair. >Personally, I do not think ECOSOC accreditation should be required from >all who wish to participate in IG discussions in CSTD because of the >unique nature of this regime. Getting ECOSOC accreditation is a very >cumbersome and difficult procedure, especially for some organizations. So is the United Nations! What we are asking for is to be able to creep inside their tent through a back door. We may feel entitled to ask that, but should recognise what it is we are asking for. >Additionally, we are living a bizarre situation: if we apply and >receive ECOSOC status, only then we will be treated as equal to >business and technical organizations that have only expressed their >wish to participate in CSTD. That makes no sense! See above. >I think that we (CS) should know more about what CSTD does. That probably means it would be a good idea to attend (and contribute) in the main sessions all week, rather than just the days when IG is on the agenda. Something to consider when planning future attendance. > A lot of things we discuss here are deeply related to the work of the >Commission. But I personally never knew about CSTD until I was dragged >there by IGF discussions. So awareness must be raised before we decide >if we want to follow it or not. I wasn't aware of it until early in 2009, when Marcus started to encourage people to attend that year's session. More awareness is very helpful. >And even if just a few of us do wish to participate, it is wrong that >this kind of ad hoc unequal arrangement exists, so we should fight to >change it weather or not we (our organizations) are personally >interested on CSTD. Or align ourselves with an accredited attendee (not necessarily a government). -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Aug 1 09:28:15 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:28:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <28956964.81765.1312205295846.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k24> Many Thanks, Marilia, for your valuable information on the biased representativity of CS in CSTD; this is particularly seriuos as far as the WSIS follow-up process is concerned. it would be interesting to get some comments from the "multistakeholderism freaks" of our list  :-) ... Jean-Louis Fullsack   > Message du 31/07/11 18:08 > De : "Marilia Maciel" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > Otherwise ECOSOC adopted without vote all the decisions from its subsidiary body the CSTD, including “Participation on non-governmental organizations and civil society entities not accredited to WSIS in the work of CSTD”, taking down the last barrier for participation in the Commission. > > This evaluation is not accurate. Let me call your attention to what the 3 resolutions about the participation of Civil Society, the private sector and the technical academic community in CSTD say. They flagrantly disrespect the principle of multistakeholder participation, they put civil society in disadvantage and CS has completely ignored the existence of this inequality.  Participation of non-governmental actors in CSTD, is allowed on the following basis: > a) In 2007 civil society organizations that had WSIS accreditation were authorized to participate in CSTD. This provision was based on the understanding that these organizations would apply for consultative status with the ECOSOC. The arrangement would be valid only for two years, but it was extended until 2011. (ECOSOC Decision 2007/215 and 2008/217) > b) In 2007 Business sector entities were authorized to take part on the work of the CSTD in more flexible conditions. They should preferably, but not mandatorily, have WSIS accreditation. This arrangement was reviewed in 2010, and was extended until 2011 (ECOSOC Decision 2007/216 and ECOSOC Decision 2010/227); > c ) In 2008 Academic entities, including academies of science and engineering, were authorized to take part in CSTD meetings without the need for WSIS accreditation, if they express the wish to participate. This arrangement was reviewed in 2010 and extended until 2011 (ECOSOC Decision 2008/218 and ECOSOC Decision 2010/227). > > > > > This case allows to draw some conclusions. First, the participation of non-governmental actors is currently based on temporary decisions that may or may not be renewed after their expiration date. This precarious situation shows the fragility of multistakeholder  participation in CSTD. Secondly, there is quite a discrepancy on the requirements for the participation of each stakeholder group, and the barriers for the participation of civil society are comparatively higher. While the private sector and the technical and academic communities need only to express their interest to participate, civil society needs to have accreditation with ECOSOC, or must have participated in WSIS in 2003 or 2005. > > > This situation is symbolic, as it shows a worrisome inversion of values in CSTD. The voices of actors who represent the private interests have an easier access to the political process, of compared to those who would have the role of promoting public interest objectives. > > > It must be clarified, however, that the low entry barriers have not resulted in a significant increase in the participation of the private sector and of technical and academic community in CSTD. On the contrary, the renewal and variation of the representatives is reduced, showing a concentration of political power among few players. It is also interesting to notice the lack of mobilization from civil society against this unequal status quo. While civil society has correctly and vehemently defended the preservation of multistakeholder participation in other political spaces, like the 2011 G8 meeting about the Internet it has remained silent on the face of this closer and more flagrant inequality among stakeholder groups in CSTD. >   During the last CSTD meeting in May Brazil tried to propose a resolution that would ask the CSTD Secretariat to propose ways to improve the conditions for the participation of CS in order to redress this unbalance. The member countries preferred to renew the current arrangement until 2015. > What should CS do about that? > Best,Marília    However, participation in ECOSOC itself is still restricted to ECOSOC NGOs. But these 4 week long substantive sessions in July, alternating between NY and Geneva, are seen by many NGOs/CSOs just as rubberstamping exercises, apart from the High level segment at the beginning, and therefore not worth their attendance (I have a slightly different opinion) , except for Geneva or NY based entities for sections of their interest. Jean Louis, this may explain the low attendance of CSOs. But the relative high attendance of Governments at least indicates interest in the issues. NGOs are invited and can also take the floor on any item.   Best Renate            From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Sent: jeudi, 28. juillet 2011 10:45 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Philippe Blanchard > Subject: re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations   Dear members of the list > > > Philippe wrote : > < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).> > > I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence > < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.> > > Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a "biased attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I would like to know is how many true CS delegates attended these meetings and which organisatiions they represented. Additionnally it'd be interesting to know how DCs were represented in these meetings : governement, regional orgs, CS and private sector. > > Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could provide us these data. Many thanks in advance. > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT  >      > >    > > > > > > Message du 27/07/11 10:11 > > De : "Philippe Blanchard" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" > > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > > > Dear All, > > > > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. > > Kind regards, > > Philippe > > > > > > > > Data > > > > Author : Philippe Blanchard > > > > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on information society » and « internet governance forum » > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Referential documents > > > > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet activity related reports : > > > > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) > > > > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Points of interest > > > > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. > > > > > > > > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy,…) and the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing…) and on some risks (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no mention of key elements such as “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction”… I fear those elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be addressed once the e-governance principles have been set. > > > > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed in a co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential process. > > > > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. > > > > > > > > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce). > > > > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on his report. (seidler at isoc.org) > > > > > > > > > > > > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the fact it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being struck in some diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). > > > > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and e-life. Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global facility” from a State representative (Venezuela, I think) > > > > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” also appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. > > > > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the Working group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a “official platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or not. This platform would support more effectively the developing countries actions and would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Points of interest (cont’d) > > > > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably my “If you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). > > > > > > > > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I wasn’t listening carefully enough. > > > > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the political and economical stakes… but it is core. > > > > > > > > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conclusion > > > > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting room was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more politically sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign. > > > > > > > > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: > > > > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to spend 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 for a meeting starting at 10:00. > > > > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she brought challenging food for thought. > > > > > > > > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > > > Hi Philippe, > > > > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late > > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 > > Best > > Renate > > > > Renate Bloem > > Main Representative > > Civicus UN Geneva > > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > > Mobile : +41763462310 > > renate.bloem at civicus.org > > renate.bloem at gmail.com > > skype: Renate.Bloem > > > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > > www.civicus.org > > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society > > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) > > > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > > Of Philippe Blanchard > > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC > > > > Dear Roland > > > > thank you for the follow-up. > > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make > > it. > > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome > > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is > > not !!! > > > > I will follow the outcomes through the net. > > > > Kind regards, > > Philippe > > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on > > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > > > > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? > > > > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. > > > > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 > > > > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. > > > > > creditation.pdf> > > > > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still > > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. > > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. > > > > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To 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 > -------------- 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 Aug 1 09:48:46 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:48:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: See some comments below: On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message > >I do not believe that this is the main reason why the deadlines are > >there. The same deadlines apply to the business and technical and > >academic communities, even though they are not required to apply for > >ECOSOC (actually, I do not think they even can, formally speaking). > > RIPE NCC, ICC and ISOC have all achieved ECOSOC consultative status. > Thanks for the clarification. I probably missread it somewhere. > > > Academic and tech organisations are part of: > > "all non-governmental organizations and civil society entities" > > so civil society hasn't been singled out. And separately, private sector > business has to be WSIS-accredited: > > "business sector entities including the private sector > accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society" > or: > "Requested the secretariat of the commission to propose to the > council lists of business sector entities including the private > sector not accredited to the World Summit on the Information > Society that express the wish to participate in the work of the > Commission" > > Here you are talking about the text of the resolution proposed in May 2010 by Brazil that aims to bring equal treatment to the 3 non-governmental stakeholders. I am talking about the arrangement currently under effect, which has been extended until 2015 (see the report of the 14th CSTD meeting, p.12). For instance, resolution 2008/218 about the participation of the technical community says, textually: "Requested the secretariat of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to submit to the Economic and Social Council for its consideration and approval in a timely manner *the names of academic entities, including academies of science and engineering, that had not been accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society and that had expressed or were expressing the wish to participate in the work of the Commission"* > So an exercise to extend that to non-WSIS Civil Society, Academia and > Tech would indeed seem fair. Non-WSIS Business sector and Academia can already participate in CSTD. The reason why they are included on the paragraph you quoted above (from May) is because CSTD has not organized "lists" of non-WSIS business and tech who wish to participate. There´s currently no transparency. So the resolution asked the Secretariat to organize lists for the 3 groups. > > >Personally, I do not think ECOSOC accreditation should be required from > >all who wish to participate in IG discussions in CSTD because of the > >unique nature of this regime. Getting ECOSOC accreditation is a very > >cumbersome and difficult procedure, especially for some organizations. > > So is the United Nations! What we are asking for is to be able to creep > inside their tent through a back door. We may feel entitled to ask that, > but should recognise what it is we are asking for. > I am not sure I understand your point, so before I reply I would ask for clarification. > > >I think that we (CS) should know more about what CSTD does. > > That probably means it would be a good idea to attend (and contribute) > in the main sessions all week, rather than just the days when IG is on > the agenda. Something to consider when planning future attendance. > All CS organizations that were in CSTD in May attended the meeting all week, not only IGF-related side meetings and drafting group. > > > >And even if just a few of us do wish to participate, it is wrong that > >this kind of ad hoc unequal arrangement exists, so we should fight to > >change it weather or not we (our organizations) are personally > >interested on CSTD. > > Or align ourselves with an accredited attendee (not necessarily a > government). > Ideally, I think we should not have to align with no one to be addmited. If Business and Technical community can ask to participate without WSIS accreditation, CS should be able to do the same. > -- > Roland Perry > Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Aug 1 09:56:23 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:56:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4E36650A.1050705@ciroap.org> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E361FEF.3070508@ciroap.org> <4JlnQMTO1kNOFA8a@internetpolicyagency.com> <4E36520D.9010207@ciroap.org> <4E36650A.1050705@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <33367929.82143.1312206983710.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k24> Jeremy wrote > To clarify, it will be a survey of all such institutions. Let's hope that the survey willalso be carried out on the ITU, Unesco and UNDP, our main WSIS supervisors ! Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 01/08/11 10:34 > De : "Jeremy Malcolm" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Roland Perry" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > On 01/08/11 16:09, Roland Perry wrote: A survey of all such institutions is a good idea. I was wondering why you'd apparently singled out CSTD, when I've found it to be one of the more open. > > To clarify, it will be a survey of all such institutions. > > -- > 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 > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > [ smime.p7s (5.0 Ko) ] -------------- 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 Aug 1 10:41:54 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:41:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: In message , at 10:48:46 on Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >See some comments below: >> Academic and tech organisations are part of: >> >> "all non-governmental organizations and civil society entities" >> >> so civil society hasn't been singled out. > >And separately, private sector >> business has to be WSIS-accredited: >> >> "business sector entities including the private sector >> accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society" >> or: >> "Requested the secretariat of the commission to propose to the >> council lists of business sector entities including the private >> sector not accredited to the World Summit on the Information >> Society that express the wish to participate in the work of the >> Commission" >> >Here you are talking about the text of the resolution proposed in May 2010 >by Brazil that aims to bring equal treatment to the 3 non-governmental >stakeholders. No, that's the text from 2007.... http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4365&lang=1 > I am talking about the arrangement currently under effect, which has been >extended until 2015 (see the report of the 14th CSTD meeting, p.12). > >For instance, resolution 2008/218 about the participation of the technical >community says, textually: > >"Requested the secretariat of the Commission on Science >and Technology for Development to submit to the Economic and >Social Council for its consideration and approval in a timely manner >*the names of academic entities, including academies of science and >engineering, that had not been accredited to the World Summit on the >Information Society and that had expressed or were expressing the >wish to participate in the work of the Commission"* ... updated in 2008 it seems. >> >Personally, I do not think ECOSOC accreditation should be required from >> >all who wish to participate in IG discussions in CSTD because of the >> >unique nature of this regime. Getting ECOSOC accreditation is a very >> >cumbersome and difficult procedure, especially for some organizations. >> >> So is the United Nations! What we are asking for is to be able to creep >> inside their tent through a back door. We may feel entitled to ask that, >> but should recognise what it is we are asking for. > >I am not sure I understand your point, so before I reply I would ask for >clarification. The UN is a Membership Organisation. There are various classes of members. What's being asked for here is exceptions to membership (or perhaps temporary membership while people organise their permanent membership). It's not unusual to have meetings (even Internet Governance ones) that have membership criteria. I remember struggling to justify staying in an ICANN NCUC meeting because I appeared to be an interloper. I have to say, it's the only ICANN silo where my attendance has ever been questioned! >> >I think that we (CS) should know more about what CSTD does. >> >> That probably means it would be a good idea to attend (and contribute) >> in the main sessions all week, rather than just the days when IG is on >> the agenda. Something to consider when planning future attendance. > >All CS organizations that were in CSTD in May attended the meeting all week, >not only IGF-related side meetings and drafting group. Well done for your efforts. The year before there was one specific "IG Day" and quite a few of the audience were there only for the day. >Ideally, I think we should not have to align with no one to be addmited. If >Business and Technical community can ask to participate without WSIS >accreditation, CS should be able to do the same. Do you know what the timeline is for seeking approval? For example, would you have to make yourself known to the secretariat ahead of one meeting, for it then to be agreed that you could attend the next meeting (bearing in mind I'm assuming that the intersessional meeting means that there are two per year). -- 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 Mon Aug 1 12:22:45 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:22:45 -0600 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear All, I think a mechanism to allow post WSIS NGOs to participate in the CSTD as it has been envisaged for Academia and Private Sector may be attainable and desirable, but NGOs will need Governments to support and to pass such ammendment. In all this discussion, you need to take into account that CSTD is one of 6 (I believe) ECOSOC functional commissions. The most open rules for participation are the ones of the CSTD. NGOs have the opportunity to follow the ECOSOC accreditation, which I agree, it might be long and cumbersome. However, there is no procedure for private sector or academia. The existent procedure only applies to NGOs, which have been called "civil society" in UN language. The 2015 deadline comes from deadlines established for the MDG and in the WSIS outcome documents. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message mail.gmail.com>, > at 10:48:46 on Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Marilia Maciel > writes > >> See some comments below: >> > > Academic and tech organisations are part of: >>> >>> "all non-governmental organizations and civil society entities" >>> >>> so civil society hasn't been singled out. >>> >> >> And separately, private sector >> >>> business has to be WSIS-accredited: >>> >>> "business sector entities including the private sector >>> accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society" >>> or: >>> "Requested the secretariat of the commission to propose to the >>> council lists of business sector entities including the private >>> sector not accredited to the World Summit on the Information >>> Society that express the wish to participate in the work of the >>> Commission" >>> >>> Here you are talking about the text of the resolution proposed in May >> 2010 >> by Brazil that aims to bring equal treatment to the 3 non-governmental >> stakeholders. >> > > No, that's the text from 2007.... > > http://www.unctad.org/**Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=**4365&lang=1 > > I am talking about the arrangement currently under effect, which has been >> extended until 2015 (see the report of the 14th CSTD meeting, p.12). >> >> For instance, resolution 2008/218 about the participation of the technical >> community says, textually: >> >> "Requested the secretariat of the Commission on Science >> and Technology for Development to submit to the Economic and >> Social Council for its consideration and approval in a timely manner >> *the names of academic entities, including academies of science and >> engineering, that had not been accredited to the World Summit on the >> Information Society and that had expressed or were expressing the >> wish to participate in the work of the Commission"* >> > > ... updated in 2008 it seems. > > > >Personally, I do not think ECOSOC accreditation should be required from >>> >all who wish to participate in IG discussions in CSTD because of the >>> >unique nature of this regime. Getting ECOSOC accreditation is a very >>> >cumbersome and difficult procedure, especially for some organizations. >>> >>> So is the United Nations! What we are asking for is to be able to creep >>> inside their tent through a back door. We may feel entitled to ask that, >>> but should recognise what it is we are asking for. >>> >> >> I am not sure I understand your point, so before I reply I would ask for >> clarification. >> > > The UN is a Membership Organisation. There are various classes of members. > What's being asked for here is exceptions to membership (or perhaps > temporary membership while people organise their permanent membership). > > It's not unusual to have meetings (even Internet Governance ones) that have > membership criteria. I remember struggling to justify staying in an ICANN > NCUC meeting because I appeared to be an interloper. I have to say, it's the > only ICANN silo where my attendance has ever been questioned! > > > >I think that we (CS) should know more about what CSTD does. >>> >>> That probably means it would be a good idea to attend (and contribute) >>> in the main sessions all week, rather than just the days when IG is on >>> the agenda. Something to consider when planning future attendance. >>> >> >> All CS organizations that were in CSTD in May attended the meeting all >> week, >> not only IGF-related side meetings and drafting group. >> > > Well done for your efforts. The year before there was one specific "IG Day" > and quite a few of the audience were there only for the day. > > > Ideally, I think we should not have to align with no one to be addmited. >> If >> Business and Technical community can ask to participate without WSIS >> accreditation, CS should be able to do the same. >> > > Do you know what the timeline is for seeking approval? For example, would > you have to make yourself known to the secretariat ahead of one meeting, for > it then to be agreed that you could attend the next meeting (bearing in mind > I'm assuming that the intersessional meeting means that there are two per > year). > > -- > 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 Aug 1 12:46:51 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 17:46:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: In message , at 10:22:45 on Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Miguel Alcaine writes >NGOs have the opportunity to follow the ECOSOC accreditation, which I >agree, it might be long and cumbersome. However, there is no procedure >for private sector or academia. The existent procedure only applies to >NGOs, which have been called "civil society" in UN language I wonder if that explains why ICC and ISOC were described as 'Civil Society' in Philippe's report? -- 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 Mon Aug 1 13:28:37 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 11:28:37 -0600 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear All, ICC, although an entity with roots in the private sector, has ECOSOC accredited status. ISOC got its accreditation in 2010. For the UN, both are NGOs with consultative status to ECOSOC. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message mail.gmail.com >, at 10:22:45 on Mon, 1 Aug > 2011, Miguel Alcaine writes > > NGOs have the opportunity to follow the ECOSOC accreditation, which I >> agree, it might be long and cumbersome. However, there is no procedure for >> private sector or academia. The existent procedure only applies to NGOs, >> which have been called "civil society" in UN language >> > > I wonder if that explains why ICC and ISOC were described as 'Civil > Society' in Philippe's report? > > -- > 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Aug 2 04:57:33 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:57:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC Follow Up In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C348@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C348@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello everyone, I enjoyed the arguments of Marilia. Wolf proposals are as relevant they deserve some contributions: 1. We Have to Develop a more general position in form of a statement for the next CSTD meeting (probably in Fall 2011 and then again in May 2012) to ask for clarifications and a Greater Some sustainablity with regard to the WSIS CS Involvement in follow up related Activities of the CSTD. Should we do this via Directly and friendly Governments. *I think it would be desirable for the involvement of CS in the activities of the CSTD are proposed and discussed in the IGF regional and subregional meetings before CSTD meeting.* ......However, if Nothing is happening with the WG until end of August / early September 2011, CS Could take the lead and to invite the Governmental and Non-Governmental members of the WG year for informal meeting to Discuss both procedural substantial issues and with regard to the future work of the WG. We could Certainly get a room for 50 or so people for Two or Three hours on Day 3 or 4 and I am sure That More than 50 percent of group-members Will Come to Nairobi........ I propose that a draft of what will be discussed in Nairobi can be offered before the meeting in Nairobi. This will allow us to prepare items from the country. . Écouter Lire phonétiquement SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2011/8/1 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi Marilia > > good point and thank you for the analysis. I see two ways how to proceed > into 2012: > > 1. we have to develop a more general position in form of a statement for > the next CSTD meeting (probably in Fall 2011 and then again in May 2012) to > ask for some clarifications and a greater sustainablity with regard to CS > involvement in the WSIS follow up related activities of the CSTD. We should > do this directly and via friendly governments. > > 2. My understanding is that the CSTD proposal to enhance the mandate of the > CSTD IGF Improvement Working Group" was acceptey by ECOSOC. We have five > members in this group and they should get a clear mandate from the IGC to > raise this issue both in informal discussions as well as in formal > presentations. > > BTW, has anybody more information about the future of this WG? What I know > is that Switzerland stepped down as chair. There was some speculation about > Portugal as a new chair, but I heard also Philipines and Indonesia had > signalled interest. There is no working plan for the group and the risk is > high that the group will loose again a lot of time, playing around the chair > position, doing nothing substantially and start its work only at the end of > the year (after the 2nd commitee of the UNGA has finished its debates in New > York end of November/early December). > > There is certainly an alternative opportunity to kick start the process by > using the 6th IGF in Nairobi end of September 2011. I do not know whether > some governments want to do this. However, if nothing is happening with the > WG until end of August/early September 2011, CS could take the lead and to > invite the governmental and non-governmental members of the WG for an > informal meeting to discuss both procedural and substantial issues with > regard to the future work of the WG. We could certainly get a room for 50 or > so people for two or three hours on Day 3 or 4 and I am sure that more than > 50 percent of group-members will come to Nairobi. We should announce this in > advance and mark this as ad-hoc "Informal Multistakeholder Consultations > (IMC) on the Future of the UN CSTD IGF Improvement Working Group". > > Best regards > > 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 Tue Aug 2 08:02:54 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:02:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website Message-ID: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We now have: * A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since 2007. All IGF events are already added: see http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. * A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making our site look like thousands of others). * Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). * Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, and space to add your social networking and instant messaging contact addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership database, making the data available to other IGC Web applications. * Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: * I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something that I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate the existing content into each other language. But in the future if such volunteers step forward, it will be possible. * I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site (http://www.igcaucus.org) without help from the CPSR people, whom I've only recently contacted about this and am waiting to hear back from. Enjoy the improvements! -- *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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Aug 2 08:42:44 2011 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:42:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Quite remarkable, Jeremy. Really. We are so fortunate to have your expertise, and especially your dedication to see this through. A very significant amount of work - including in prior times, for you to assemble this expertise, which you now apply assiduously and with wisdom. This is the sort of leadership necessary to eventuate in an IGC with some legitimacy. Much thanks, indeed, David On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, > incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. > We now have: > A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF > Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since > 2007. All IGF events are already added: see http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09 > . > A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making our > site look like thousands of others). > Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames > (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). > Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, > and space to add your social networking and instant messaging > contact addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership > database, making the data available to other IGC Web applications. > Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be > listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see http://www.igcaucus.org/resources) > . > There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: > I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something that > I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate the > existing content into each other language. But in the future if > such volunteers step forward, it will be possible. > I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list > site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site (http://www.igcaucus.org > ) without help from the CPSR people, whom I've only recently > contacted about this and am waiting to hear back from. > Enjoy the improvements! > > -- > 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 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer > groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only > independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over > 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a > powerful international movement to help protect and empower > consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Aug 2 08:45:39 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:45:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy :-) Deirdre On 2 August 2011 08:02, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ** > I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, > incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We now > have: > > - A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF > Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since 2007. > All IGF events are already added: see > http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. > - A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making our > site look like thousands of others). > - Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames > (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). > - Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, > and space to add your social networking and instant messaging contact > addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership database, making > the data available to other IGC Web applications. > - Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be > listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see > http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). > > There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: > > - I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something that > I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate the existing > content into each other language. But in the future if such volunteers step > forward, it will be possible. > - I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list > site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site (http://www.igcaucus.org) > without help from the CPSR people, whom I've only recently contacted about > this and am waiting to hear back from. > > Enjoy the improvements! > > -- > > *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 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Aug 2 11:16:35 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website Message-ID: <1312298195.28219.yint-ygo-j2me@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thanks Jeremy, I am also same remarks as wrote by Mr David Allen. Best Regards Imran On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:42 PKT David Allen wrote: >Quite remarkable, Jeremy. Really. We are so fortunate to have your expertise, and especially your dedication to see this through. A very significant amount of work - including in prior times, for you to assemble this expertise, which you now apply assiduously and with wisdom. > >This is the sort of leadership necessary to eventuate in an IGC with some legitimacy. > >Much thanks, indeed, > >David > >On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We now have: >> A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since 2007. All IGF events are already added: see http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. >> A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making our site look like thousands of others). >> Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). >> Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, and space to add your social networking and instant messaging contact addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership database, making the data available to other IGC Web applications. >> Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). >> There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: >> I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something that I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate the existing content into each other language. But in the future if such volunteers step forward, it will be possible. >> I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site (http://www.igcaucus.org) without help from the CPSR people, whom I've only recently contacted about this and am waiting to hear back from. >> Enjoy the improvements! >> >> --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 >> >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. >> www.consumersinternational.org >> Twitter @ConsumersInt >> >> 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 lists at privaterra.org Tue Aug 2 13:08:34 2011 From: lists at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:08:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Planning for IGF 2011 / Nairobi Message-ID: Dear colleagues, After a long absence, i've started following the mailing list again. Many messages to catch-up on, that is for sure. I will be attending the upcoming IGF in Nairobi next month, and keen to hear from those on this list on ways we might be able to coordinate and/or collaborate on plans for the meeting. As panels have already been decided, suffice it to say i'm open to invitations to participate personally and/or to involve one or more of the delegation i'm hoping to coordinate from South East Asia and a few other countries. I'm only just starting my logistics planning, so would be keen to hear people's recommendations on hotels, etc. regards Robert R. Guerra Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House 1301 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036 Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Mobile +1 202 569 1800 Email: guerra at freedomhouse.org Twitter: netfreedom -------------- 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 Tue Aug 2 13:34:31 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 02:34:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Planning for IGF 2011 / Nairobi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Only heard of two budget places > > Khweza is in Ngara area. >Budget Hotel but quite decent. > > Pride Inn is good. >Westlands Road location is nearest UN > There are many other guest houses and I hear they can be very nice and value for money. But I think difficult for the local organizing committee to recommend, too many and too small to visit and check out. And I haven't been to either of these places above, but a couple of people in Nairobi have said they are fine. Have a look at a local listings site, only one I know is Kenya Buzz Adam >Dear colleagues, > >After a long absence, i've started following the >mailing list again. Many messages to catch-up >on, that is for sure. > >I will be attending the upcoming IGF in Nairobi >next month, and keen to hear from those on this >list on ways we might be able to coordinate >and/or collaborate on plans for the meeting. > >As panels have already been decided, suffice it >to say i'm open to invitations to participate >personally and/or to involve one or more of the >delegation i'm hoping to coordinate from South >East Asia and a few other countries. > >I'm only just starting my logistics planning, so >would be keen to hear people's recommendations >on hotels, etc. > >regards > >Robert > >p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: >12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px} p.p2 >{margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px >Helvetica} > > >R. Guerra > >Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House > >1301 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036 > >Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Mobile +1 202 569 1800 > >Email: guerra at freedomhouse.org > >Twitter: netfreedom > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Aug 2 15:55:32 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 05:55:32 +1000 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <1312298195.28219.yint-ygo-j2me@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1312298195.28219.yint-ygo-j2me@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy for your hard work and committment, I concur with David and others in expressing my gratitude. By the way, the improvements are excellent and it is only the tip of the iceberg. It represents the 9/10 of work that you have put into it behind the scenes. I have only one more suggestion which is to incorporate some sort of widget that is on the IGP Blog that allows viewers to see who has viewed the material from another part of the blog. Congratulations and best!!! Sala On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Thanks Jeremy, > I am also same remarks as wrote by Mr David Allen. > > Best Regards > > Imran > > On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:42 PKT David Allen wrote: > > >Quite remarkable, Jeremy. Really. We are so fortunate to have your > expertise, and especially your dedication to see this through. A very > significant amount of work - including in prior times, for you to assemble > this expertise, which you now apply assiduously and with wisdom. > > > >This is the sort of leadership necessary to eventuate in an IGC with some > legitimacy. > > > >Much thanks, indeed, > > > >David > > > >On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > >> I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, > incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We now > have: > >> A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF > Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since 2007. All > IGF events are already added: see http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09 > . > >> A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making our site > look like thousands of others). > >> Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames (see > http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). > >> Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, and > space to add your social networking and instant messaging contact addresses. > Most of these synchronise with our membership database, making the data > available to other IGC Web applications. > >> Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be listed > chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see > http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). > >> There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: > >> I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something that I > can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate the existing > content into each other language. But in the future if such volunteers step > forward, it will be possible. > >> I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list site ( > http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site (http://www.igcaucus.org) without > help from the CPSR people, whom I've only recently contacted about this and > am waiting to hear back from. > >> Enjoy the improvements! > >> > >> --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 > >> > >> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > >> www.consumersinternational.org > >> Twitter @ConsumersInt > >> > >> 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 > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- 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 soekpe at gmail.com Wed Aug 3 02:26:00 2011 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:26:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC Follow Up In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C348@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: A draft as propose, before the meeting for study is a great idea. We are friendly so also will governments. Warm wishes, Sea On 2 Aug 2011 09:58, "Baudouin SCHOMBE" wrote: Hello everyone, I enjoyed the arguments of Marilia. Wolf proposals are as relevant they deserve some contributions: 1. We Have to Develop a more general position in form of a statement for the next CSTD meeting (probably in Fall 2011 and then again in May 2012) to ask for clarifications and a Greater Some sustainablity with regard to the WSIS CS Involvement in follow up related Activities of the CSTD. Should we do this via Directly and friendly Governments. *I think it would be desirable for the involvement of CS in the activities of the CSTD are proposed and discussed in the IGF regional and subregional meetings before CSTD meeting.* ......However, if Nothing is happening with the WG until end of August / early September 2011, CS Could take the lead and to invite the Governmental and Non-Governmental members of the WG year for informal meeting to Discuss both procedural substantial issues and with regard to the future work of the WG. We could Certainly get a room for 50 or so people for Two or Three hours on Day 3 or 4 and I am sure That More than 50 percent of group-members Will Come to Nairobi........ I propose that a draft of what will be discussed in Nairobi can be offered before the meeting in Nairobi. This will allow us to prepare items from the country. . Écouter Lire phonétiquement SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2011/8/1 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > Hi Maril... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Wed Aug 3 03:30:01 2011 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:30:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thank you for the site Jeremy, great changes! Yuliya Le 2/8/2011, "Jeremy Malcolm" a écrit: >I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, >incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We >now have: > > * A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF > Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since > 2007. All IGF events are already added: see > http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. > * A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making > our site look like thousands of others). > * Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames > (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). > * Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, > and space to add your social networking and instant messaging > contact addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership > database, making the data available to other IGC Web applications. > * Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be > listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see > http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). > >There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: > > * I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something > that I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate > the existing content into each other language. But in the future > if such volunteers step forward, it will be possible. > * I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list > site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site > (http://www.igcaucus.org) without help from the CPSR people, whom > I've only recently contacted about this and am waiting to hear > back from. > >Enjoy the improvements! > >-- > >*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 > >Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups >that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent >and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member >organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international >movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. >_www.consumersinternational.org _ >_Twitter @ConsumersInt _ > >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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Wed Aug 3 08:23:33 2011 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:23:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hello everyone, it is necessary to recognize the tremendous work done by Jeremy. Congratulations and thank you for the clarity of the information. Baudouin 2011/8/2 Jeremy Malcolm > ** > I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, > incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We now > have: > > - A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF > Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since 2007. > All IGF events are already added: see > http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. > - A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making our > site look like thousands of others). > - Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames > (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). > - Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, > and space to add your social networking and instant messaging contact > addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership database, making > the data available to other IGC Web applications. > - Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be > listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see > http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). > > There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: > > - I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something that > I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate the existing > content into each other language. But in the future if such volunteers step > forward, it will be possible. > - I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list > site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site (http://www.igcaucus.org) > without help from the CPSR people, whom I've only recently contacted about > this and am waiting to hear back from. > > Enjoy the improvements! > > -- > > *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 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- 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 philippe.blanchard at me.com Wed Aug 3 08:59:45 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:59:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2F7359C9-CA41-4F6D-9683-953C204B8109@me.com> Impressive work. That will definitely help us being more efficient and aligned. Thank you and congratulations, Philippe On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We now have: A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since 2007. All IGF events are already added: see http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making our site look like thousands of others). Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, and space to add your social networking and instant messaging contact addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership database, making the data available to other IGC Web applications. Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something that I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate the existing content into each other language. But in the future if such volunteers step forward, it will be possible. I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site (http://www.igcaucus.org) without help from the CPSR people, whom I've only recently contacted about this and am waiting to hear back from. Enjoy the improvements! -- 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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt 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 goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Aug 3 09:17:03 2011 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:17:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thank you. Excelent work! Roxana 2011/8/2 Jeremy Malcolm > ** > I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, > incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We now > have: > > - A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF > Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since 2007. > All IGF events are already added: see > http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. > - A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making our > site look like thousands of others). > - Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames > (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). > - Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, > and space to add your social networking and instant messaging contact > addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership database, making > the data available to other IGC Web applications. > - Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be > listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see > http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). > > There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: > > - I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something that > I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate the existing > content into each other language. But in the future if such volunteers step > forward, it will be possible. > - I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list > site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site (http://www.igcaucus.org) > without help from the CPSR people, whom I've only recently contacted about > this and am waiting to hear back from. > > Enjoy the improvements! > > -- > > *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 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 3 10:06:27 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:06:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4E3955E3.9040100@apc.org> Dear Jeremy Looks good. Are IGC members now happy with having a formal membership list? I am sorry if I was not able to follow that discussion. IGC members might be interested to know that the APC servers (where the IGC site is hosted) are looked after by GreenNet - http://www.gn.apc.org/ - an APC member and an ethical internet service provider based in London. Thanks also to Sarah Escandor-Tomas, APC's techie based in the Philippines who has provided Jeremy with support when he needed it - not that he needs much :) Anriette On 02/08/11 14:02, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, > incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We > now have: > > * A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF > Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since > 2007. All IGF events are already added: see > http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. > * A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making > our site look like thousands of others). > * Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames > (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). > * Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, > and space to add your social networking and instant messaging > contact addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership > database, making the data available to other IGC Web applications. > * Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be > listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see > http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). > > There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: > > * I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something > that I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate > the existing content into each other language. But in the future > if such volunteers step forward, it will be possible. > * I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list > site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site > (http://www.igcaucus.org) without help from the CPSR people, whom > I've only recently contacted about this and am waiting to hear > back from. > > Enjoy the improvements! > > -- > > *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 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent > and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member > organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international > movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 3 11:10:08 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:10:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4E3964D0.6020801@apc.org> Hi all Late response to this thread. Applying for ECOSOC status and being approved is not all that difficult. Filling in the 4-yearly reports is a lot of work though! And if you don't, then you lose your status. I would encourage people to apply for ECOSOC status if they have the institutional infrastructure. It does make participation in the UN system easier.. not in the WSIS spaces so much, but in others. It also links you to broader civil society outside of our fairly narrow internet circles. But I am not advocating that ECOSOC status should be a requirement for participation in WSIS follow up processes. Re. CSTD. The rules are imperfect, yes. But they don't block civil society participation in any significant way from my perspective. If you don't have WSIS accreditation then it is very easy to register as a member of one of the NGOs that are accredited under WSIS or under ECOSOC. Civicus, APC, IT for Change, IISD, and there are many more. In the longer term we should definitely support more inclusive participation. But I don't think that is the primary barrier right now. At the first CSTD session in 2007 APC proposed that CSTD makes use of MAG to plan meetings. I still feel this would be useful. The secretariat does include civil society in panels, but we should have more influence on the actual agenda, e.g. participate in a Bureau discussion on upcoming sessions. I feel that the main problem has been that civil society has just not participated EFFECTIVELY even when they get to be in the room. We cannot really blame the CSTD for this. For example, very few organisations attend. Many more go to ICANN meetings, or to IGF open consultations. Why? When the CSTD requested civil society to submit input on the WSIS review, very few did. And then, those CS people that do attend meetings say very little. They tend to home in on issues narrowly.. e.g. IGF or multi-stakeholder participation. An issue like, for example, the importance of open source software for development is raised by governments, not by CS. Some CS present would support them, but most of us don't make substantial interventions. Not to mention national science and technology policies.. a key theme at every CSTD. Perfect opportunity for CS to participate, and to make an impression. Our problem is not lack of accreditation in my view, but lack of preparation. ICC Basis comes prepared with a statement on very topic on the agenda. If business and the tech communities participates more effectively, I believe this can be attributed to organisation rather than accreditation rules. The fact that there are only 2 or 3 regular CS voices in the CSTD creates the impression that civil society is just not that interested. CSTD is far more open than other UN spaces (e.g. you don't have limited numbers of speaking slots as in the Human Rights Council for example and you don't have pre-apply for speaking slots). My suggestion is work on improving the quality and scope of our participation and then it will be much easier to challenge the rules, which are not really that restrictive. Of course this not easy as we lack time and resources.. but that in turn means we should use what time we do have wisely. I was thinking of recommending to CSTD that they run an orientation for civil society before each session. I had the impression that those CS people who were at the CSTD for the first time did not know what the rules of procedure were. Anriette ----------------------------------------------------- anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 3 11:33:21 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:33:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC Follow Up In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C348@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C348@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4E396A41.4020107@apc.org> Dear Wolfgang On 01/08/11 09:44, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi Marilia > > good point and thank you for the analysis. I see two ways how to > proceed into 2012: Yes... good inputs Marilia. Your description of the different positions among governments is actually very polite :) This 'deadlock' that we find in the CSTD and also in the IGF working group is precisely why I am not convinced by the argument that we need a new intergovernmental body - even if it has multi-stakeholder participation - and even if I am not happy with the IG status quo. > 1. we have to develop a more general position in form of a statement > for the next CSTD meeting (probably in Fall 2011 and then again in > May 2012) to ask for some clarifications and a greater sustainablity > with regard to CS involvement in the WSIS follow up related > activities of the CSTD. We should do this directly and via friendly > governments. Referring to my other message, yes, a statement on CS participation would be good. But substantial CS participation would be even better :) E.g. in the form of written submissions made beforehand on agenda items. Also on the WSIS review process - the ITU has an open process on the 10year review.. and I think it is good for CS to give input even if we are cynical about this. And this reminds me of something important Wolfgang brought up in the not too distant past. A CS review based on OUR document! > 2. My understanding is that the CSTD proposal to enhance the mandate > of the CSTD IGF Improvement Working Group" was acceptey by ECOSOC. We > have five members in this group and they should get a clear mandate > from the IGC to raise this issue both in informal discussions as well > as in formal presentations. > > BTW, has anybody more information about the future of this WG? What I > know is that Switzerland stepped down as chair. There was some > speculation about Portugal as a new chair, but I heard also > Philipines and Indonesia had signalled interest. There is no working > plan for the group and the risk is high that the group will loose > again a lot of time, playing around the chair position, doing nothing > substantially and start its work only at the end of the year (after > the 2nd commitee of the UNGA has finished its debates in New York end > of November/early December). Agree. I was extremely disappointed when the US and others, mainly Europeans, killed a very concrete proposal from India to put timelines and the election of a working group chair in the resolution that CSTD sent to India. Their reasons were procedural, but it seemed pretty clear to me that as Marilia said, the US is still not in favour of the working group. And, as they are worried about what it might decide, they would be happier with no outcome than an outcome that would change the IGF substantially. > > There is certainly an alternative opportunity to kick start the > process by using the 6th IGF in Nairobi end of September 2011. I do > not know whether some governments want to do this. They did not. We proposed that. And many of them won't be their either.. which is the really depressing thing. I really don't mind that they criticise the IGF. I do mind that they don't participate. > However, if > nothing is happening with the WG until end of August/early September > 2011, Very optimistic Wolfgang. November is our best case scenario. October perhaps.. but there are ITU meetings then which means that governments are busy - most CSTD WG gov reps are the same people that attend ITU meetings. > CS could take the lead and to invite the governmental and > non-governmental members of the WG for an informal meeting to discuss > both procedural and substantial issues with regard to the future work > of the WG. We could certainly get a room for 50 or so people for two > or three hours on Day 3 or 4 and I am sure that more than 50 percent > of group-members will come to Nairobi. We should announce this in > advance and mark this as ad-hoc "Informal Multistakeholder > Consultations (IMC) on the Future of the UN CSTD IGF Improvement > Working Group". I like this idea. But should the meeting not be about IGF improvement, rather than about the CSTD working group? Workshops are good, but this can be more neutral. And it can also be a good idea for us get broader CS input. Anriette > > Best regards > > 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 12:09:32 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:09:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4E3964D0.6020801@apc.org> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E3964D0.6020801@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette great, I totally agree with you regarding the quality of participation, especially with regard to the preparation. But there is also another major factor is the local level where it often lacks a working synergy between the actors in public institutions, private sector and civil society entities with expertise in the field of ICT. Locally, the debate is hardly any between them, the official part of that not content to pocket the travel expenses. It is often difficult to organize feedback sessions or meetings preparatory before the sub-regional, regional or international meetings. Thank you Anriette to pin these problems that haunt us for many many years and yet it is the reality in our country. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/8/3 Anriette Esterhuysen > Hi all > > Late response to this thread. > > Applying for ECOSOC status and being approved is not all that difficult. > Filling in the 4-yearly reports is a lot of work though! And if you > don't, then you lose your status. > > I would encourage people to apply for ECOSOC status if they have the > institutional infrastructure. It does make participation in the UN > system easier.. not in the WSIS spaces so much, but in others. It also > links you to broader civil society outside of our fairly narrow internet > circles. > > But I am not advocating that ECOSOC status should be a requirement for > participation in WSIS follow up processes. > > Re. CSTD. > > The rules are imperfect, yes. But they don't block civil society > participation in any significant way from my perspective. If you don't > have WSIS accreditation then it is very easy to register as a member of > one of the NGOs that are accredited under WSIS or under ECOSOC. Civicus, > APC, IT for Change, IISD, and there are many more. > > In the longer term we should definitely support more inclusive > participation. But I don't think that is the primary barrier right now. > > At the first CSTD session in 2007 APC proposed that CSTD makes use of > MAG to plan meetings. I still feel this would be useful. The secretariat > does include civil society in panels, but we should have more influence > on the actual agenda, e.g. participate in a Bureau discussion on > upcoming sessions. > > I feel that the main problem has been that civil society has just not > participated EFFECTIVELY even when they get to be in the room. We cannot > really blame the CSTD for this. For example, very few organisations > attend. Many more go to ICANN meetings, or to IGF open consultations. > Why? When the CSTD requested civil society to submit input on the WSIS > review, very few did. > > And then, those CS people that do attend meetings say very little. They > tend to home in on issues narrowly.. e.g. IGF or multi-stakeholder > participation. An issue like, for example, the importance of open source > software for development is raised by governments, not by CS. Some CS > present would support them, but most of us don't make substantial > interventions. Not to mention national science and technology > policies.. a key theme at every CSTD. Perfect opportunity for CS to > participate, and to make an impression. > > Our problem is not lack of accreditation in my view, but lack of > preparation. > > ICC Basis comes prepared with a statement on very topic on the agenda. > If business and the tech communities participates more effectively, I > believe this can be attributed to organisation rather than accreditation > rules. > > The fact that there are only 2 or 3 regular CS voices in the CSTD > creates the impression that civil society is just not that interested. > CSTD is far more open than other UN spaces (e.g. you don't have limited > numbers of speaking slots as in the Human Rights Council for example and > you don't have pre-apply for speaking slots). > > My suggestion is work on improving the quality and scope of our > participation and then it will be much easier to challenge the rules, > which are not really that restrictive. Of course this not easy as we > lack time and resources.. but that in turn means we should use what time > we do have wisely. > > I was thinking of recommending to CSTD that they run an orientation for > civil society before each session. I had the impression that those CS > people who were at the CSTD for the first time did not know what the > rules of procedure were. > > Anriette > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 3 13:01:10 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:01:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <4E364AA4.7070001@digsys.bg> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> <4E324A57.2020203@digsys.bg> <20110729194806.55E0F15C252@quill.bollow.ch> <4E364AA4.7070001@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Daniel, Let's cut to the chase, then. You've ignored my most important point that the *only* source of legitimate governance is that based on the consent of the governed via democracy. You cite various reasons for you to prefer non-democratic governance that all sound in the area of "pragmatism." I had previously given an example of the pragmatic reasons a bribery-practicing industrialist (or whoever) would give for supporting a bribery-based political system, but such pragmatic reasons, whenever they are offered, are morally and politically empty of justification and legitimacy. The same can be said for any autocratic type of governance, including but not limited to that of governance by CEO or Board of Directors: It may "make the trains run on time" as Mussolini is mistakenly believed to have always done, but it still doesn't provide any political legitimacy. Cutting to the chase, then: 1. Where do you get your political legitimacy for your non-democratic forms of governance? Do you deny that non-democratic forms of governance are illegitimate when the concern fundamental questions of public policy on the internet? (We are not concerned so much here about true freedom to contract between equals, but the ability of contractual parties to get together, like say Verizon and google, and agree to terms that profoundly affect OTHERS rights, others who have never signed nor negotiated any contract, even presuming such negotiation could be fair and meaningful.) 2. Do you dislike democracy for policy or political reasons, or do you (which may be the same thing) just want to keep democracy "in its place" and out of the internet as much as you can? Keep in mind (and it doesn't appear you deny this) there is always governance, the only question is what form the governance will take: contracts by the strong providers of services with consumers with little or no bargaining power (all enforced in governmental courts), or democratic legislatures defining the rules for fair play on the internet in an exercise of their legitimate and On 8/1/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 30.07.11 02:46, Paul Lehto wrote: >> If this "private, non-corporate governance" works at all well, I'd >> first have to ask For Whom does it Work Well? > > Glad you asked. It has worked for over a billion people, worldwide. The > Internet. Would you deny that? > > Even the fact that today, you, personally have the ability to share your > ideas with many people, without restrictions and at minimal costs is > only because of this private governance. Here I address all of 'you' > reading this, including myself. > > None of this would be possible if the Internet was government > controlled. Or controlled by large corporations. > >> I realize that >> educated, talented and resourceful few such as those on this list and >> our colleagues may sometimes convince a Microsoft to do a minor >> change, but this is mostly because the lawyers for Microsoft have >> reserved truly sweeping rights and won't really be hurt at all by a >> minor concession. > > Governance is not about persuading anybody anything. Governance is all > about making sure resources are used responsibly and that there are > enough resources for those who need them. > > In my country we have a saying: The one who pays orders the music. > > >> Even despotic kings are known to do likewise, it is >> referred to as "the Grace of the king." Kings save people's lives >> from time to time, and all that. But it's only when and if they want >> to, and it's not pursuant to the rule of law. > > Ah.. I understand now. :) > > Do you know, that decades ago, some "me too" people created a legend > about DNS: John Postel is the King and all ccTLD managers are his > vassals. Funny enough, those same people later tried to create their own > kingdom in a similar fashion, but eventually failed... Because Internet > is different. > >> I always concede that an at least apparently more "efficient" and >> workable private governance or private dictatorship can be set up. >> One might set themselves up as the autocratic dictator of a listserv >> and many or even most might find that quite workable if I often act in >> the mode like one of Plato's philosopher kings and regularly dispense >> at least some grace. > > Very good example. Anyone may set up an mailing list on Internet. This > has been true at least for the last twenty years. The cost to become > governor, or dictator is indeed very small. And your power is absolute! > Internet is such a heaven for those who want power :) > >> But this is no comfort to those in the minority >> (or majority) who have their rights and dignity denied by the autocrat >> or corporate plutocrat, and in most instances (except where >> democratically-passed laws still apply) there's nothing that anybody >> outside the corporation can do about it, except beg for grace. > > Let's forget for a moment your fixation on corporations. Those who are > unhappy, can have their recourse on the Internet. Of course! They can > set up their own mailing list, pretty much like the dictator's. And yes, > they will then become dictators too. > > What is more, they even have the choice to not be dictators. They could > have democratic elections, by their membership, or better yet, by their > town, state or country people. If they are true democrats, of course > they will turn to a democratically elected Government, to run the > mailing list. > The small boring question remains is who will do the actual work and who > will pay the bill, but we need not worry about this, as long as it is > all democratic. > >> You might not literally be down on your knees with Microsoft, but unless >> you are arguing based on democratically-passed laws with the actual or >> implied threat of legal action behind it, you are truly at the grace >> and mercy of Microsoft. > > Or, you might just not care about Microsoft. Or Oracle. Or IBM. Or > McDonnalds. > >> If one is part of, or connected to, what amounts to an internet >> aristocracy of private governance, I understand that if you know the >> ropes a bit you may find it easier to pull some strings in that >> smaller aristocracy than it is to move or influence larger, >> democratically established governments. > > The first thing people noticed about Internet is, that it is 'flat'. It > has not hierarchy. Internet changed the structure of many corporations > by the way, made them flatter. It also changed the structure of many > Governments 'democratic' or not. It changed the structure of everybody's > relationship and communications. Internet is different. > >> For very analogous reasons, a very rich person willing to use bribery >> might strongly favor the continuation of a corrupt, bribery-based >> system of governance because it very much helps the rich person to get >> things done in a quick way. > > So you believe that it would be possible to bribe CIRA, to influence > their decisions instead of demonstrating that something they do it not > proper and not in line with their mandate? > >> I hope it's obvious that I interpret my own experiences in effecting >> change in non-democratic or private institutions to be due to my >> temporary admission into that part of the internet aristocracy, >> combined with the unilateral decision on the part of the private >> governor to grant me some grace, relief or mercy. > > Yes, it is. But you wrongly assume that involving a "democratic" > Government will make your experience better. All you can do is inflict > damage on your opposing "King". But history remembers that each time you > ally with a stranger things do not get better. > >> I don't think you or I will ever succeed in getting such a private >> governor to do something in this manner that is in any way >> fundamentally against their interests -- our arguments are limited to >> what's in the long term best interests of our kingly private governor >> (or the threat of asserting democratically-derived laws, which is an >> interjection of democracy into a non-democratic situation). > > Here you have hit the nail, I must admit! :) > > How do you know what are the interests of all current private Internet > governors? You apparently assume, that it is all about profit. Or, all > about domination over mankind. Or, some form of secret conspiracy that > no doubt is anti-democratic and needs to be prosecuted. > > Could you imagine, just for a moment, that because those "Internet > governors" are so many and the club is open to anyone and the admittance > costs are very low, to negligible -- that this "internet aristocracy" > covers pretty much a significant portion of Earth's population? If it is > so, what is your proposal to create a 'democratic' governance, > especially involving Governments. Internet Governance has already > outgrown Governments. It is so since many, many years. Internet is > different. > >> The acid test for democracy or any form of governance is what can be >> called the "So What?" test. What can a person do if the power >> exercising governance simply says "so what?" "What are you going to do >> about it?" > > Right. Your mailing list King, when faced with absurd requests, > especially such that would impact negatively their operation, or the > experience of their membership is very likely to respond to your threats > with "So what?". So what? What if they do so? We need to engage the > Government to punish them? > > Like in the kindergarden, when one child runs crying to the teacher for > support in their fight with the other one? Or threaten the other child, > that their father (read: one Government) will beat their father (read: > another Government). > > There is just one task for Governments with relation to Internet and > human rights. To create adequate environment, to foster competition and > innovation and provide support for the private initiatives. This is > cheaper for everybody (because everybody pays the increasing costs of > Government bureaucracy), does not create unnecessary tension and ensures > rights of humans are protected. > > Many argue, that access to Internet is a human right. It is not. It is a > privilege. This is especially because access to Internet is not > restricted and as such everybody has access. But costs are different > thing. Already there are initiatives to ensure access to Internet for > those who cannot bear the costs themselves, but this is pretty much the > same as any other charity effort. > > 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 > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 3 13:20:47 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:20:47 +1200 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E3955E3.9040100@apc.org> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> <4E3955E3.9040100@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank You Jeremy, APC, GreenNet and Sarah Escandor-Tomas and others who helped in revamping the website. :) :) :) On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Jeremy > > Looks good. Are IGC members now happy with having a formal membership > list? I am sorry if I was not able to follow that discussion. > > IGC members might be interested to know that the APC servers (where the > IGC site is hosted) are looked after by GreenNet - > http://www.gn.apc.org/ - an APC member and an ethical internet service > provider based in London. > > Thanks also to Sarah Escandor-Tomas, APC's techie based in the > Philippines who has provided Jeremy with support when he needed it - not > that he needs much :) > > Anriette > > On 02/08/11 14:02, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, > > incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We > > now have: > > > > * A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF > > Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since > > 2007. All IGF events are already added: see > > http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. > > * A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making > > our site look like thousands of others). > > * Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames > > (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). > > * Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, > > and space to add your social networking and instant messaging > > contact addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership > > database, making the data available to other IGC Web applications. > > * Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be > > listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see > > http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). > > > > There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: > > > > * I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something > > that I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate > > the existing content into each other language. But in the future > > if such volunteers step forward, it will be possible. > > * I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list > > site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site > > (http://www.igcaucus.org) without help from the CPSR people, whom > > I've only recently contacted about this and am waiting to hear > > back from. > > > > Enjoy the improvements! > > > > -- > > > > *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 > > > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent > > and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member > > organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international > > movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > > www.consumersinternational.org > > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > > . Don't > > print this email unless necessary. > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- 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 shailam at yahoo.com Wed Aug 3 15:13:10 2011 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1312398790.51994.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thank you so much Jeremy. This is a big undertaking shaila   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2011 5:02 AM Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made.  We now have: * A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since 2007.  All IGF events are already added: see http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. * A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making our site look like thousands of others). * Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). * Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, and space to add your social networking and instant messaging contact addresses.  Most of these synchronise with our membership database, making the data available to other IGC Web applications. * Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be listed chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: * I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something that I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate the existing content into each other language.  But in the future if such volunteers step forward, it will be possible. * I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site (http://www.igcaucus.org) without help from the CPSR people, whom I've only recently contacted about this and am waiting to hear back from. Enjoy the improvements! -- 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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Aug 3 22:57:03 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:57:03 +0800 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC Follow Up In-Reply-To: <4E396A41.4020107@apc.org> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C348@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4E396A41.4020107@apc.org> Message-ID: <4E3A0A7F.6030001@ciroap.org> On 03/08/11 23:33, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> CS could take the lead and to invite the governmental and >> non-governmental members of the WG for an informal meeting to discuss >> both procedural and substantial issues with regard to the future work >> of the WG. We could certainly get a room for 50 or so people for two >> or three hours on Day 3 or 4 and I am sure that more than 50 percent >> of group-members will come to Nairobi. We should announce this in >> advance and mark this as ad-hoc "Informal Multistakeholder >> Consultations (IMC) on the Future of the UN CSTD IGF Improvement >> Working Group". > I like this idea. But should the meeting not be about IGF improvement, > rather than about the CSTD working group? Workshops are good, but this > can be more neutral. And it can also be a good idea for us get broader > CS input. I agree, it is a very good idea, and if focussed on the procedural questions around the working group itself, it will also be an excellent complement to our workshop. We should ask the IGF Secretariat for a room and a timeslot now, before it is too late. Izumi, as a working group member, would you have time to take the lead on this? -- *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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Aug 3 22:59:20 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:59:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <1312398790.51994.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> <1312398790.51994.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E3A0B08.7030907@ciroap.org> Thanks everyone for your generous words of appreciation. It makes it all worthwhile. :-) -- *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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Aug 4 01:45:24 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 07:45:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E3964D0.6020801@apc.org> Message-ID: <4E3A31F4.6080805@apc.org> Dear Baudouin You are completely right to point this out. During WSIS civil society had its own space for talking and planning, and this built our confidence. In CSTD there is very little of that. Sometimes small groups of CS people have discussions before sessions or during lunch, but it is not consistent or well planned. And added to this is that we also try to liaise with business and the tech people as we have a common concern with keeping the space open to non-governmental actors. In the end we just don't work enough on strengthening CS participation. I would suggest we make this a goal for next year's CSTD. We should have a pre-session face to face meeting of those in Geneva, and then daily briefings as well. One of the challenges that comes with MS participation is not losing focus on organising and preparing within your sector. Anriette On 03/08/11 18:09, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > Anriette great, I totally agree with you regarding the quality of > participation, especially with regard to the preparation. But there is > also another major factor is the local level where it often lacks a > working synergy between the actors in public institutions, private > sector and civil society entities with expertise in the field of ICT. > Locally, the debate is hardly any between them, the official part of > that not content to pocket the travel expenses. It is often difficult to > organize feedback sessions or meetings preparatory before the > sub-regional, regional or international meetings. Thank you Anriette to > pin these problems that haunt us for many many years and yet it is the > reality in our country. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > > 2011/8/3 Anriette Esterhuysen > > > Hi all > > Late response to this thread. > > Applying for ECOSOC status and being approved is not all that difficult. > Filling in the 4-yearly reports is a lot of work though! And if you > don't, then you lose your status. > > I would encourage people to apply for ECOSOC status if they have the > institutional infrastructure. It does make participation in the UN > system easier.. not in the WSIS spaces so much, but in others. It also > links you to broader civil society outside of our fairly narrow internet > circles. > > But I am not advocating that ECOSOC status should be a requirement for > participation in WSIS follow up processes. > > Re. CSTD. > > The rules are imperfect, yes. But they don't block civil society > participation in any significant way from my perspective. If you don't > have WSIS accreditation then it is very easy to register as a member of > one of the NGOs that are accredited under WSIS or under ECOSOC. Civicus, > APC, IT for Change, IISD, and there are many more. > > In the longer term we should definitely support more inclusive > participation. But I don't think that is the primary barrier right now. > > At the first CSTD session in 2007 APC proposed that CSTD makes use of > MAG to plan meetings. I still feel this would be useful. The secretariat > does include civil society in panels, but we should have more influence > on the actual agenda, e.g. participate in a Bureau discussion on > upcoming sessions. > > I feel that the main problem has been that civil society has just not > participated EFFECTIVELY even when they get to be in the room. We cannot > really blame the CSTD for this. For example, very few organisations > attend. Many more go to ICANN meetings, or to IGF open consultations. > Why? When the CSTD requested civil society to submit input on the WSIS > review, very few did. > > And then, those CS people that do attend meetings say very little. They > tend to home in on issues narrowly.. e.g. IGF or multi-stakeholder > participation. An issue like, for example, the importance of open source > software for development is raised by governments, not by CS. Some CS > present would support them, but most of us don't make substantial > interventions. Not to mention national science and technology > policies.. a key theme at every CSTD. Perfect opportunity for CS to > participate, and to make an impression. > > Our problem is not lack of accreditation in my view, but lack of > preparation. > > ICC Basis comes prepared with a statement on very topic on the agenda. > If business and the tech communities participates more effectively, I > believe this can be attributed to organisation rather than accreditation > rules. > > The fact that there are only 2 or 3 regular CS voices in the CSTD > creates the impression that civil society is just not that interested. > CSTD is far more open than other UN spaces (e.g. you don't have limited > numbers of speaking slots as in the Human Rights Council for example and > you don't have pre-apply for speaking slots). > > My suggestion is work on improving the quality and scope of our > participation and then it will be much easier to challenge the rules, > which are not really that restrictive. Of course this not easy as we > lack time and resources.. but that in turn means we should use what time > we do have wisely. > > I was thinking of recommending to CSTD that they run an orientation for > civil society before each session. I had the impression that those CS > people who were at the CSTD for the first time did not know what the > rules of procedure were. > > Anriette > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 istaff.org Thu Aug 4 02:16:36 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 02:16:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> <4E324A57.2020203@digsys.bg> <20110729194806.55E0F15C252@quill.bollow.ch> <4E364AA4.7070001@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <2C1DA99C-4EB2-4305-89B9-6689F5423444@istaff.org> On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > 1. Where do you get your political legitimacy for your non-democratic > forms of governance? Do you deny that non-democratic forms of > governance are illegitimate when the concern fundamental questions of > public policy on the internet? (We are not concerned so much here > about true freedom to contract between equals, but the ability of > contractual parties to get together, like say Verizon and google, and > agree to terms that profoundly affect OTHERS rights, others who have > never signed nor negotiated any contract, even presuming such > negotiation could be fair and meaningful.) Paul - For sake of clarity, could you clarify "non-democratic forms of governance"? By that phrase, do you mean any organization which does not have a democratically-elected governance structure, or any form of governance which is not inherently a component of the political governing body? For example, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) develops technical standards that have profound impact on the nature of the Internet, but such standards are developed by an open and transparent process, and are ultimately developed under the supervision of those who are democratically elected to specific IETF governance bodies (the IAB and the IESG). Is such an organization a "democratic form of governance" or "non-democratic form of governance" per your use of the phrase? My goal is to better understand your premise, not to advocate for any specific interpretation. Thanks! /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 04:20:37 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:20:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> <4E324A57.2020203@digsys.bg> <20110729194806.55E0F15C252@quill.bollow.ch> <4E364AA4.7070001@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E3A5655.8090304@digsys.bg> Paul, Like I said before, Internet is different. Internet is different, because for the first time in (known) human history, there are no borders and everything/everyone is accessible for everything/anyone. This is what all human rights principles try to achieve -- it is a given with Internet. What you call "democracy" is just an example of hierarchical governance system. You elect somebody to take care for things on behalf of you. You give up your own rights by submitting to that form of governance. The principle is the same, whether that someone is your village's war leader, your town's mayor, your King or your President. These are just labels and no matter what the political system is, are just a form of hierarchical delegation of rights. Just as much as an King may not care about you, so can any President. With the King, typically to remove them from power, you need to shed some blood (or a lot), with a President, you use more "civilized" political tools -- or not that civilized and somewhat bloody if you consider recent events. Any political governance system will be "good", as long as everything goes well. Again -- look at recent events in Africa. Do you see significant difference for the ordinary person? Because I don't. Internet has removed borders. It has already transformed lots of companies (to more flat structure), killed others that didn't want to adapt, changed a lot of governments. Who could even imagine a service like eGovernment from any traditional democratically elected government? Internet is all about choice. > Let's cut to the chase, then. You've ignored my most important point > that the *only* source of legitimate governance is that based on the > consent of the governed via democracy. Like the majority elects a mayor, president etc. whom I have serious evidence to believe is evil person, running for the office for illegitimate reasons. But you see, I am from the minority, my voice is not even noticed in the celebration of democracy... That is, I did not submit, or consented to that 'government', but I am nevertheless obliged to obey whatever they decide to put on me. How is this different from your fears of commercial terms and conditions inpacting someone who does not agree to them? At least with contracts, you have the choice to not sign up -- not so with governance. But back to your very question. I do not ignore or deny that the only source of legitimate governance is based on consent. I state this in all my comments. But I do not see what 'democracy' has to do with this. Consent is consent and has nothing to do with democracy. When you speak of democracy, what you consider democracy? The political form of governance at say national level? Or the community form of governance within a 'club'? PS: On re-reading your question, another interpretation occurred to me: Today, democracy is considered the only source of legitimacy, because it so happens that the most powerful countries (governments) in this world call themselves democratic. In other words -- they claim this because it suits them, and their servants. Everyone is happy now. Back in time, when kingdoms were the prevalent form of governance, everybody, including the church claimed that the only source of legitimacy comes from God and is given only to Kings. Everyone was happy then. At that time and also much earlier it was postulated that the only source of legitimacy comes from power -- being able to slay anyone around you gave you the legitimacy to declare rules. Everyone was happy then. > You cite various reasons for you to prefer non-democratic governance that all sound in the area of "pragmatism." Interesting, how you came to such conclusion? Could you explain? Perhaps it is my limited command of the language.. > I had previously given an example of the pragmatic reasons a bribery-practicing industrialist (or whoever) would give for supporting a bribery-based political system, but such pragmatic reasons, whenever they are offered, are morally and politically empty > of justification and legitimacy. You need to understand, that ANY political system is bribery based. The bribe may be different of course. Sometimes, the price will be just "your name will be remembered as Nth President". I hope you do not believe the myth that politicians are not human. > The same can be said for any autocratic type of governance, including but not limited to that of governance by CEO or Board of Directors: It may "make the trains run > on time" as Mussolini is mistakenly believed to have always done, but it still doesn't provide any political legitimacy. That Mussolini did bad things does not mean he didn't make trains run on time. It may be that he needed trains run on time, for his bad things to happen. But how does the ordinary voting person care? :) They don't care, as long as the bad things do not happen to them personally. > 1. Where do you get your political legitimacy for your non-democratic > forms of governance? Do you deny that non-democratic forms of > governance are illegitimate when the concern fundamental questions of > public policy on the internet? Any non-democratic forms of governance are illegitimate within a democratic framework. This of course has nothing to do with Internet, or with Governance as such. I still have the feeling that when you say "democracy" you view ONLY "democratic government" and nothing else. In my opinion, Governments do not understand Internet and therefore cannot govern it. If they are tasked to govern something that they do not understand, practice shows they will engage non-democratically elected parties and the whole talk about democracy becomes non-sense. It is that simple. Also in my opinion, Internet as such does not need such form of Governance. Specific objects and activities within Internet may need Governance. Most of these are governed already anyway. Most of these are private in nature and not subject of 'democratic governance'. Some of these aspects are even governed by Governments. Democratic or not, does not matter much in their own area of power and control. > 2. Do you dislike democracy for policy or political reasons, or do > you (which may be the same thing) just want to keep democracy "in its > place" and out of the internet as much as you can? Democracy is an beautiful utopia, just like many others. The evil is in the detail. My standing on 'democracy' is very much neutral. I am just recognizing that it is the current state of art in governance. Of course, democracy has it's place. It is applicable in situations where there is a need to elect somebody to represent you, because you are: unable, do not care, not experienced, not interested etc. Internet is different :) Internet lets you have it as you like. You may have democracy, you may have aristocracy, you may have dictatorship, anything. All at the same time. Nothing of this will break the Internet. Because the parts that make Internet are all private and because deep into their hearts private people do not accept any form of governance, or are subject to different governance regimes and because Internet has no borders, you may have it any way you like. True freedom :) Here is an example you will surely like: You happen to live in a 'non-democratic' country. But because of Internet you have the ability to enjoy the results of what 'democratic' countries have done. You live your virtual life there.. Sounds familiar? Could you imagine it the other way around? Because Internet has no borders. Like I said it long ago in this discussion: at the moment you have democratic (or not) Governments control Internet, a new Internet will be born. Then they will run to catch the new one again. You probably do not understand my position. It is not rebel. It is not anti-democratic. Frankly, this discussion is not going anywhere. The main problem is that it always revolves around "we want to (democratically) govern it all". You can't. You just cannot govern the whole of Internet. Forget about this and you may have success. Governance needs to be applied to specific areas and each area may require very different type of governance. 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 soekpe at gmail.com Thu Aug 4 04:55:20 2011 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 09:55:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <4E3A5655.8090304@digsys.bg> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> <4E324A57.2020203@digsys.bg> <20110729194806.55E0F15C252@quill.bollow.ch> <4E364AA4.7070001@digsys.bg> <4E3A5655.8090304@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Dear Daniel, Thank you for the wonderful analysis. I support your veiws. Warm Wishes, Sea On 4 Aug 2011 09:21, "Daniel Kalchev" wrote: Paul, Like I said before, Internet is different. Internet is different, because for the first time in (known) human history, there are no borders and everything/everyone is accessible for everything/anyone. This is what all human rights principles try to achieve -- it is a given with Internet. What you call "democracy" is just an example of hierarchical governance system. You elect somebody to take care for things on behalf of you. You give up your own rights by submitting to that form of governance. The principle is the same, whether that someone is your village's war leader, your town's mayor, your King or your President. These are just labels and no matter what the political system is, are just a form of hierarchical delegation of rights. Just as much as an King may not care about you, so can any President. With the King, typically to remove them from power, you need to shed some blood (or a lot), with a President, you use more "civilized" political tools -- or not that civilized and somewhat bloody if you consider recent events. Any political governance system will be "good", as long as everything goes well. Again -- look at recent events in Africa. Do you see significant difference for the ordinary person? Because I don't. Internet has removed borders. It has already transformed lots of companies (to more flat structure), killed others that didn't want to adapt, changed a lot of governments. Who could even imagine a service like eGovernment from any traditional democratically elected government? Internet is all about choice. > Let's cut to the chase, then. You've ignored my most important point > that the *only* source o... Like the majority elects a mayor, president etc. whom I have serious evidence to believe is evil person, running for the office for illegitimate reasons. But you see, I am from the minority, my voice is not even noticed in the celebration of democracy... That is, I did not submit, or consented to that 'government', but I am nevertheless obliged to obey whatever they decide to put on me. How is this different from your fears of commercial terms and conditions inpacting someone who does not agree to them? At least with contracts, you have the choice to not sign up -- not so with governance. But back to your very question. I do not ignore or deny that the only source of legitimate governance is based on consent. I state this in all my comments. But I do not see what 'democracy' has to do with this. Consent is consent and has nothing to do with democracy. When you speak of democracy, what you consider democracy? The political form of governance at say national level? Or the community form of governance within a 'club'? PS: On re-reading your question, another interpretation occurred to me: Today, democracy is considered the only source of legitimacy, because it so happens that the most powerful countries (governments) in this world call themselves democratic. In other words -- they claim this because it suits them, and their servants. Everyone is happy now. Back in time, when kingdoms were the prevalent form of governance, everybody, including the church claimed that the only source of legitimacy comes from God and is given only to Kings. Everyone was happy then. At that time and also much earlier it was postulated that the only source of legitimacy comes from power -- being able to slay anyone around you gave you the legitimacy to declare rules. Everyone was happy then. > You cite various reasons for you to prefer non-democratic governance that all sound in the area ... Interesting, how you came to such conclusion? Could you explain? Perhaps it is my limited command of the language.. > I had previously given an example of the pragmatic reasons a bribery-practicing industrialist (o... You need to understand, that ANY political system is bribery based. The bribe may be different of course. Sometimes, the price will be just "your name will be remembered as Nth President". I hope you do not believe the myth that politicians are not human. > The same can be said for any autocratic type of governance, including but not limited to that of... That Mussolini did bad things does not mean he didn't make trains run on time. It may be that he needed trains run on time, for his bad things to happen. But how does the ordinary voting person care? :) They don't care, as long as the bad things do not happen to them personally. > 1. Where do you get your political legitimacy for your non-democratic > forms of governance? Do... Any non-democratic forms of governance are illegitimate within a democratic framework. This of course has nothing to do with Internet, or with Governance as such. I still have the feeling that when you say "democracy" you view ONLY "democratic government" and nothing else. In my opinion, Governments do not understand Internet and therefore cannot govern it. If they are tasked to govern something that they do not understand, practice shows they will engage non-democratically elected parties and the whole talk about democracy becomes non-sense. It is that simple. Also in my opinion, Internet as such does not need such form of Governance. Specific objects and activities within Internet may need Governance. Most of these are governed already anyway. Most of these are private in nature and not subject of 'democratic governance'. Some of these aspects are even governed by Governments. Democratic or not, does not matter much in their own area of power and control. > 2. Do you dislike democracy for policy or political reasons, or do > you (which may be the same... Democracy is an beautiful utopia, just like many others. The evil is in the detail. My standing on 'democracy' is very much neutral. I am just recognizing that it is the current state of art in governance. Of course, democracy has it's place. It is applicable in situations where there is a need to elect somebody to represent you, because you are: unable, do not care, not experienced, not interested etc. Internet is different :) Internet lets you have it as you like. You may have democracy, you may have aristocracy, you may have dictatorship, anything. All at the same time. Nothing of this will break the Internet. Because the parts that make Internet are all private and because deep into their hearts private people do not accept any form of governance, or are subject to different governance regimes and because Internet has no borders, you may have it any way you like. True freedom :) Here is an example you will surely like: You happen to live in a 'non-democratic' country. But because of Internet you have the ability to enjoy the results of what 'democratic' countries have done. You live your virtual life there.. Sounds familiar? Could you imagine it the other way around? Because Internet has no borders. Like I said it long ago in this discussion: at the moment you have democratic (or not) Governments control Internet, a new Internet will be born. Then they will run to catch the new one again. You probably do not understand my position. It is not rebel. It is not anti-democratic. Frankly, this discussion is not going anywhere. The main problem is that it always revolves around "we want to (democratically) govern it all". You can't. You just cannot govern the whole of Internet. Forget about this and you may have success. Governance needs to be applied to specific areas and each area may require very different type of governance. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a... -------------- 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Thu Aug 4 05:48:01 2011 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 10:48:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E3A0B08.7030907@ciroap.org> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> <1312398790.51994.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4E3A0B08.7030907@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <007f01cc528b$99b15810$cd140830$@planet.tn> Jeremy, thank you very much for this great work. ------------------------------------------------------ TIjani BEN JEMAA Vice Chair of the CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------ De : governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de Jeremy Malcolm Envoyé : jeudi 4 août 2011 03:59 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : Re: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website Thanks everyone for your generous words of appreciation. It makes it all worthwhile. :-) -- 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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt 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 soekpe at gmail.com Thu Aug 4 06:45:47 2011 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 11:45:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <007f01cc528b$99b15810$cd140830$@planet.tn> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> <1312398790.51994.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4E3A0B08.7030907@ciroap.org> <007f01cc528b$99b15810$cd140830$@planet.tn> Message-ID: Dear Dr. Malcolm, Keep on the wonderful and excellent work your are doing for the IGC. Warm Wishes, Sea On 4 Aug 2011 10:48, wrote: Jeremy, thank you very much for this great work. **** ** ** ------------------------------------------------------**** TI*jani BEN JEMAA* Vice Chair of the CIC**** World Federation of *E*ngineering *O*rganizations**** Phone : + 216 70 825 231**** Mobile : + 216 98 330 114**** Fax : + 216 70 825 231**** ------------------------------------------------------**** ** ** *De :* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *De la part de* Jeremy Malcolm *Envoyé :* jeudi 4 août 2011 03:59 *À :* governance at lists.cpsr.org *Objet :* Re: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website**** Thanks everyone for your generous words of appreciation. It makes it all worthwhile. :-) -- ... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Thu Aug 4 08:18:43 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:18:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E3964D0.6020801@apc.org> Message-ID: Baudouin SCHOMBE writes >But there is also another major factor is the local level where it >often lacks a working synergy between the actors in public >institutions, private sector and civil society entities with expertise >in the field of ICT. Creating such synergy is a skill on its own (regardless of which policy objectives the different stakeholders wish to promote). Many products fail commercially because the inventors wrongly believe that good products sell themselves. It's the same with policies. Try to think about creating a team, some of whom have the vision, and others who are expert at selling that vision. -- 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 Thu Aug 4 08:29:32 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:29:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4E3A31F4.6080805@apc.org> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E3964D0.6020801@apc.org> <4E3A31F4.6080805@apc.org> Message-ID: In message <4E3A31F4.6080805 at apc.org>, at 07:45:24 on Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Anriette Esterhuysen writes >Sometimes small groups >of CS people have discussions before sessions or during lunch, but it is >not consistent or well planned. And added to this is that we also try >to liaise with business and the tech people as we have a common concern >with keeping the space open to non-governmental actors. > >In the end we just don't work enough on strengthening CS participation. > I would suggest we make this a goal for next year's CSTD. We should >have a pre-session face to face meeting of those in Geneva, and then >daily briefings as well. Very good advice. As a minimum you should aim to have a substantial internal meeting the day before the event, a strategy breakfast on day 2, 3 etc, and reserve lunchtime for networking with other stakeholders in general, and the evenings for dinners with targeted influencers[1]. If it's not a series of 18 hour days, it's almost doomed not to provide the desired outcomes. This applies to any such international gatherings, not just CSTD, of course. [1] Ignore that fact that there's lots of food and drink involved - it's unlikely to exceed the flights and hotel rooms and is simply a "cost of doing business". -- 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 Aug 4 14:53:42 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 15:53:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for hub registration IGF 2011 (reminder) Message-ID: Dear all, Just a quick remind about the call for hub registration. We would appreciate if you can share this information with your contacts. Best wishes, Marília *Call for hub registration - IGF 2011* If you are not able to attend the next IGF in Nairobi, Kenya, you can follow it remotely! Remote participation, and specifically the hubs structure, has been successful in previous IGF's in partnership between United Nations IGF Secretariat and the Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG). This time again - the Remote Participation Working Group will provide interactive *channels for e-participation *so you can follow the discussions from home; watch the webcast of the event ; and participate in live chat. Or you can also expand the discussions and organize an IGF hub in your city! So what are the *"Hubs*?" The hubs are local meetings that take place in parallel with the IGF. People can watch the webcast together and send questions (via text or video) that will be answered by panelists in IGF. In addition, hub organizers can hold debates to discuss the themes introduced at the IGF from their 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. For your convenience, we have created a page to explain about remote hubs. *Click here!* *How to organize a hub?* The requirements are very simple: • A room or auditorium. It can be held in a university classroom or any other convenient place; • A computer with a broadband Internet connection and a videoconference (or projector) equipment, to watch the webcast; • A hub moderator, who will plan the dynamics of the local discussions as well as transmit the hub participants’ questions or comments to the IGF through the remote participation channels; • A general call in lists, forums etc, to invite the interested local community. If you are interested in setting up a local remote hub in your area, please click on link for the *IGF HUB REGISTRATION * and follow the instructions. There will also be an online training (to be announced soon) for hub organizers prior to the event. What's more? 
Hub participants are also encouraged to send short pre-recorded video questions or statement (2-3 minutes), outlining key issues on the local discussion agenda. Hubs are also possibly allowed to join with real-time video message. Then the links to access each meeting room will be provided before the IGF. That's why have encouraged remote participants in the past to take a look at the IGF schedule (available soon) to check room assignments and session times they wished to follow. During the IGF, you can also use *social network* platforms to take part in the Internet Governance dialogue: • Share your views in Twitter: #IGF11 • Share your video in Youtube • Share your pictures in Flickr • Leave messages in Facebook We hope you can join us this September for the IGF 2011 in Nairobi! Remote Participation Working Group -------------- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Aug 4 19:51:33 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 16:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: [PTBTF-ICT4D] Facebook using Facial Recong Soft. Message-ID: <1312501893.94688.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All, Just to share with you: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/technology/germany-investigates-facebook-tagging.html?_r=1&ref=technology Germany Investigating Facebook Tagging Feature By KEVIN J. O'BRIEN Published: August 04, 2011 BERLIN - A German regulator said Wednesday that he had asked Facebook to disable its new photo-tagging software, saying he was concerned that its facial recognition feature amounted to the unauthorized collection of data on individuals. Johannes Caspar, the data protection supervisor in Hamburg, who has been aggressive in investigating the online practices of companies like Google and Apple, warned that the feature could violate European privacy laws. ----Forwarded Message---- From: ias_pk at yahoo.com To: ptbtf-ict4d at igfpak.org Sent: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 03:47 PKT Subject: [PTBTF-ICT4D] Facebook using Facial Recong Soft. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/technology/germany-investigates-facebook-tagging.html?_r=1&ref=technology -- With Best Regards, Atif Nazar Ali +61469235630 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 -------------- _______________________________________________ PTBTF-ICT4D mailing list PTBTF-ICT4D at igfpak.org http://igfpak.org/mailman/listinfo/ptbtf-ict4d_igfpak.org From hempalshrestha at gmail.com Sat Aug 6 13:55:49 2011 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 23:40:49 +0545 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> <1312398790.51994.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4E3A0B08.7030907@ciroap.org> <007f01cc528b$99b15810$cd140830$@planet.tn> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Wonderful and this is very helpful to get more clear picture about the IGC and its activities. With best regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Dear Dr. Malcolm, > > Keep on the wonderful and excellent work your are doing for the IGC. > > Warm Wishes, > > Sea > > On 4 Aug 2011 10:48, wrote: > > Jeremy, thank you very much for this great work. **** > > ** ** > > ------------------------------------------------------**** > > TI*jani BEN JEMAA* > > Vice Chair of the CIC**** > > World Federation of *E*ngineering *O*rganizations**** > > Phone : + 216 70 825 231**** > > Mobile : + 216 98 330 114**** > > Fax : + 216 70 825 231**** > > ------------------------------------------------------**** > > ** ** > > *De :* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *De la > part de* Jeremy Malcolm > *Envoyé :* jeudi 4 août 2011 03:59 > *À :* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Objet :* Re: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements > to IGC website**** > > > > > > Thanks everyone for your generous words of appreciation. It makes it all > worthwhile. :-) > > -- > > ... > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 vivekmisra99 at gmail.com Sat Aug 6 14:26:41 2011 From: vivekmisra99 at gmail.com (vivek misra) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 23:56:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Third (and final for now) phase of improvements to IGC website In-Reply-To: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> References: <4E37E76E.9090804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy for your hard work and committment. This is big improvement. Regards Vivek Misra Coordinater SLCUP, MKCL Lucknow, India On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ** > I have just finished another major revamp of the IGC's website, > incorporating almost all of the suggestions that members had made. We now > have: > > - A calendar of events, which integrates with the one from the IGF > Community site at http://igf-online.net that has existed since 2007. > All IGF events are already added: see > http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar/2011-09. > - A new, modern theme (the old one was the Drupal default, making our > site look like thousands of others). > - Much nicer lists of members, with full names instead of usernames > (see http://www.igcaucus.org/list-members). > - Additional profile fields, including a long free text description, > and space to add your social networking and instant messaging contact > addresses. Most of these synchronise with our membership database, making > the data available to other IGC Web applications. > - Resources added by members can now be free-tagged, and will be listed > chronologically and by tag on the resources page (see > http://www.igcaucus.org/resources). > > There are only two outstanding items that I am aware of: > > - I haven't made the site multilingual, because this is something that > I can't do myself: it would require volunteers to translate the existing > content into each other language. But in the future if such volunteers step > forward, it will be possible. > - I can't implement the planned single password on the mailing list > site (http://lists.cpsr.org/) and the IGC site (http://www.igcaucus.org) > without help from the CPSR people, whom I've only recently contacted about > this and am waiting to hear back from. > > Enjoy the improvements! > > -- > > *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 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- *Regards'N' Thanks* ** *Vivek Misra* *CO-ORDINATOR, **MKCL's SLC Uttar Pradesh LUCKNOW Ph.+919794171000* -------------- 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 Aug 8 00:44:37 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:44:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] SURVEY: Public interest representation in the information society Message-ID: <4E3F69B5.7090601@ciroap.org> All civil society organisations and other self-identified public interest representatives in the regime of Internet governance and related areas of information and communications policy are invited to complete a survey titled "Public interest representation in the information society" at: http://survey.idgovmap.org/index.php?sid=48277 This survey contributes towards the development of a map of Internet governance to show which global and regional institutions of governance in the information society provide opportunities for participation by public interest representatives, which of those opportunities are being utilised or will be utilised over the next two years, and where gaps in either the opportunities or their utilisation exist, to suggest what is needed to fill them. The survey forms part of the multi-stakeholder Dynamic Working Coalition for Internet Governance Mapping, and Consumers International's programme Consumer Representation in the Information Society. It is also supported by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. For more information, see http://idgovmap.org. We plan to present the interim results of this survey at the workshop 'Mapping Internet Governance' at the Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi from 9am on 28 September. In order to make this possible, we encourage you to answer the survey by 5 September if you can. We would also be grateful if you would forward this email throughout your professional networks, and post it to any relevant mailing lists and microblogging services. -- *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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Wed Aug 10 09:01:17 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:01:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Latin American & Caribbean Convention on Internet Governance : ISOC Trinidad & Tobago / Trinidad & Tobago Computer Society Trini Lime & Reception for Delegates Message-ID: [Apologies for cross posting] To all my Latin American & Caribbean colleagues currently in Trinidad & Tobago for the Latin American & Caribbean Convention on Internet Governance (http://lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2011/index.html), please see attached Invitation to a "Trini Lime & Reception" for ALL delegates jointly hosted byISOC Trinidad & Tobago (note: website still under construction) and the Trinidad & Tobago Computer Society . Come and lime with us ... . lime origin: Trinidadian meaning: (v) hanging out/socialising in an informal relaxing environment, especially with friends, for example at a party, or on the beach. (n) an event at which liming takes place, e.g. a party. A gathering of people engaged in activities associated with liming. Often qualified using an adjective e.g. big lime. (v) We liming on the beach today (n) That party going to turn out be a big lime. Rgds, Tracy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ISOC_flyer.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 165697 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Aug 10 19:00:29 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:00:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] TR: Intl Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples [Multilingualism] Message-ID: Dear All, The article below was sent to me and I thought I should share it with you. It's relevance to Internet Governance would be the WGIG 2005 Report where "multilingualism" was identified as a policy thematic area. Apparently, 9th August is the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples. There are two articles below: Also in support of *International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, 9 August is a statement by Hon Tariana Turia and Hon Dr Pita Sharples http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1108/S00115/my-language-is-the-window-to-my-soul.htm * *"my language is the window to my soul"* *Tuesday, 9 August 2011, 2:41 pm* *Speech: The Maori Party* **** MEDIA STATEMENT *Hon Tariana Turia and Hon Dr Pita Sharples* *Maori Party Co-Leaders* *Tuesday 9 August 2011* **** Ko taku reo taku ohooho, ko taku reo taku mapihi mauria; **** *My language is my awakening, my language is the window to my soul. ***** Maori Party Co-leaders, Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia, have chosen *International Day of World Indigenous Peoples* to speak out strongly in support of Pacific nations in their call to promote the status of Pasifika languages in Aotearoa. **** “August 9 is our special day across the globe, when we celebrate the distinctive cultures of an estimated 370 million indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples speak more than 4000 of the nearly 7000 languages which are still spoken in the world” said Dr Sharples **** “When we heard the call from our Pacific whanaunga to promote the significance of Pasifika languages it was a call to the heart which we are duty bound to take up”. **** “The support the Maori Party has been able to give to Te Ataarangi; to Te Reo Mauriora, to kura kaupapa Maori and to kohanga reo in the revitalisation of te reo Maori, has been amongst some of our most important achievements”. **** “The theme for 2011, “*Indigenous Designs: Celebrating Stories and Cultures, Crafting Our Own Future,”* highlights the need to preserve indigenous cultures” said Tariana Turia. **** “We endorse the call from Pasifika peoples, for official recognition to be given in Aotearoa to the languages of Niue, Cook Islands, Tokelau, Samoa and Tonga, as promoting and protecting Pacific languages; and thereby nurturing the spirit and the strength of the peoples. **** We have been greatly concerned at the impact of changes the Ministry of Education has made in eliminating bilingualism goals and a lack of support for two series of resources, Tupu (published in five Pasifika languages) and Folauga (published in Samoan)". **** “There is a huge volume of research demonstrating that bilingual education has proven ability to enhance students’ performance in English academic areas, especially language and mathematics” said Mrs Turia. **** “We firmly believe – as we have seen with Maori immersion achievement – that Pacific children who are bilingual will eventually show better educational achievement than those who are not”. **** "While we understand the Ministry may be reviewing the format of bilingual material, we hope that there will new impetus in supporting the call from Pacific language groups, for promoting and supporting language growth" said Dr Sharples. **** “The Maori Party is taking the opportunity of World Indigenous Peoples Day to encourage the New Zealand Government to support Pacific languages, and enable and support Pacific communities to continue to nurture their own languages”. **** ENDS**** ** ** ** ** * * *International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, 9 August *8 August 2011 Kia ora, tomorrow is the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, which is marked annually on 9 August in recognition of the first meeting of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations in Geneva in 1982. The theme of the Day this year is 'Indigenous designs: celebrating stories and cultures, crafting our own future'. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' statement for the Day is below, and there is a video by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzjr0Ha_ofY&feature=youtu.beThe UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues' page with information about the Day is at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/news_internationalday2011.html This message is available online at http://www.facebook.com/notes/peace-movement-aotearoa/international-day-of-the-worlds-indigenous-peoples/217462811634429 *High Commissioner for Human Rights: “Let us ensure that development for some is not to the detriment of the human rights of others” *5 August 2011 Following is the statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on the occasion of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People which is commemorated on 9 August: “As we celebrate the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People this year, many of the estimated 370 million indigenous peoples around the world have lost, or are under imminent threat of losing, their ancestral lands, territories and natural resources because of unfair and unjust exploitation for the sake of ‘development.’ On this day, let us ask the crucial question: who actually benefits from this so-called development, and at what cost is such development taking place? When indigenous communities are alienated from their lands because of development and natural resource extraction projects, they are often left to scrape an existence on the margins of society. This is certainly not a sign of development. Many such projects result in human rights violations involving forced evictions, displacement and even loss of life when social unrest and conflict over natural resources erupt. This is certainly not what we mean by development. Natural resource extraction projects such as mining are land-intensive and water-intensive and often directly affect the collective rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and territories. All too often we see conflict between corporations, indigenous peoples and the State over development projects which are initiated without consultation or consent of the very people who are dispossessed of their land. In Malaysia, for example, planned hydroelectric dam projects in Sarawak and Sabah have caused great concern for indigenous peoples, who are either being displaced or dispossessed of their lands. The Penan people have received threats and there are reports of harassment of the Penan by workers of logging companies. Various complaints and claims have prompted SUHAKAM, Malaysia’s human rights commission, to initiate a national inquiry on the land rights of indigenous peoples. In India, social unrest and conflicts over land acquisition for development and mining projects have increased in recent years. Adivasis defending their ancestral lands and community forests are often subject to threats and harassment, despite the existence of constitutional protections, Supreme Court judgments and progressive national legislation requiring consent of tribal communities, and community rights over forest use. In a positive development in 2010 the Ministry of Environment and Forests in India stopped the Orissa government and Vedanta, a multinational mining company headquartered in the United Kingdom, from mining in the Niyamgiri hilltop in Kalahandi district, since such an operation would severely affect the ecology of the area and the situation of the Dongria Kondh Adivasi people living in the mountains. Threats against anti-logging activists working to protect the Amazon forest in Brazil have been long ongoing. Recently, José Claudio Ribeiro da Silva and his wife Maria de Espirto, both anti-logging activists and defenders of indigenous peoples’ rights were killed in the Brazilian state of Para. My Office continues to directly monitor the impact of extractive industries and development projects in a number of other countries, including Bolivia, Cambodia, Guatemala and Mexico. In many cases, extractive activities in indigenous territories are pursued by multinational companies headquartered in developed countries. Moreover, extractive industries are often present in the areas inhabited by indigenous peoples in these nations. For example, intensive oil and gas development continues in northern Alberta, Canada in the areas where the long-standing land claims by the Lubicon Lake Nation remain unresolved. In the Nordic countries, the Sami are concerned about the impact of mining, forestry and other natural resource extraction on reindeer husbandry. Many States maintain contradictory or antiquated laws on mining and land acquisition for development. These laws must be re-assessed to determine if they are consistent with international human rights standards and principles.. Such reviews must be conducted in consultation with indigenous peoples and in good faith. Indeed, proper consultations must be conducted with indigenous peoples at all stages of the development and natural resource extraction cycle. They are entitled to full disclosure of environmental, social and human right impact assessments in a language of their choice. States should also provide financial and technical support to enable indigenous peoples to consult with corporations. When indigenous peoples consent to such projects, they should have a right to a fair share of benefits from activities on their lands. And where projects proceed without consent, mechanisms for redress are required. International and national institutions financing such projects must ensure their operational policies and guidelines are consistent with international human rights standards and principles. On their part, extractive companies have a responsibility to respect human rights. This was affirmed in June 2011 by the UN Human Rights Council when adopting the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples makes explicit reference to free, prior and informed consent. It is very clear about this requirement for the “development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources”. This is further reinforced by international treaties such as ILO Convention No. 169 and in the jurisprudence of human rights treaty bodies, in particular the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The right to development is a human right for all, and indigenous peoples have the right to define and determine their own development. On this International Day of the World’s Indigenous People, let us ensure that development for some is not to the detriment of the human rights of others. Let us work together to ensure true development for all.” - HC11/071E **** <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> **** * * -------------- 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 dvbirve at yandex.ru Thu Aug 11 13:28:16 2011 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:28:16 +0400 Subject: [governance] Call for hub registration IGF 2011 (reminder) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <916371313083697@web109.yandex.ru> 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 sdkaaa at gmail.com Thu Aug 11 16:49:52 2011 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:49:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Call for hub registration IGF 2011 (reminder) In-Reply-To: <916371313083697@web109.yandex.ru> References: <916371313083697@web109.yandex.ru> Message-ID: Dear Andrey, The trainings on the remote participation platform will be scheduled for the next 2 weeks to come; therefore, and in order to take part of these trainings, it would be better if you can register your hub during the next couple of days. All the best, Bernard. - Bernard SADAKA On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Shcherbovich Andrey wrote: > Dear Marilla and colleagues! > > Could you please remind me what is the deadline for hub registration? > > Thank you! > Sincerely, Andrey > 04.08.2011, 22:53, "Marilia Maciel" : > > Dear all, > > Just a quick remind about the call for hub registration. We would > appreciate if you can share this information with your contacts. > > Best wishes, > > Marília > > *Call for hub registration - IGF 2011* > > If you are not able to attend the next IGF in Nairobi, Kenya, you can > follow it remotely! Remote participation, and specifically the hubs > structure, has been successful in previous IGF's in partnership between > United Nations IGF Secretariat and the Remote Participation Working Group > (RPWG). This time again - the Remote Participation Working Group will > provide interactive *channels for e-participation *so you can follow the > discussions from home; watch the webcast of the event ; and participate in > live chat. Or you can also expand the discussions and organize an IGF hub in > your city! > > So what are the *"Hubs*?" The hubs are local meetings that take place in > parallel with the IGF. People can watch the webcast together and send > questions (via text or video) that will be answered by panelists in IGF. In > addition, hub organizers can hold debates to discuss the themes introduced > at the IGF from their 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. For your convenience, we have > created a page to explain about remote hubs. *Click here!* > > *How to organize a hub?* The requirements are very simple: > • A room or auditorium. It can be held in a university classroom or any > other convenient place; > • A computer with a broadband Internet connection and a videoconference > (or projector) equipment, to watch the webcast; > • A hub moderator, who will plan the dynamics of the local discussions > as well as transmit the hub participants’ questions or comments to the IGF > through the remote participation channels; > • A general call in lists, forums etc, to invite the interested local > community. > > If you are interested in setting up a local remote hub in your area, please > click on link for the *IGF HUB REGISTRATION > * and follow the instructions. There will also be an online training (to > be announced soon) for hub organizers prior to the event. > > What's more? 
Hub participants are also encouraged to send short > pre-recorded video questions or statement (2-3 minutes), outlining key > issues on the local discussion agenda. Hubs are also possibly allowed to > join with real-time video message. Then the links to access each meeting > room will be provided before the IGF. That's why have encouraged remote > participants in the past to take a look at the IGF schedule (available soon) > to check room assignments and session times they wished to follow. > > During the IGF, you can also use *social network* platforms to take part > in the Internet Governance dialogue: > > • Share your views in Twitter: #IGF11 > • Share your video in Youtube > • Share your pictures in Flickr > • Leave messages in Facebook > We hope you can join us this September for the IGF 2011 in Nairobi! > > Remote Participation Working Group > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Fri Aug 12 04:43:15 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:43:15 +0500 Subject: [governance] England and shutting off Twitter & Blackberry access Message-ID: Dear Friends and Colleagues, The following petition message from Access Now raises an important concern and shows the double edged nature of Internet Access and the need for sustainable operations of various services and applications in the current crisis that the country is facing. It also raises the issue of access to Internet and communications as a fundamental right. Accordingly, "The UK social networks are where the people have organized clean-ups after the riots, how family members informed each other they were safe, and helped the community look for perpetrators of violence. Shut this off, and you not only facilitate the danger, you endanger our fundamental right to freedom of speech. Violence should be punished where the law has been broken, but not at the expense of our fundamental rights." Kindly read through the message and share your concern in the petition: ---------- Message ---------- From: Brett Solomon Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:43 AM Subject: Tell PM Cameron NO WAY to shutting off Twitter & Blackberry To: Hi friends, Pls sign (and forward) the Access petition below or tweet this: Tell @Number10gov NO! to shut #Twitter & #BlackBerry bc of #ukriots. #freedomofspeech comes 1st. Sign name @accessnow at http://bit.ly/ob67Nv Brett -------------- Dear friends, Has England gone completely mad? And we're not just talking about the rioters -- the British government is considering shutting off Blackberry and Twitter during times of social unrest. Prime Minister Cameron, this is NOT Egypt, Syria, or Bahrain! The Prime Minister says it would only be for those inciting violence or organising the riots, but on what basis is he going to decide that, using what intelligence, and according to whom? This proposal makes a mockery of the UK, and it must be halted before it goes any further. The UK social networks are where the people have organized clean-ups after the riots, how family members informed each other they were safe, and helped the community look for perpetrators of violence. Shut this off, and you not only facilitate the danger, you endanger our fundamental right to freedom of speech. Violence should be punished where the law has been broken, but not at the expense of our fundamental rights. Click here to tell the UK government NO to the shut down, and we will deliver your petition to the Prime Minister before the Parliament gets to discuss this proposal any further. Together we've stood proud as we fought for open communications across the Middle East and around the world, now let's ensure England, in this time of struggle, stands firm for what is right. Add your name here: https://www.accessnow.org/tell-cameron-no-way With hope, The Access Team ----- PS We’ve also been working with our network of Latin American activists to stop what very well be the most draconian intellectual property enforcement law in the world. This “two strikes” law would cut a Colombian citizen off from the internet after the second alleged instance of copyright infringement. If we stop this law, it will be a watershed event in the fight for digital freedom. Here’s the link, pls forward: https://www.accessnow.org/rights-not-copyrights or in Spanish at: https://www.accessnow.org/derechos-antes-que-permisos -- Regards. -------------------------- 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 sam_kams at yahoo.com Fri Aug 12 06:48:57 2011 From: sam_kams at yahoo.com (samuel kamara) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 03:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Message-ID: <1313146137.43379.YahooMailMobile@web110213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> http://www.singerinastrangeland.com/wp-includes/htcgrw.htm -------------- 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 Aug 12 07:38:27 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:38:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] England and shutting off Twitter & Blackberry access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 13:43:15 on Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes > Shut this off, and you not only facilitate the danger, >you endanger our fundamental right to freedom of speech. Violence >should be punished where the law has been broken, but not at the >expense of our fundamental rights." I don't think there's a practical possibility of shutting off people's access to social networking sites (which is where the Internet Governance aspect is involved), but this episode has been the nearest to "shouting fire in a crowded theater" that I can think of for some time (which is relevant to the concept of free speech). The initial riots (which soon became completely non-political looting) may well have been triggered by false reports that the police had shot a suspect in the head[1]. In the UK, the police shooting anyone is quite a rare thing, there's an average of only two fatal incidents a year - which is perhaps why such a fuss is made. (And it's about 100x less than the USA, once you factor in the different population size) [1] A man was shot (and died), but not in the head. -- 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 karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Fri Aug 12 16:16:02 2011 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:16:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] UNECA-- 2012 INNOVATION PRIZE FOR AFRICA - LE PRIX 2012 de l'innovation (100,000.00 and 50,000.00 US Dollars) Message-ID: <1313180162.4e458a0279507@gold.itu.ch> FYI Dear All, Chers Tous This message is in English and in French- Ce message est a la fois en anglais et en francais 2012 INNOVATION PRIZE FOR AFRICA- This is a new and great opportunity- Kindly inform those who can benefit ( 150,000.00 and 50,000.00 US Dollars) LE PRIX 2012 de l’INNOVATION--- Ceci est une grande opportunités.. Priere en informer largement ceux qui peuvent en bénéficier – prix de l’Innovation (150 Milles et 50 Milles Dollars) ENGLISH ECA and AIF launch prestigious February 2012 Innovation Prize for Africa Addis Ababa, 08 July 2011 (ECA) - The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and the African Innovation Foundation (AIF) are delighted to announce the Innovation Prize for Africa (IPA) to be awarded for the first time in February 2012. This prestigious and well-endowed award aims at encouraging innovations that contribute to sustainable development in Africa. With this award, AIF and UNECA acknowledge, support and encourage innovators and entrepreneurs- the group of stakeholders who till now have been neither considered nor benefited under Africa’s development cooperation agenda. "Innovation is a combination of identifying problems, and finding groundbreaking implementable solutions; we hope the prizes will contribute to tapping into the ingenuity of Africans to solve Africa’s problems,” says the ECA Executive Secretary and Under-Secretary General, Mr. Abdoulie Janneh. He adds: “Currently, ideas, innovation and knowledge are what is driving the world, and transforming economies. It is therefore fitting and appropriate that the Innovation Prize for Africa is targeting a unique group of stakeholders - innovators and inventors in the area of ICTs, Green Technologies and Health & Food Security.” “The AIF is very proud of the cooperation with ECA and expects numerous innovation projects to compete for the prize. There is so much untapped talent on this continent,” adds Mr. Walter Fust, Chairman of the AIF. The amount allocated towards the winners for the selected innovators and entrepreneurs, in the three thematic areas of ICTs; Green Technologies; Health & Food Security are two generous prizes: First prize USD 100,000; and USD 50000 for the second prize. The registration deadline for the 2012 prize has been set for September 30th, 2011 with no possibility of extensions. The organizers expect the prize to promote among young African men and women the pursuit of science, technology and engineering careers and business applications. The aims are to: 1. Create a platform for identification of innovative concepts and projects submitted by applicants that could be supported by AIP; 2. Promote innovation across Africa in key sectors of interest through the competition; 3. Promote science, technology and engineering as rewarding, exciting and noble career options among the youth in Africa by profiling successful applicants; and 4. Encourage entrepreneurs, innovators, funding bodies and business development service providers to exchange ideas and explore innovative business opportunities. In pursuing those aims, the AIP expects the following outcomes: 1. Increased commercialization of research and development (R&D) outputs in Africa; 2. Increased development of start-up, adoption of new and emerging technologies and accelerate growth of an innovative and dynamic private sector; and 3. Increased general economic activities that result in long term sustainable development Over the coming five years, AIP will be targeting innovators/entrepreneurs in different thematic areas to be determined each year by the Technical Advisory Committee. For detailed information of competition categories, conditions of entry, and submission procedures, please visit http://aip.uneca.org/aif Attached the form =================================================================== RENCH VERSION La CEA et l’AIF lancent un prestigieux Prix d’Innovation pour l’Afrique 2012 Communiqué de presse de la CEA 98/2011 Addis Abeba, 08 juillet 2011 (CEA) - La commission économique pour l’Afrique (CEA) et la Fondation africaine pour l’innovation (AIF) ont le plaisir d’annoncer le premier Prix de l’Innovation pour l’Afrique (PIA) qui sera décerné pour la première fois en Février 2012. Ce prix prestigieux et bien assuré vise à encourager les innovations qui contribuent au développement durable en Afrique. Par ce prix, l’AIF et la CEA viennent reconnaitre, soutenir et encourager les innovateurs et les entrepreneurs - un groupe qui jusqu’à présent n’a été ni pris en compte ni bénéficié des programmes de coopération pour le développement de l’Afrique. "L’innovation est une combinaison de l’identification de problèmes et de l’élaboration de solutions révolutionnaires réalisables ; nous espérons que ce prix puisera dans l’ingéniosité des Africains à résoudre les problèmes de l’Afrique,” a noté le sous Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies et Secrétaire Exécutif de la CEA, son excellence Mr. Abdoulie Janneh. “Pour le moment, les idées, l’innovation et la connaissance constituent les forces motrices du monde, et transformatrices des économies. Il est donc normal et approprié que le Prix de l’Innovation pour l’Afrique cible un groupe unique d’acteurs – les innovateurs et les inventeurs dans les domaines des Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication (TIC), des technologies vertes ainsi que de la santé et la sécurité alimentaire”, a-t-il ajouté. “L’AIF est très fière de la coopération avec la CEA et anticipe de nombreux projets d’innovation à concourir pour le prix. Il y a beaucoup de talents méconnus et non exploités sur ce continent,” a ajouté Mr. Walter Fust, président de l’AIF. Les montants qui seront alloués aux innovateurs et entrepreneurs sélectionnés dans les trois domaines thématiques des TIC, des technologies vertes, de la santé et la sécurité alimentaire consistent en : 100000 $ pour le premier prix et 50000 $ pour le second. La date limite pour la soumission de candidatures au PIA 2012 est fixée au 30 Septembre 2011, avec aucune possibilité d’extension. Par ce prix, les organisateurs espèrent stimuler chez les jeunes hommes et femmes africains l’intérêt dans les carrières scientifiques, technologiques et d’ingénierie et d’entrepreneurs. Les objectifs principaux sont: - Créer une plateforme pour identifier les concepts novateurs et les projets soumis par les candidats qui pourraient être pris en charge par le PIA - Promouvoir en Afrique l’innovation dans les secteurs clés d’intérêt grâce à la compétition ; - Promouvoir la science, la technologie et l’ingénierie, comme possibilités de carrière revalorisant, passionnante et noble chez les jeunes en présentant le profil des lauréats, et - Encourager les entrepreneurs, les innovateurs, les organismes de financements et les prestataires de services de développement, d’échanger les idées et d’explorer les opportunités d’affaires novatrices. En droite ligne aves ses objectifs, le PIA vise les résultats ci-après : · Commercialisation des résultats de la recherche et développent (R&D) en Afrique ; · Le développement de petites entreprises, l’adoption de technologies nouvelles et émergentes et la croissance d’un secteur privé innovateur et dynamique ; · La croissance d’activités économiques qui favorisent à long terme un développement durable. Au cours des cinq prochaines années, l’AIP va cibler les innovateurs/entrepreneurs dans d’autres domaines thématiques à être déterminés chaque année par le comité consultatif technique. Plus d’informations peuvent être obtenues sur le site http://aip.uneca.org/aif Ci-joint le formulaire a remplir (See attached file: IPA_2012_Application_Form French.doc)(See attached file: IPA_2012_Application_Form.doc) Thierry H. Amoussougbo Regional Advisor ICT, Science & Technology Division (ISTD) United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) Tel: 251 11 5443053 Fax: 251 11 5510512 E-mail : tamoussougbo at uneca.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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IPA_2012_Application_Form Type: application/msword Size: 86528 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IPA_2012_Application_Form.doc Type: application/msword Size: 81408 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 12 19:09:08 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:09:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... Message-ID: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/11/edmonton-groupon-exp iry-dates-alberta-law.html?ref=rss ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 12 22:47:57 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:17:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E45E5DD.40600@itforchange.net> On Saturday 13 August 2011 04:39 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/11/edmonton-groupon-exp > iry-dates-alberta-law.html?ref=rss > From the news item "Discussions with Groupon have been underway for the last few months and there is hope the company will voluntarily comply with Alberta legislation before the province needs to resort to legal measures." Very much in keeping with the new market (read, naked power) as global governance mechanism that has been rather bravely (in fact, i am tempted to say, brazenly) advocated by many here on this list, as against global democracy. Small digital company : big/ powerful government = company buckles and complies Big digital company : Small, powerless government = company says, you go to hell, and government/ community likely to buckle and accept what is offered, at whatever conditions Brave new world indeed!! 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Aug 13 00:02:02 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 00:02:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Anything that is an "irresistible Internet Force" in fact is something that is thought to be, or claimed to be, above the law, or immune to the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law refers to the priority or primacy of the laws made by actions of freely elected legislatures over everything else that is "against the law", so long as those democratically adopted laws are not unconstitutional, and don't violate universal human rights. One may argue that a law is unconstitutional and therefore void, or violates human rights and therefore void, but one may not argue, as has been heard on this list, that a law or laws are inapplicable because "the internet is different" or things like that. If the internet is "different" specifically in the sense of the application of law, then the speaker is claiming that all or part of the internet is above the Rule of Law. (For clarity: one can say that a law is invalidly applied because it is being applied outside its jurisdiction. As applied to the internet, this is not an assertion that the Internet is above the rule of law Generally, only that the specific law in question doesn't apply. The two should not be confused.) The discussion here, as well as specific provisions I've cited in CIRA policies in the past, occasionally rises to the level of express claims that the internet or some part of it is "above the law" by saying that laws are inapplicable (for example) to the procedures for arbitrations in CIRA, regardless of whether those laws are foreign or domestic. Governments MUST not do unconstitutional things, and MUST not violate human rights. Beyond that, for POLICY reasons they OUGHT not to intervene in some areas, but where those non-intervention lines are drawn is a constantly debated and regularly changing political and historical process. But if the law DOES intervene, all must follow the law, per the Rule of Law itself. The internet is [NOT!] different **when it comes to the law,** no matter how many times anybody says it is. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Aug 13 05:28:52 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 12:28:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E4643D4.9050900@gmail.com> parminder, no one is above the law, but legal positivism is also a refuge for the Orwellian view that some pigs are more equal than others, btw have an ACTA or a TPP mint - it soothes the stench of low intensity democracy... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 13 08:02:53 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:02:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 16:09:08 on Fri, 12 Aug 2011, michael gurstein writes >http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/11/edmonton-groupon-exp >iry-dates-alberta-law.html?ref=rss Are the coupons issued in Canadian Dollars, by/to people living in Canada? If so, I can't see why it matters that they were issued through the Internet - the appropriate Canadian Law must apply. (I'm not saying it would necessarily be different if the coupons were issued in Japan, in US dollars, and then redeemed in Canada before a deadline at some agreed exchange rate, but thankfully the situation is simpler in this case I think). I have a thing which I call my "Yellow Underpants test". When you are prohibited by law from doing something, can you say "but it's OK because I'm wearing Yellow Underpants, and the law doesn't mention that particular situation". [For "wearing Yellow Underpants" substitute "doing it over the Internet"] ps It doesn't matter whether the person issuing the coupons thinks it's "fair" or not for them to expire. That decision was taken away from them when the law was passed. -- 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 cveraq at gmail.com Sat Aug 13 08:36:31 2011 From: cveraq at gmail.com (cveraq at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 12:36:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting AnIrresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1641152919-1313238992-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1178514639-@b2.c2.bise6.blackberry> This is more a situation in which we should consider where the user is located when the illegal fact occured (independent of where he is from), or where the law violation was.. and where the law violator was at that moment.. (Again it does not matter where or under which jurisdiction he is supposed to be) Carlos Mensaje enviado desde mi terminal BlackBerry® de Claro -----Original Message----- From: Roland Perry Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:02:53 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In message , at 16:09:08 on Fri, 12 Aug 2011, michael gurstein writes >http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/11/edmonton-groupon-exp >iry-dates-alberta-law.html?ref=rss Are the coupons issued in Canadian Dollars, by/to people living in Canada? If so, I can't see why it matters that they were issued through the Internet - the appropriate Canadian Law must apply. (I'm not saying it would necessarily be different if the coupons were issued in Japan, in US dollars, and then redeemed in Canada before a deadline at some agreed exchange rate, but thankfully the situation is simpler in this case I think). I have a thing which I call my "Yellow Underpants test". When you are prohibited by law from doing something, can you say "but it's OK because I'm wearing Yellow Underpants, and the law doesn't mention that particular situation". [For "wearing Yellow Underpants" substitute "doing it over the Internet"] ps It doesn't matter whether the person issuing the coupons thinks it's "fair" or not for them to expire. That decision was taken away from them when the law was passed. -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From devonrb at gmail.com Sat Aug 13 09:06:04 2011 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:06:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support this view, The internet is space used by people just as the physical world is space used by people. In the physical space there are open spaces such as parks, there are natural environments such as forests, there are houses, businesses, and governments. This physical space is occupied and utilized by people, people. approximately 1/3 of this same population occupy the internet, among these people are Leaders, Professionals, Athletes, Artistes, Entrepreneurs, malicious people and criminals among others. The power of the internet is not so much in it's advanced technological nature, we've had paradigm changes in technology before and will have it again. The power of the internet is in its ability to advance the Human condition (positively or negatively) and this will most effectively played out when the internet is: - Free and open - Espouse freedom and security, - Promoting transparency and confidentiality - Promote Freedom of Expression, Freedom of association and Tolerance - And of course freedom of access These are critical values to safeguard, if the internet is going to be the tool to advance the Human condition in a positive way in the twenty first century. With all this each person using the internet should enjoy their rights as a human being as long as those laws do not breach the rule of law which ideally so designed as to protect those very rights. As the bible puts it, where there is no sin the law is redundant. (my adaptation). On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > Anything that is an "irresistible Internet Force" in fact is something > that is thought to be, or claimed to be, above the law, or immune to > the Rule of Law. > > The Rule of Law refers to the priority or primacy of the laws made by > actions of freely elected legislatures over everything else that is > "against the law", so long as those democratically adopted laws are > not unconstitutional, and don't violate universal human rights. > > One may argue that a law is unconstitutional and therefore void, or > violates human rights and therefore void, but one may not argue, as > has been heard on this list, that a law or laws are inapplicable > because "the internet is different" or things like that. > > If the internet is "different" specifically in the sense of the > application of law, then the speaker is claiming that all or part of > the internet is above the Rule of Law. (For clarity: one can say > that a law is invalidly applied because it is being applied outside > its jurisdiction. As applied to the internet, this is not an > assertion that the Internet is above the rule of law Generally, only > that the specific law in question doesn't apply. The two should not > be confused.) > > The discussion here, as well as specific provisions I've cited in CIRA > policies in the past, occasionally rises to the level of express > claims that the internet or some part of it is "above the law" by > saying that laws are inapplicable (for example) to the procedures for > arbitrations in CIRA, regardless of whether those laws are foreign or > domestic. > > Governments MUST not do unconstitutional things, and MUST not violate > human rights. Beyond that, for POLICY reasons they OUGHT not to > intervene in some areas, but where those non-intervention lines are > drawn is a constantly debated and regularly changing political and > historical process. But if the law DOES intervene, all must follow > the law, per the Rule of Law itself. > > The internet is [NOT!] different **when it comes to the law,** no > matter how many times anybody says it is. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Devon Blake Special Projects Director Earthwise Solutions Limited 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-589-6369 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- 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 Sat Aug 13 10:04:43 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 15:04:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting AnIrresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <1641152919-1313238992-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1178514639-@b2.c2.bise6.blackberry> References: <1641152919-1313238992-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1178514639-@b2.c2.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: In message <1641152919-1313238992-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-117851463 9- at b2.c2.bise6.blackberry>, at 12:36:31 on Sat, 13 Aug 2011, cveraq at gmail.com writes >This is more a situation in which we should consider where the user is >located when the illegal fact occured (independent of where he is >from), or where the law violation was.. and where the law violator was >at that moment.. (Again it does not matter where or under which >jurisdiction he is supposed to be) In this case it looks like everything is in Canada, including an intermediary http://www.groupon.ca/ Normal discussion about the liability of intermediaries (which sometimes has a cross-border element) would concentrate on whose fault it was if the coupon was refused *within* the time limit. >Carlos >Mensaje enviado desde mi terminal BlackBerry® de Claro > >-----Original Message----- >From: Roland Perry >Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:02:53 >To: >Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Roland Perry > >Subject: Re: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An > Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... > >In message , at 16:09:08 on >Fri, 12 Aug 2011, michael gurstein writes >>http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/11/edmonton-groupon-exp >>iry-dates-alberta-law.html?ref=rss > >Are the coupons issued in Canadian Dollars, by/to people living in >Canada? > >If so, I can't see why it matters that they were issued through the >Internet - the appropriate Canadian Law must apply. > >(I'm not saying it would necessarily be different if the coupons were >issued in Japan, in US dollars, and then redeemed in Canada before a >deadline at some agreed exchange rate, but thankfully the situation is >simpler in this case I think). > >I have a thing which I call my "Yellow Underpants test". When you are >prohibited by law from doing something, can you say "but it's OK because >I'm wearing Yellow Underpants, and the law doesn't mention that >particular situation". > >[For "wearing Yellow Underpants" substitute "doing it over the >Internet"] > >ps It doesn't matter whether the person issuing the coupons thinks it's >"fair" or not for them to expire. That decision was taken away from them >when the law was passed. -- 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 cveraq at gmail.com Sat Aug 13 10:21:45 2011 From: cveraq at gmail.com (cveraq at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:21:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting AnIrresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1996544163-1313245307-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1305285773-@b2.c2.bise6.blackberry> Against Internet discrimination? So must be against Internet over consideration. Mensaje enviado desde mi terminal BlackBerry® de Claro -----Original Message----- From: Devon Blake Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:06:04 To: ; Paul Lehto Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Devon Blake Cc: michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... I support this view, The internet is space used by people just as the physical world is space used by people. In the physical space there are open spaces such as parks, there are natural environments such as forests, there are houses, businesses, and governments. This physical space is occupied and utilized by people, people. approximately 1/3 of this same population occupy the internet, among these people are Leaders, Professionals, Athletes, Artistes, Entrepreneurs, malicious people and criminals among others. The power of the internet is not so much in it's advanced technological nature, we've had paradigm changes in technology before and will have it again. The power of the internet is in its ability to advance the Human condition (positively or negatively) and this will most effectively played out when the internet is: - Free and open - Espouse freedom and security, - Promoting transparency and confidentiality - Promote Freedom of Expression, Freedom of association and Tolerance - And of course freedom of access These are critical values to safeguard, if the internet is going to be the tool to advance the Human condition in a positive way in the twenty first century. With all this each person using the internet should enjoy their rights as a human being as long as those laws do not breach the rule of law which ideally so designed as to protect those very rights. As the bible puts it, where there is no sin the law is redundant. (my adaptation). On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > Anything that is an "irresistible Internet Force" in fact is something > that is thought to be, or claimed to be, above the law, or immune to > the Rule of Law. > > The Rule of Law refers to the priority or primacy of the laws made by > actions of freely elected legislatures over everything else that is > "against the law", so long as those democratically adopted laws are > not unconstitutional, and don't violate universal human rights. > > One may argue that a law is unconstitutional and therefore void, or > violates human rights and therefore void, but one may not argue, as > has been heard on this list, that a law or laws are inapplicable > because "the internet is different" or things like that. > > If the internet is "different" specifically in the sense of the > application of law, then the speaker is claiming that all or part of > the internet is above the Rule of Law. (For clarity: one can say > that a law is invalidly applied because it is being applied outside > its jurisdiction. As applied to the internet, this is not an > assertion that the Internet is above the rule of law Generally, only > that the specific law in question doesn't apply. The two should not > be confused.) > > The discussion here, as well as specific provisions I've cited in CIRA > policies in the past, occasionally rises to the level of express > claims that the internet or some part of it is "above the law" by > saying that laws are inapplicable (for example) to the procedures for > arbitrations in CIRA, regardless of whether those laws are foreign or > domestic. > > Governments MUST not do unconstitutional things, and MUST not violate > human rights. Beyond that, for POLICY reasons they OUGHT not to > intervene in some areas, but where those non-intervention lines are > drawn is a constantly debated and regularly changing political and > historical process. But if the law DOES intervene, all must follow > the law, per the Rule of Law itself. > > The internet is [NOT!] different **when it comes to the law,** no > matter how many times anybody says it is. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Devon Blake Special Projects Director Earthwise Solutions Limited 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-589-6369 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- 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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Sun Aug 14 01:14:58 2011 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 00:14:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] England and shutting off Twitter & Blackberry access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fouad, apparently Blackberry has been cooperating with the British authorities after rioters were using the blackberry messenger. Makers of the Blackberry ( I think it is RIM or Research in Motion) can cooperate but they have insisted that those messages sent were going to be encrypted and cannot be unscrambled. What's really going on is that those messages inciting rioting were sent to twitter, probably re-posted and amplified in several networks. But I think Twitter has refused to close the accounts of rioters. It's like saying "*your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins.*" Twitter is a private company, as such, they cannot be required to provide their service to anybody. It is their right to refuse their service if they do so choose. If these people are using twitter to organize and encourage criminal activity, then twitter can refuse their service and at the same time they have the right *not *to refuse service *irrespective of content*. All the government can do is track information and thwart any more looting. Also, RIM and Twitter may be legally ordered to hand over information if there are suspicions of unlawful activity. I'm not a lawyer but I doubt very much that Twitter will close the accounts of rioters. Closing those twitter accounts is not going to stop the rioting. The police have to stop them. The police might be outnumbered. If the police open fire, there's going to be all sort of human right accusations even if these law-breaking hooligans have been on the wrong in some sense. If you remember the beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles years back, it also incited the same rioting in LA. There were looting, too. The police couldn't stop them. It just wound down. When these hooligans in London don't have anything else to loot, the rioting will wind down. The loot money will eventually run out and I guess it's time to start looking for a real job. The real root of most of society's problems is allowing its people to be "addicted" to the entitlement system. When you make it so easy for most people, they abuse that. Why work when everything is handed down to you? The moral fiber in our "civilized" society is waning. I have students who believe that if they want to have new clothes, they have to steal them in the mall. They don't realize that in order to acquire these material things, you have to work and save up. The riots are nothing more than an opportunity to find an excuse to "go down hard and not get hungry." Sad but true. Regards, Charity On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message mXU16A at mail.gmail.com >, at 13:43:15 on Fri, 12 > Aug 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes > > Shut this off, and you not only facilitate the danger, >> you endanger our fundamental right to freedom of speech. Violence >> should be punished where the law has been broken, but not at the >> expense of our fundamental rights." >> > > I don't think there's a practical possibility of shutting off people's > access to social networking sites (which is where the Internet Governance > aspect is involved), but this episode has been the nearest to "shouting fire > in a crowded theater" that I can think of for some time (which is relevant > to the concept of free speech). > > The initial riots (which soon became completely non-political looting) may > well have been triggered by false reports that the police had shot a suspect > in the head[1]. In the UK, the police shooting anyone is quite a rare thing, > there's an average of only two fatal incidents a year - which is perhaps why > such a fuss is made. (And it's about 100x less than the USA, once you factor > in the different population size) > > [1] A man was shot (and died), but not in the head. > -- > 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Aug 14 06:31:58 2011 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:31:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting AnIrresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <1641152919-1313238992-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1178514639-@b2.c2.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <117DA8A5-145E-4F76-AEEC-9BBF5B3236C3@uzh.ch> Hi On Aug 13, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > Normal discussion about the liability of intermediaries (which sometimes has a cross-border element) would concentrate on whose fault it was if the coupon was refused *within* the time limit. Welcome to the new normal, at least here. Inspired by this discussion, I just bought a half priced dinner coupon at a small local restaurant on Groupon. We have four months to redeem it. Per usual, the length of the sale was set by the restaurant. Of course, the government of Geneva could pass a law saying such coupons cannot expire. That would leave business like this resto with basically two choices: in effect, permanently cut their prices by half (for all who see the ad online), or else never offer online sales via intermediaries like Groupon. At least here, where competitive sales are a fairly new and infrequent exception to the rule, the latter probably would be the outcome. I'm glad the state has not gone this route, but would not be surprised if the industry associations that have long fixed prices in most markets (some of which are already screaming about people daring to cross the French border to buy groceries at 1/3rd the local price) woke up and called for a ban. To protect global democracy, presumably. Cheers, Bill -------------- 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 Aug 14 08:15:39 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:15:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting AnIrresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <117DA8A5-145E-4F76-AEEC-9BBF5B3236C3@uzh.ch> References: <1641152919-1313238992-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1178514639-@b2.c2.bise6.blackberry> <117DA8A5-145E-4F76-AEEC-9BBF5B3236C3@uzh.ch> Message-ID: In message <117DA8A5-145E-4F76-AEEC-9BBF5B3236C3 at uzh.ch>, at 12:31:58 on Sun, 14 Aug 2011, William Drake writes >Inspired by this discussion, I just bought a half priced dinner coupon >at a small local restaurant on Groupon.  We have four months to redeem >it.  Per usual, the length of the sale was set by the restaurant.  Of >course, the government of Geneva could pass a law saying such coupons >cannot expire.  That would leave business like this resto with >basically two choices:  in effect, permanently cut their prices by half >(for all who see the ad online), or else never offer online sales via >intermediaries like Groupon. There's a third option: Offer a coupon online (or as has been the practice in the UK for decades, in a newspaper, magazine or leaflet) which entitles you to a 50% discount when presented in that restaurant within four months (or similar). Such offers can be finessed by saying that they apply to food only (not drinks), or that the second person is free if the first person pays full price[1]. The specific objection to the Groupon offer, as I understand it, is the need to pay in advance, even if you never turn up and claim. I admit I don't know how comprehensive the Canadian displeasure at such things is - would it extend to buying a coupon for 100 minutes of mobile phone calls, which expire at the end of the month even if you've never used them (that's a very normal thing in the UK). On the other hand, I wouldn't expect there to be any difference between buying those 100 minutes in shop, or online. [1] I understand that such "buy one, get one free" offers are illegal in Germany. -- 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 Mon Aug 15 16:26:56 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:26:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] SURVEY: Public interest representation in the information society In-Reply-To: <4E3F69B5.7090601@ciroap.org> References: <4E3F69B5.7090601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Is there a deadline to reply this survey? It is a great initiative. Marília On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ** > All civil society organisations and other self-identified public interest > representatives in the regime of Internet governance and related areas of > information and communications policy are invited to complete a survey > titled "Public interest representation in the information society" at: > > http://survey.idgovmap.org/index.php?sid=48277 > > This survey contributes towards the development of a map of Internet > governance to show which global and regional institutions of governance in > the information society provide opportunities for participation by public > interest representatives, which of those opportunities are being utilised or > will be utilised over the next two years, and where gaps in either the > opportunities or their utilisation exist, to suggest what is needed to fill > them. > > The survey forms part of the multi-stakeholder Dynamic Working Coalition > for Internet Governance Mapping, and Consumers International's programme > Consumer Representation in the Information Society. It is also supported by > the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. For more information, see > http://idgovmap.org. > > We plan to present the interim results of this survey at the workshop > 'Mapping Internet Governance' at the Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi > from 9am on 28 September. In order to make this possible, we encourage you > to answer the survey by 5 September if you can. > > We would also be grateful if you would forward this email throughout your > professional networks, and post it to any relevant mailing lists and > microblogging services. > > -- > > *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 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > 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 ivarhartmann at gmail.com Mon Aug 15 18:10:08 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:10:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting AnIrresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <1641152919-1313238992-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1178514639-@b2.c2.bise6.blackberry> <117DA8A5-145E-4F76-AEEC-9BBF5B3236C3@uzh.ch> Message-ID: "Consumers paid for that face value. That was what they agreed to, that was what the business promised and that's what consumers should get,". I don't believe Mike Berezowsky has a basic understanding of economy. A permanent discount was not what the business promised, was it?? Arguably, in Brazil, consumer protection legislation would forbid Groupon from not returning your money after the offer expired. But it wouldn't force them to pay for the *face value* of a product or service (previously contracted with a discount) at any given time in the future. Best, Ivar On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:15, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <117DA8A5-145E-4F76-AEEC-**9BBF5B3236C3 at uzh.ch<117DA8A5-145E-4F76-AEEC-9BBF5B3236C3 at uzh.ch>>, > at 12:31:58 on Sun, 14 Aug 2011, William Drake > writes > > Inspired by this discussion, I just bought a half priced dinner coupon at a >> small local restaurant on Groupon. We have four months to redeem it. Per >> usual, the length of the sale was set by the restaurant. Of course, the >> government of Geneva could pass a law saying such coupons cannot expire. >> That would leave business like this resto with basically two choices: in >> effect, permanently cut their prices by half (for all who see the ad >> online), or else never offer online sales via intermediaries like Groupon. >> > > There's a third option: Offer a coupon online (or as has been the practice > in the UK for decades, in a newspaper, magazine or leaflet) which entitles > you to a 50% discount when presented in that restaurant within four months > (or similar). Such offers can be finessed by saying that they apply to food > only (not drinks), or that the second person is free if the first person > pays full price[1]. > > The specific objection to the Groupon offer, as I understand it, is the > need to pay in advance, even if you never turn up and claim. > > I admit I don't know how comprehensive the Canadian displeasure at such > things is - would it extend to buying a coupon for 100 minutes of mobile > phone calls, which expire at the end of the month even if you've never used > them (that's a very normal thing in the UK). On the other hand, I wouldn't > expect there to be any difference between buying those 100 minutes in shop, > or online. > > [1] I understand that such "buy one, get one free" offers are illegal in > Germany. > > > -- > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 15 20:06:08 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:06:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] SURVEY: Public interest representation in the information society In-Reply-To: References: <4E3F69B5.7090601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <3E83D536-C4FC-47AD-9641-902E5FAFC560@ciroap.org> On 16/08/2011, at 4:26 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear Jeremy, > > Is there a deadline to reply this survey? It is a great initiative. We have asked for responses by 5 September if possible, but will still be receiving them until 31 October. Thanks. -- 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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @Consumers_Int 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 16 04:56:53 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:56:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting AnIrresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <1641152919-1313238992-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1178514639-@b2.c2.bise6.blackberry> <117DA8A5-145E-4F76-AEEC-9BBF5B3236C3@uzh.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 19:10:08 on Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann writes >"Consumers paid for that face value. That was what they agreed to, that >was what the business promised and that's what consumers should get,". >I don't believe Mike Berezowsky has a basic understanding of economy. A >permanent discount was not what the business promised, was it?? I thought the vouchers were complete payment for the product or service, not a promise of a discount (with a time limit or otherwise). For example, if I paid for a meal coupon, then that's the full price of the meal. It isn't a promise to give me 50% off a meal. A different model would be to charge me (say) $5 for a "50% discount" voucher that can be used on a meal that might cost $40 - in which case I'd have paid the $5 to Groupon plus $20 to the restaurant (=$25) which is cheaper than the $40. The difference between these two models is in the down-side when the coupon expires. In my hypothetical model above I lose $5, in the Groupon model I lose $20. >Arguably, in Brazil, consumer protection legislation would forbid >Groupon from not returning your money after the offer expired. But it >wouldn't force them to pay for the face value of a product or service >(previously contracted with a discount) at any given time in the >future. Consumer protection law will vary from country to country, that's the problem. It's quite common for transport tickets to expire (I think any credit you have on a New York Subway card expires after a year; in the UK the return half of a train ticket expires either at the end of the day, or a month, depending on how much you pay) and legislators have probably come to terms with that. It's the expiry of vouchers for more tangible things which is causing the problem. >Best, Ivar   > >On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:15, Roland Perry < >roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <117DA8A5-145E-4F76-AEEC-9BBF5B3236C3 at uzh.ch>, at > 12:31:58 on Sun, 14 Aug 2011, William Drake > writes > > >> Inspired by this discussion, I just bought a half priced dinner >> coupon at a small local restaurant on Groupon.  We have four >> months to redeem it.  Per usual, the length of the sale was set >> by the restaurant.  Of course, the government of Geneva could >> pass a law saying such coupons cannot expire.  That would leave >> business like this resto with basically two choices:  in effect, >> permanently cut their prices by half (for all who see the ad >> online), or else never offer online sales via intermediaries like >> Groupon. > > > There's a third option: Offer a coupon online (or as has been the > practice in the UK for decades, in a newspaper, magazine or leaflet) > which entitles you to a 50% discount when presented in that > restaurant within four months (or similar). Such offers can be > finessed by saying that they apply to food only (not drinks), or > that the second person is free if the first person pays full > price[1]. > > The specific objection to the Groupon offer, as I understand it, is > the need to pay in advance, even if you never turn up and claim. > > I admit I don't know how comprehensive the Canadian displeasure at > such things is - would it extend to buying a coupon for 100 minutes > of mobile phone calls, which expire at the end of the month even if > you've never used them (that's a very normal thing in the UK). On > the other hand, I wouldn't expect there to be any difference between > buying those 100 minutes in shop, or online. > > [1] I understand that such "buy one, get one free" offers are > illegal in Germany. > > > -- > 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 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 Dixie at global-partners.co.uk Tue Aug 16 12:22:11 2011 From: Dixie at global-partners.co.uk (Dixie Hawtin) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:22:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] SURVEY: Public interest representation in the information society In-Reply-To: <4E3F69B5.7090601@ciroap.org> References: <4E3F69B5.7090601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82CB2B582B1@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Great job on the survey, Jeremy, Norbert and all! I have forwarded it on to many people and will follow up in a week or so. In just came across this powerpoint presentation by David Souter "Mapping Internet Public Policy" and thought it might be of use to some people on this list. http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APCMappingInternetPublicPolicy_Slides.pdf All the best, Dixie ________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: 08 August 2011 05:44 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] SURVEY: Public interest representation in the information society All civil society organisations and other self-identified public interest representatives in the regime of Internet governance and related areas of information and communications policy are invited to complete a survey titled "Public interest representation in the information society" at: http://survey.idgovmap.org/index.php?sid=48277 This survey contributes towards the development of a map of Internet governance to show which global and regional institutions of governance in the information society provide opportunities for participation by public interest representatives, which of those opportunities are being utilised or will be utilised over the next two years, and where gaps in either the opportunities or their utilisation exist, to suggest what is needed to fill them. The survey forms part of the multi-stakeholder Dynamic Working Coalition for Internet Governance Mapping, and Consumers International's programme Consumer Representation in the Information Society. It is also supported by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. For more information, see http://idgovmap.org. We plan to present the interim results of this survey at the workshop 'Mapping Internet Governance' at the Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi from 9am on 28 September. In order to make this possible, we encourage you to answer the survey by 5 September if you can. We would also be grateful if you would forward this email throughout your professional networks, and post it to any relevant mailing lists and microblogging services. -- 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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt 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 y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Wed Aug 17 05:25:39 2011 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:25:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internews Europe Director of Programmes open position In-Reply-To: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82CB2B582B1@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Message-ID: Dear all, Internews Europe looks for its Director of Programmes, position based in Paris or in London. If someone could be interested in the position, the detailed offer is attached. For more detailed information you can contact Ms Caroline Giraud at cgiraud at internews.fr Kind regards, Yuliya Morenets TaC-Together against Cybercrime ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ieu_director_of_programmes.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 92294 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Wed Aug 17 06:12:28 2011 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:12:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] La justice tunisienne confirme la censure des sites pornos Message-ID: <1313575948.4e4b940ca4e5c@gold.itu.ch> Bonjour tout le monde, Est ce que l'on a échoué sur la gouvernance de l'Internet sur la protection des enfants ou est ce un acte isolé sans conséquence pour le Net? http://www.liberation.fr/monde/01012354467-la-justice-tunisienne-confirme-la-censure-des-sites-pornos En tout cas, ce qui s'est passé en Afrique du Nord il y a quelques mois est en passe d'être repris dans beaucoup de pays même développés. Karim ATTOUMANI Comores ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 06:45:25 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:45:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> On 13.08.11 07:02, Paul Lehto wrote: > If the internet is "different" specifically in the sense of the > application of law, then the speaker is claiming that all or part of > the internet is above the Rule of Law. Nice try Paul, but please don't claim I suggested any of this! Internet is different. :) Here, in this reality humans can freely express and those who read sometimes understand. All I said is, because Internet is different, in that it obeys no borders, there is no applicable law of 'democratic nature', designed outside of the Internet, that is applicable to Internet as whole. This is because by (your) definition, let me cite: The Rule of Law refers to the priority or primacy of the laws made by actions of freely elected legislatures over everything else that is "against the law", so long as those democratically adopted laws are not unconstitutional, and don't violate universal human rights. Internet is a different reality, than the physical world. It crosses any and all borders of the physical world. I asked you a simple question. Let me ask again: how does a "democratically elected" entity in one country have any power in another country, where that same entity is NOT democratically elected to have that power? Otherwise, I agree -- everything you say is correct, in theory. Only problem is you try to project it in a different reality, where the projection might not even make sense. Daniel -------------- 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 Wed Aug 17 06:48:04 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:48:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] Beckstrom to leave ICANN at the end of his term Message-ID: <0C2CAA19-A6C9-44BF-B6C1-C5ACDBE88321@arin.net> http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-16aug11-en.pdf FYI, /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Wed Aug 17 15:13:59 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:13:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Thank you Daniel for that question. May, I include this, "who or on what basis has the authority to ascertain what is good and bad in a borderless world? , Or do we need to do what we can do to get going? Warm wishes, Sea. On 17 Aug 2011 11:46, "Daniel Kalchev" wrote: On 13.08.11 07:02, Paul Lehto wrote: > > If the internet is "different" specifically in the sense ... Nice try Paul, but please don't claim I suggested any of this! Internet is different. :) Here, in this reality humans can freely express and those who read sometimes understand. All I said is, because Internet is different, in that it obeys no borders, there is no applicable law of 'democratic nature', designed outside of the Internet, that is applicable to Internet as whole. This is because by (your) definition, let me cite: > > The Rule of Law refers to the priority or primacy of the laws made by > actions of freely elect... Internet is a different reality, than the physical world. It crosses any and all borders of the physical world. I asked you a simple question. Let me ask again: how does a "democratically elected" entity in one country have any power in another country, where that same entity is NOT democratically elected to have that power? Otherwise, I agree -- everything you say is correct, in theory. Only problem is you try to project it in a different reality, where the projection might not even make sense. 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 -------------- 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 karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Wed Aug 17 15:20:07 2011 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:20:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGCBP 2010/2011 research papers online Message-ID: <1313608807.4e4c1467459fa@gold.itu.ch> Dear all, FYI, " Twenty research papers, written by alumni of the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, have just been finalised and are available for download. The authors started their research in 2010, after completing the Foundation and Advanced Phases of the programme. They continued their research during the Research Implementation Phase (January-March 2011), during which they were guided by experts in the chosen area of research, and benefited from peer-to-peer discussions and reviews. The papers were finalised in June 2011." I'm happy to share with you like of all the researchs done http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/Resources/display.asp?Topic=Research#IGCBP2010-11 For Comoros, I produced a paper on the "Evaluation of the status of the e-government in Comoros" available here http://www.diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=1341 Thank you DiploFoundation ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Karim, Comoros representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Ingénieur Télécoms en Transmission, Réseaux et Commutation Chef du Département Études et Projets, Autorité Nationale de Régulation des TIC (ANRTIC) - Union des Comores, (+269) 334 37 06 (Mobile Moroni) - ID Skype: attoukarim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 17 19:51:58 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:51:58 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: FYI: Turkey abandons unpopular filtering software In-Reply-To: <4E4C321D.7000201@apc.org> References: <4E4C321D.7000201@apc.org> Message-ID: Very interesting developments in Turkey on Internet Filtering: Thanks to Karen for sharing! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Karen Higgs Date: Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:26 AM Subject: FYI: Turkey abandons unpopular filtering software APC reports on interesting developments for communications rights in Turkey: Turkey abandons unpopular filtering software OTTAWA 15 August 2011 (GJ for APCNews) Turkey abandons plans to install mandatory filtering software after months of widespread protest. The reversal of this controversial policy shows the power of determined advocacy. English: http://www.apc.org/en/news/turkey-abandons-unpopular-filtering-software Español: http://www.apc.org/es/node/12815 Btw, if you are not watching already, please make sure you visit the Connect Your Rights! Internet Rights are Human Rights site on a regular basis for news and updates http://rights.apc.org Best Karen -- Karen Higgs Communications Manager / directora de comunicaciones Montevideo, Uruguay Tel +598 2 400-6460 Skype/yahoo karen_apc ------------------------------------------- www.apc.org in English French and Spanish www.facebook.com/APCNews @APC_News www.facebook.com/APCNoticias @APCNoticias www.facebook.com/APCNouvelles @APCNouvelles ======================================= APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy, equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more democratic and egalitarian societies. -- Regards. -------------------------- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 17 20:08:25 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:08:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> Message-ID: A Lawless world is welcomed by extremel few that have considered the implications, with radical anarchists the main exception. That said, there has been a global economy using a recognized matrix of national and int'l law for quite a number of years. In addition, telephones have been regulated fornearly a century, even though they're a telecommunications network and an older access point for the internet too. So, I don't find your assertions of the difficulty of regulating the whole web from one nation-state to be worrisome or even relevant. It amounts to a repeated point whose main importance is the extent to which it fools people into a false sense of futility, thus leaving control of the internet to various private parties that utilize 'private' law like contracts and TOS to regulate the internet according to their individual vision instead of the public good, and all too often at the expense, financial and otherwise, of the many. On 8/17/11, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Thank you Daniel for that question. > May, I include this, "who or on what basis has the authority to ascertain > what is good and bad in a borderless world? , Or do we need to do what we > can do to get going? > > Warm wishes, > > Sea. > > On 17 Aug 2011 11:46, "Daniel Kalchev" wrote: > > > > On 13.08.11 07:02, Paul Lehto wrote: >> >> If the internet is "different" specifically in the sense ... > Nice try Paul, but please don't claim I suggested any of this! > Internet is different. :) Here, in this reality humans can freely express > and those who read sometimes understand. > > All I said is, because Internet is different, in that it obeys no borders, > there is no applicable law of 'democratic nature', designed outside of the > Internet, that is applicable to Internet as whole. > > This is because by (your) definition, let me cite: > > >> >> The Rule of Law refers to the priority or primacy of the laws made by >> actions of freely elect... > Internet is a different reality, than the physical world. It crosses any and > all borders of the physical world. > > I asked you a simple question. Let me ask again: how does a "democratically > elected" entity in one country have any power in another country, where that > same entity is NOT democratically elected to have that power? > > Otherwise, I agree -- everything you say is correct, in theory. Only problem > is you try to project it in a different reality, where the projection might > not even make sense. > > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 02:26:21 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:26:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> On 18.08.11 03:08, Paul Lehto wrote: > A Lawless world is welcomed by extremel few that have considered the > implications, with radical anarchists the main exception. That said, > there has been a global economy using a recognized matrix of national > and int'l law for quite a number of years. None of these is nearly as global or nearly as accessible to anyone like the Internet. None if this is essentially free. > In addition, telephones > have been regulated fornearly a century, even though they're a > telecommunications network and an older access point for the internet > too. > The telephone network was regulated by an international oligopoly. Everyone agreed it was BAD. Are you suggesting similar model for Internet governance? By the way, that telephone network was based primarily on contracts to make it work. Contracts between operators mostly. Bilateral contracts usually. Contracts between operator and user (these could not be evil, you see, because the oligopoly said so -- although enough humans who used the telephone network are still alive to testify otherwise). Government granted monopolies. Governments bribed by PTT operators (because of the huge cash flow and influence). "Lawful" stopping any competition. Preventing any new entrant to the "democratic" market, as long as they do not belong to the club (and not agreed to apply the same torment to the human race, that is, sign the Contract). Internet changed all that. So are contracts indeed bad? Or are contracts made by "our people" good, while contracts by "anyone else" are bad? This sounds way too familiar :) The telephone network of the pre-Internet era was the worst example you could give for your cause. By the way, Internet changed the telephone network too -- for good! Still, you did not answer my question, Paul. It was simple. It was about democracy. 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 Thu Aug 18 02:44:06 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:44:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4E4CB08D.90902 at digsys.bg>, at 09:26:21 on Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >The telephone network was regulated by an international oligopoly. >Everyone agreed it was BAD. >Are you suggesting similar model for Internet governance? Both telephones and Internet "work" at the most basic level because they have an end-to-end model for both numbering and transmission protocols. Have you never marvelled at the way phone numbers are consistent over the whole planet, and you can plug any phone in anywhere? (Something which because quite useful for plugging in modems, later). >By the way, that telephone network was based primarily on contracts to >make it work. Contracts between operators mostly. Make your mind up, was it regulated by the ITU, or by the operators? -- 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 Aug 18 03:52:36 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:52:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> On 18.08.11 09:44, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4E4CB08D.90902 at digsys.bg>, at 09:26:21 on Thu, 18 Aug > 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >> The telephone network was regulated by an international oligopoly. >> Everyone agreed it was BAD. >> Are you suggesting similar model for Internet governance? > > Both telephones and Internet "work" at the most basic level because > they have an end-to-end model for both numbering and transmission > protocols. Have you never marvelled at the way phone numbers are > consistent over the whole planet, and you can plug any phone in > anywhere? (Something which because quite useful for plugging in > modems, later). I didn't really, because I knew how it is all organized. You never could plug any phone everywhere. Telephone plugs are different. Exchange signaling is different. Electrical signals are different. Many modems would not work worldwide. Few did, but had high prices. You needed to put lots of hardware to make sure your modem would work in more places. But that is history. About the only thing you could be sure with the telephone network was the country codes. In some places like the US, they used area codes, covering several cities, or several in a city, where in other parts of the world it was customary to have city codes assigned. There was not even mapping system like the DNS to help you. This was all because of limitations of the mechanical switches. The telephone numbering plan was historically so designed, that by dealing each digit on an "analogue" phone, with pulse dialing (by the way, they all had different pulse rate, in different exchanges/countries too), the relay at the exchange would switch the circuit to the "right" direction and so on. With the introduction of all-electronic switches these limitations were largely removed. The typical mobile operator only has their own code in the numbering plan, typically under the country code where they are incorporated and more or less flat numbering for end-users. The phone network did not have anything designed end to end. In theory, you would get an "voice" channel of approximately 3 KHz, over which you could sometimes hear the other end, sometimes not. All sorts of "optimization" technologies were applied over the network, starting from your local connection (typically in a form of digitizing your voice for transmission over fewer copper pairs) to trans-Atlantic links (cancelling echo etc). All this was done by local initiative, that is the local operator. Or your long distance operator. Sometimes there was significant interference caused by all this and rarely anybody cared. In that respect too, Internet is different. The 'telephone network' required that all intelligence is in the network. The end user only had an dumb terminal (the telephone device). That is, the operator had to keep all the control and make all the choices. Also, to make the end to end "protocol" work. Interned is so designed, that the network is expected to be dumb, but the end-nodes are smart. End nodes know the protocol, end to end. End nodes are in users possession and control and the operator can do little in terms of 'control'. Today's telephone network is much different of course. Largely because of competition, largely because of Internet. Largely because the original design is already dead. > >> By the way, that telephone network was based primarily on contracts >> to make it work. Contracts between operators mostly. > > Make your mind up, was it regulated by the ITU, or by the operators? What was regulated by ITU? The country codes list? The interconnect principles? The interconnect fees? Or the measures to ensure continued monopoly of it's members? I do not include technical standards here, because in the argument we have with Paul they do not seem to participate in any way. Who were/are ITU, by the way? Are the ITU representatives 'democratically' elected? By whom? Certainly not by those who use telephone services! This was my point and it still stands. On contracts. You remember the e-mail "standard", X.400. That protocol was very unfortunate to have the "requirement" that every participating operator wishing to have "mail server" had to have contract with every other such operator. Why did this happen? Later, the requirements were relaxed, but it was way too late, because the Internet SMTP protocol did not impose any such restrictions. Anyone could set up an SMTP server and send/receive e-mail. The irony is that the X.400 protocol was better designed than the SMTP protocol from that time, but... policy killed it. Who invented the contracts between the PTT and the end-user? If it was ITU, then how come such an "corporation of corporations" an single entity, clearly supporting corporate interests, could be the example given by Paul Lehto for 'democracy'? I am confident you know a lot about ITU. But can't you see??? 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 Thu Aug 18 04:10:19 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:10:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4E4CC4C4.2040409 at digsys.bg>, at 10:52:36 on Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >> Make your mind up, was it regulated by the ITU, or by the operators? > >What was regulated by ITU? Much that made the telephone system end-to-end (I don't accept most of the criticisms you make about shortcomings in that regard - it wasn't perfect but neither was it as proprietary as you claim). >You remember the e-mail "standard", X.400. Yes, but that's neither a telephone nor the Internet. -- 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 Aug 18 05:06:29 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:06:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> On 18.08.11 11:10, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4E4CC4C4.2040409 at digsys.bg>, at 10:52:36 on Thu, 18 Aug > 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >>> Make your mind up, was it regulated by the ITU, or by the operators? >> >> What was regulated by ITU? > > Much that made the telephone system end-to-end (I don't accept most of > the criticisms you make about shortcomings in that regard - it wasn't > perfect but neither was it as proprietary as you claim). You didn't live where I do. Nor did I live where you do. We have different perspective and I do not expect you have ever heard of most of what I have witnessed. There are no doubt others, with different experiences. Still, the phone network was pretty much different everywhere. The end-user had absolutely no choice. Not so with Internet. > > >You remember the e-mail "standard", X.400. > > Yes, but that's neither a telephone nor the Internet. Yes, but it was product of the ITU. Especially the bilateral contract requirement. There were/are a lot other products of the ITU, based on the same paradigm. Everyone should be thankful ITU does not govern the Internet! 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Aug 18 08:18:38 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:33:38 -0345 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Daniel Kalchev's point, in a nutshell, appears to be that the 'internet is too big to regulate by any single democratic entity.' He challenges me to point to an example. My point is that the internet does not have a credible 'anarchy option', and it relies upon legal frameworks of DEMOCRATICALLY determined laws to operate, even when a hands off, laissez faire policy is pursued by governments. Thus, we only have a choice of regulation in pursuit of the public interest via democratic laws, or regulation by private interests via contracts and the like. Both public and private regulation outcomes rely on democratically passed laws for their very existence. The internet does not and cannot run in a legal black hole of zero law. Whatever problems may exist in the challenges of global internet policy in terms of democratically passed laws having sufficient global reach to satisfy Mr. Kalchev personally APPLY EQUALLY to the 'hands off' approach of laissez faire, which still relies upon a huge number of laws from numerous countries. That's a primary reason why internet lawyers do business, and a lot of it, around the world. Thus, Mr. Kalchev's basic point also argues, if its premise that democratic laws for the internet demand global reach to be workable has any merit, just as strongly against the so-called anti-government policy position that nevertheless uses much democratically derived law to operate how rights and such are allocated on the internet. It's fairly simple at bottom: Shall we choose democracy, or something else for internet governance?? The plus for democracy is that we can still choose laissez faire policy after appropriate debate and vote, and reverse that choice later on, if desired. On the other hand, giving up on democracy as unworkable is a revolutionary coup d'etat, with yet another revolution needed to get democratic power back. It sure seems that the collective argument on this list, even if not voiced by one single person overall, is that global democratic legal reach doesn't currently exist, and 'fragmented' regulation by many countries or even cities is inefficient or crazy, so therefore lets get democracy in governmental form off the internet. But internet with hands off government still has such 'fragmented' laws of commercial contracting that vary all over the world. I sit here in one place and contract with websites whose contracts recite in one that US-California law applies, another says New York law, a third Japanese law and a fourth may demand Chinese law. Even lawyers don't know what these all mean, even if they know a couple. Where's the cry over this rampant fragmentation of law, or the claim that if I can't point to a contract law (derived, of course, from democratic procedures) that we will need to abandon contract law as a workable vehicle for the newness that is the internet?? Mr. Kalchev's point regarding lack of global democratic reach is not well taken. Nor are most complaints about fragmentation, once you consider how hyper-fragmented the laws are that form the very foundation of the internet outside its phsical/electronic parts. The law, under Any system of government constitutes another kind of 'operating system' without which no one would have felt safe enough to privately invest in the internet at the levels seen in the last few decades. On 8/18/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 18.08.11 11:10, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4E4CC4C4.2040409 at digsys.bg>, at 10:52:36 on Thu, 18 Aug >> 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >>>> Make your mind up, was it regulated by the ITU, or by the operators? >>> >>> What was regulated by ITU? >> >> Much that made the telephone system end-to-end (I don't accept most of >> the criticisms you make about shortcomings in that regard - it wasn't >> perfect but neither was it as proprietary as you claim). > > You didn't live where I do. Nor did I live where you do. We have > different perspective and I do not expect you have ever heard of most of > what I have witnessed. There are no doubt others, with different > experiences. > > Still, the phone network was pretty much different everywhere. > The end-user had absolutely no choice. > > Not so with Internet. > >> >> >You remember the e-mail "standard", X.400. >> >> Yes, but that's neither a telephone nor the Internet. > > Yes, but it was product of the ITU. Especially the bilateral contract > requirement. > There were/are a lot other products of the ITU, based on the same paradigm. > Everyone should be thankful ITU does not govern the Internet! > > 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 > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 09:44:11 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:44:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E4D172B.8000209@digsys.bg> On 18.08.11 15:18, Paul Lehto wrote: > Daniel Kalchev's point, in a nutshell, appears to be that the > 'internet is too big to regulate by any single democratic entity.' My point is rather, that any 'democracy' is only possible within well defined borders. As long as Internet spans those borders, the said democracy cannot be enforced. > He challenges me to point to an example. To reiterate: Let me ask again: how does a "democratically elected" entity in one country have any power in another country, where that same entity is NOT democratically elected to have that power? > My point is that the internet does not have a credible 'anarchy option', and it relies upon legal frameworks of DEMOCRATICALLY determined laws to operate, even when a > hands off, laissez faire policy is pursued by governments. I have never, ever advocated anarchy in any form. Nor I have advocated abandoning of Governments and especially their duties. It is your choice to call private, non-corporate management 'anarchy'. > Thus, we only have a choice of regulation in pursuit of the public interest via democratic laws, or regulation by private interests via contracts and the like. Both public and private regulation outcomes rely on democratically passed laws for their very existence. The internet does not and cannot run in a legal black hole of zero law. Yes, as long as you assume that governance == enforcement. > Whatever problems may exist in the challenges of global internet > policy in terms of democratically passed laws having sufficient global > reach to satisfy Mr. Kalchev personally APPLY EQUALLY to the 'hands > off' approach of laissez faire, which still relies upon a huge number > of laws from numerous countries. These laws govern the relationship of the entities, that use Internet, outside of Internet. This is because outside Internet there are borders, there are local and more global laws, local and more global Governments (democratically elected or not -- with the same effect as to their effective powers). > It's fairly simple at bottom: Shall we choose democracy, or something > else for internet governance?? Why you insist there is no democracy in Internet? It is just covering specific areas, exactly like the 'real world' democracy does. If you speak of the world outside Internet, divided by borders, governments and laws --- how you imagine every one related to Internet (in theory, every human being on Earth), having a democratic vote for a single planetary democratic Government -- thus having universal democracy and universal democratic laws. > The plus for democracy is that we can > still choose laissez faire policy after appropriate debate and vote, > and reverse that choice later on, if desired. On the other hand, > giving up on democracy as unworkable is a revolutionary coup d'etat, > with yet another revolution needed to get democratic power back. So we come back to my original statements on the topic.... > I sit here in one place and contract with websites whose contracts recite in one that > US-California law applies, another says New York law, a third Japanese law and a fourth may demand Chinese law. Even lawyers don't know what these all mean, even if they know a couple. There is always the "common sense law" -- unfortunately, I don't believe it is something lawyers study or apply. :) > The law, under Any system of government constitutes another kind of > 'operating system' without which no one would have felt safe enough to > privately invest in the internet at the levels seen in the last few > decades. This is interesting... My observation is exactly opposite. Many have invested - collectively, a lot more than the richest corporation has ever invested in Internet. Yet all these individuals did not care much under what law this happened or what their profit would be. I understand this is different way of thinking from Corporate America, but it did involve some bright US fellows as well. Don't get me wrong - I will be more than happy, if there could eb democratic form of Internet governance. I just see none, two decades since Internet has become accessible to anyone and changing everyone's life. -------------- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Aug 18 13:58:30 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:58:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <4E4D172B.8000209@digsys.bg> References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4D172B.8000209@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On 8/18/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > My point is rather, that any 'democracy' is only possible within well > defined borders. > As long as Internet spans those borders, the said democracy cannot be > enforced. If that were the case and all that need be said, why would any reasonable person refer to the internet as "democratic" in a meaningful sense of the word democratic? Indeed, you admitted a couple weeks ago that listservs, a common feature of the internet, are autocratically ruled by their administrators, and presumably every person can set up their own tin pot autocracy via their own listserv. > I have never, ever advocated anarchy in any form. Nor I have advocated > abandoning of Governments and especially their duties. > > It is your choice to call private, non-corporate management 'anarchy'. I've said there's democratic governance, with policy choices ranging from heavily regulated to laissez faire policies, and then there's private corporate and private non-corporate management or regulation (which necessarily requires that foundation of democratically derived laws I referred to earlier), and THEN, if we take seriously any person who wants the "government out of the internet" there is anarchy, because without government laws of contract for example, there would be no internet as we know it. No matter what one thinks of entities like the World Bank and venture capitalists, they require a stable legal system sensitive to the rights of property and contract before they will invest very much in any venture in a new country. Whether or not you have exposure in this area, I don't think it's reasonably debatable that stable legal systems featuring predictable laws of contract and property are required for the reasonably efficient execution of modern business. So, while I'm willing to stand corrected that you are not in favor of anarchy (if I actually said so), my point still stands that even the private non-corporate management you cask me about relies upon a FRAGMENTED system of national laws. These corporate or non-corporate managers cannot have power greater than the sum of their parts -- the countries can not delegate more power than they have. So, with private management, one either has the same problems as with governments, or else one is creating a limited or not so limited form of world government using a private structure. Privatizing government. You can call private corporate or non-corporate management whatever you like, but you can't call it democracy, because it is not accountable to the People of any jurisdiction or combination of jurisdictions. I suppose that is why I, fairly I think, persist in implying that you are arguing against democracy. The only way out of that conclusion would be to show that the private non-corporate management does not enforce or govern any substantial right or interest of the people. The key problem in government is that law is force, so how does one justify the use of force against another person or persons? The sole justification is the consent of the governed. Private corporate or non-corporate government does not have the consent of the governed as a whole. At best, if it has anything, it has the consent of an aristocratic subset of the people, like the class of all investors or company owners, or the class of domain name owners, etc. Paul Lehto, J.D. PS If that doesn't work for you, maybe a volunteer can step in and restate both our positions with clarity so that everyone, including myself, can understand where the miscommunication or disagreement is here. >> Thus, we only have a choice of regulation in pursuit of the public >> interest via democratic laws, or regulation by private interests via >> contracts and the like. Both public and private regulation outcomes rely >> on democratically passed laws for their very existence. The internet does >> not and cannot run in a legal black hole of zero law. > > Yes, as long as you assume that governance == enforcement. > >> Whatever problems may exist in the challenges of global internet >> policy in terms of democratically passed laws having sufficient global >> reach to satisfy Mr. Kalchev personally APPLY EQUALLY to the 'hands >> off' approach of laissez faire, which still relies upon a huge number >> of laws from numerous countries. > > These laws govern the relationship of the entities, that use Internet, > outside of Internet. This is because outside Internet there are borders, > there are local and more global laws, local and more global Governments > (democratically elected or not -- with the same effect as to their > effective powers). > >> It's fairly simple at bottom: Shall we choose democracy, or something >> else for internet governance?? > > Why you insist there is no democracy in Internet? It is just covering > specific areas, exactly like the 'real world' democracy does. > > If you speak of the world outside Internet, divided by borders, > governments and laws --- how you imagine every one related to Internet > (in theory, every human being on Earth), having a democratic vote for a > single planetary democratic Government -- thus having universal > democracy and universal democratic laws. > > >> The plus for democracy is that we can >> still choose laissez faire policy after appropriate debate and vote, >> and reverse that choice later on, if desired. On the other hand, >> giving up on democracy as unworkable is a revolutionary coup d'etat, >> with yet another revolution needed to get democratic power back. > > So we come back to my original statements on the topic.... > >> I sit here in one place and contract with websites whose contracts recite >> in one that >> US-California law applies, another says New York law, a third Japanese law >> and a fourth may demand Chinese law. Even lawyers don't know what these >> all mean, even if they know a couple. > > There is always the "common sense law" -- unfortunately, I don't believe > it is something lawyers study or apply. :) > >> The law, under Any system of government constitutes another kind of >> 'operating system' without which no one would have felt safe enough to >> privately invest in the internet at the levels seen in the last few >> decades. > > This is interesting... My observation is exactly opposite. Many have > invested - collectively, a lot more than the richest corporation has > ever invested in Internet. Yet all these individuals did not care much > under what law this happened or what their profit would be. I understand > this is different way of thinking from Corporate America, but it did > involve some bright US fellows as well. > > Don't get me wrong - I will be more than happy, if there could eb > democratic form of Internet governance. I just see none, two decades > since Internet has become accessible to anyone and changing everyone's life. > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 19 01:25:43 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:25:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4D172B.8000209@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <0E5DA1DE-325A-4FCF-A47C-067FD3F0D02F@digsys.bg> On Aug 18, 2011, at 20:58 , Paul Lehto wrote: > On 8/18/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> My point is rather, that any 'democracy' is only possible within well >> defined borders. >> As long as Internet spans those borders, the said democracy cannot be >> enforced. > > If that were the case and all that need be said, why would any > reasonable person refer to the internet as "democratic" in a > meaningful sense of the word democratic? Indeed, you admitted a > couple weeks ago that listservs, a common feature of the internet, are > autocratically ruled by their administrators, and presumably every > person can set up their own tin pot autocracy via their own listserv. We are apparently discussing different things. Let me try one more time.. please just answer the questions. Do you agree that 'democracy' needs to have defined borders, in order to exist? Is it possible to have 'universal' democracy, covering everything and everyone, without even those governed knowing? On the 'listserv' subject, if you remember, I said within that realm (server, service), you may have any form of governance, including democracy. The owner of the hardware, software, who pays for the services that are necessary for this to exist may so decide to submit their property to democracy and have someone be elected to actually manage it by all its users. In any case, this 'democracy' will be limited only to the realm of that particular 'listserv' and (in my opinion) will exist as long as someone pays the bill… Or, the form of management might be autocracy, or even anarchy. > >> I have never, ever advocated anarchy in any form. Nor I have advocated >> abandoning of Governments and especially their duties. >> >> It is your choice to call private, non-corporate management 'anarchy'. > > I've said there's democratic governance, with policy choices ranging > from heavily regulated to laissez faire policies, and then there's > private corporate and private non-corporate management or regulation > (which necessarily requires that foundation of democratically derived > laws I referred to earlier), and THEN, if we take seriously any person > who wants the "government out of the internet" there is anarchy, > because without government laws of contract for example, there would > be no internet as we know it. This all makes no sense to me. How is it there is a requirement to have democratically derived laws in order to have private or corporate governance? > No matter what one thinks of entities > like the World Bank and venture capitalists, they require a stable > legal system sensitive to the rights of property and contract before > they will invest very much in any venture in a new country. Ah, we have come to the true question. :) Very curious you will say this, in light of your continued argument that anything outside democracy is bad and anything corporate is bad. How come World Bank and the venture capitalist are not bad? Or, are these "our people" (in Al Capone speak)? I will stop here. Those who can read and understand are still around. 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 karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Fri Aug 19 02:28:46 2011 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:28:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Beckstrom to leave ICANN at the end of his term In-Reply-To: <0C2CAA19-A6C9-44BF-B6C1-C5ACDBE88321@arin.net> References: <0C2CAA19-A6C9-44BF-B6C1-C5ACDBE88321@arin.net> Message-ID: <1313735326.4e4e029e5f7e6@gold.itu.ch> Pour votre information, Un article sur l'"Analyse des raisons du départ de Rod Beckstrom, CEO de l'Icann" accessible ici : http://datanews.rnews.be/fr/ict/actualite/apercu/2011/08/17/analyse-des-raisons-du-depart-de-rod-beckstrom-ceo-de-l-icann/article-1195083943988.htm Cordialement, Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Comores Quoting John Curran : > http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-16aug11-en.pdf > FYI, > /John > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Aug 19 02:42:37 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:42:37 +1000 Subject: [governance] Beckstrom to leave ICANN at the end of his term In-Reply-To: <1313735326.4e4e029e5f7e6@gold.itu.ch> Message-ID: Or en englais http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/16/icann-fires-ceo > From: > Reply-To: , > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:28:46 +0200 > To: , John Curran > Subject: Re: [governance] Beckstrom to leave ICANN at the end of his term > > Pour votre information, Un article sur l'"Analyse des raisons du départ de Rod > Beckstrom, CEO de l'Icann" accessible ici : > http://datanews.rnews.be/fr/ict/actualite/apercu/2011/08/17/analyse-des-raison > s-du-depart-de-rod-beckstrom-ceo-de-l-icann/article-1195083943988.htm > > > Cordialement, > > Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED > Comores > > Quoting John Curran : > >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-16aug11-en.pdf >> FYI, >> /John >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 19 04:07:37 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:07:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4E4CD615.9090301 at digsys.bg>, at 12:06:29 on Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >I do not expect you have ever heard of most of what I have witnessed. >There are no doubt others, with different experiences. I've travelled the world, with modem, for the past 25 years, and the most difficult obstacle is finding the right connector (I have a bag full of them). For the record, I don't regard that trivial issue as a huge drawback, any more than different shaped (and voltage) power outlets. >Still, the phone network was pretty much different everywhere. >The end-user had absolutely no choice. > >Not so with Internet. The Internet is very different, there's already at least four different wifi standards to cope with, and more different cable-modem configurations than I can count (which is why you don't tend to get that functionality built into a PC where it would be a tenth of the cost). Therefore equipment is far less standardised (even if people often build in backwards compatibility for things like wifi). >> >You remember the e-mail "standard", X.400. >> >> Yes, but that's neither a telephone nor the Internet. > >Yes, but it was product of the ITU. If an organisation produces very many standards, it's hardly surprising that some don't reach world domination. Is the demise of Gofer an indication that the Internet is poorly designed? >Everyone should be thankful ITU does not govern the Internet! I've never suggested they should. ps And what is "The Internet" In this conversation it's not the content people see through their browsers, but the mass of largely telco-operated telco-standard connections which transport the traffic. -- 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 Fri Aug 19 06:41:06 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:41:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> On 19.08.11 11:07, Roland Perry wrote: > >> Still, the phone network was pretty much different everywhere. >> The end-user had absolutely no choice. >> >> Not so with Internet. > > The Internet is very different, there's already at least four > different wifi standards to cope with, and more different cable-modem > configurations than I can count (which is why you don't tend to get > that functionality built into a PC where it would be a tenth of the > cost). > > Therefore equipment is far less standardised (even if people often > build in backwards compatibility for things like wifi). No doubt. But I was talking about the network -- once you get connected, with Internet too, you are subject to all kinds of control attempts. Most obvious are the various protocol manipulations that hotspots and the like do "to serve you better". Or the various protocol manipulations that are done in order to sniff your traffic "because we must catch criminals". Or the criminals themselves, diverting your traffic for whatever purposes. With Internet, where the intelligence is at the end-nodes, you can bypass at least most of these "for your good" control measures. (just wondering when will the accusation of proposing criminal activities will pop up :)) > >>> >You remember the e-mail "standard", X.400. >>> >>> Yes, but that's neither a telephone nor the Internet. >> >> Yes, but it was product of the ITU. > > If an organisation produces very many standards, it's hardly > surprising that some don't reach world domination. Is the demise of > Gofer an indication that the Internet is poorly designed? We already got out of context for my original statement. My original statement was that ITU has designed a lot of (apparently technical) standards with the benefits of their membership in mind. This is not a coincidence. The X.400 example is very good, indeed. It is good, because at about that time SMTP e-mail became accessible to the masses -- the same target customers for whom the X.400 service was designed (the commercial part, that is). The X.400 providers could not deal with the competition of SMTP, because of this very "feature". The protocol specification was later amended to fix it, but it was too late. X.400 became commercial failure, although the protocol itself was better than SMTP (at the time). By the way, the ITU has done great job on standardization over the years. > >> Everyone should be thankful ITU does not govern the Internet! > > I've never suggested they should. > > ps And what is "The Internet" In this conversation it's not the > content people see through their browsers, but the mass of largely > telco-operated telco-standard connections which transport the traffic. "The Internet" is the collection of it all. All of the 7 ISO layers and more. I understand for many people Internet is just bunch of wires interconnected and some people who offer services over that. If it was that simple, we would not discuss 'governance', because regulating bunch of wires is easy -- every government knows how to do it. But above level 1 things get complicated. There have been many attempts to regulate for example, assignment of IP address space. So far most telecom laws expressly exclude regulating IP addresses and domain names, because the authority for those reside outside their jurisdiction. Going up the layers, for most people 'the Internet' is the applications. You say the mass of the Internet infrastructure is telco-operated, telco-standard. I say it is no longer the case. In some countries, this is not the case for over a decade. There is dark fiber, that has seen nothing else but Ethernet. There is copper, that has seen nothing else but Ethernet. There is also wireless ('wifi' or 'microwave') that has see nothing else but Ethernet. I hope you will not call Ethernet telco standard. Internet does not require 'telco' to transport it's traffic. Daniel PS: I just checked, there is not a single serial interface in operation in the thousands of routers, nation-wide network I run. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 09:01:06 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:01:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4E4E3DC2.7090506 at digsys.bg>, at 13:41:06 on Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >I understand for many people Internet is just bunch of wires >interconnected and some people who offer services over that. > >If it was that simple, we would not discuss 'governance', because >regulating bunch of wires is easy -- every government knows how to do >it. But only very recently (and even then, not across the whole world) is it deregulated enough for ISPs to lay their own fibres independently of regulated telcos. That seems to me to be the tipping point. Although once ISPs are *allowed* to run their own fibre, telcos will often offer dark fibre (and better priced lit fibre) of their own, rather than lose the business altogether. -- 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 Fri Aug 19 09:06:55 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:06:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E4E5FEF.9010804@digsys.bg> On 19.08.11 16:01, Roland Perry wrote: > But only very recently (and even then, not across the whole world) is > it deregulated enough for ISPs to lay their own fibres independently > of regulated telcos. That seems to me to be the tipping point. > Although once ISPs are *allowed* to run their own fibre, telcos will > often offer dark fibre (and better priced lit fibre) of their own, > rather than lose the business altogether. Yes, and both fiber networks are properly regulated and licensed. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Aug 20 03:03:22 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:03:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy References: <4ce9c.77ffc3ba.3b7e24d5@aol.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C405@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C40E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-08/12/c_131046237.htm http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/670718/Riots-lead-to-rethink-of-Internet-freedom.aspx any comments? 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Aug 20 03:16:32 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:16:32 +1000 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C40E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Tahrir Square, Trafalgar Square, Tianamen Square..... > From: Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter > Reply-To: , Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter > > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:03:22 +0200 > To: > Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy > > http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-08/12/c_131046237.htm > > http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6707 > 18/Riots-lead-to-rethink-of-Internet-freedom.aspx > > any comments? > > 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Aug 20 02:54:49 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> What wonderful convergence! Of course the mainstream media reporting on countries in the South doing this has/had an edge of "look at how primitive these people are" while the case of the UK considering such actions are more "reasonable", "measured" and "considered". And if we take the recent years preponderant arguments of this forum of democratizing institutions (like control over Critical Internet Resources) so that some form of control can be exercised, why not simply expand ICANN's control so its mandate can cover these kinds of "censorship" issues too? In for a penny in for pound, eh? On 2011/08/20 10:16 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Tahrir Square, Trafalgar Square, Tianamen Square..... > > > > >> From: Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter >> Reply-To:, Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter >> >> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:03:22 +0200 >> To: >> Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy >> >> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-08/12/c_131046237.htm >> >> http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6707 >> 18/Riots-lead-to-rethink-of-Internet-freedom.aspx >> >> any comments? >> >> 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Aug 20 03:55:25 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:55:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> Message-ID: and yet another example: "Facebook ‘like’ button declared illegal" (DE) http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20110819-37073.html On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > But above level 1 things get complicated. There have been many attempts to > regulate for example, assignment of IP address space. So far most telecom > laws expressly exclude regulating IP addresses and domain names, because the > authority for those reside outside their jurisdiction. > This is the key sentence in this entire discussion IMO....over the last 3 decades or so, the "authority" in this example area of Internet Governance has evolved from a "one guy with a notebook" model to a global, multi-stakeholder led, BUTOC (Bottom Up, Transparent Open, Consensus) based model. This allows for "true democracy" or participatory democracy by which governments are somewhat "dis-intermediated" so that while governments do participate in this policy development area, representation of individual Internet users and other entities is actively encouraged. I, for one, greatly prefer my democracy to be participatory. This is just one example of how the Internet "is different". -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Aug 20 04:15:29 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:15:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <4E4F5A39.3040704 at gmail.com>, at 09:54:49 on Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Riaz K Tayob writes >What wonderful convergence! Of course the mainstream media reporting on >countries in the South doing this has/had an edge of "look at how >primitive these people are" while the case of the UK considering such >actions are more "reasonable", "measured" and "considered". Things have moved on a bit since the initial remarks, and it's now thought that being able to monitor where the looters (much more was stolen than destroyed) are being encouraged to go is more useful. Some hardliners are still suggesting that shutting it off "for an hour" would be no different than temporarily closing a road; but that ignores the practical aspects rather more than the legal ones. This episode is a perfect example of how the Internet accelerates things happening in real life. The bad along with the good. The Internet Governance question is: does the involvement of the Internet cast a veil of immunity over all acts of badness, or only some of them? -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Aug 20 05:21:53 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 21:21:53 +1200 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> Message-ID: A friend of mine on another list posted this which is from the Regulators in Germany, see https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/presse/ 20110819-facebook-en.htm Apparently Facebook has till September 2011 to comply. Sala On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:55 PM, McTim wrote: > and yet another example: > > "Facebook ‘like’ button declared illegal" (DE) > > http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20110819-37073.html > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >> >> >> But above level 1 things get complicated. There have been many attempts to >> regulate for example, assignment of IP address space. So far most telecom >> laws expressly exclude regulating IP addresses and domain names, because the >> authority for those reside outside their jurisdiction. >> > > > This is the key sentence in this entire discussion IMO....over the last 3 > decades or so, the "authority" in this example area of Internet Governance > has evolved from a "one guy with a notebook" model to a > global, multi-stakeholder led, BUTOC (Bottom Up, Transparent Open, > Consensus) based model. This allows for "true democracy" > or participatory democracy by which governments are somewhat > "dis-intermediated" so that while governments do participate in this policy > development area, representation of individual Internet users and other > entities is actively encouraged. I, for one, greatly prefer my democracy to > be participatory. > > This is just one example of how the Internet "is different". > -- > 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 > > > -- Sala " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- 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 Aug 20 05:25:41 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:25:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > A friend of mine on another list posted this which is from the Regulators > in Germany, see https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/presse/ > 20110819-facebook-en.htm > > Apparently Facebook has till September 2011 to comply. > >From the link you sent: "Institutions must be aware that they cannot shift their responsibility for data privacy upon the enterprise Facebook which does not have an establishment in Germany and also not upon the users." It's not that the DE authorities are taking on FB itself, they are currently targeting websites that use the "Like" button. -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Aug 20 05:34:16 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 21:34:16 +1200 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> Message-ID: The reality is whether the company hosting the Application is based abroad, the fact that its reach is in Germany, and where according to the German Regulators, privacy laws are breached then their responsibility is to notify whoever is in breach. It follows then that Facebook can either revise the protocols or web analytics for the German community where they are not in breach. There can be an assumption that people sign up to facebook because they want to socialise and in part give up part of their privacy rights. However, who then controls the monitoring and analytics which is then potentially sold to potential customers who benefit from the "market intelligence". Do we leave it to the country where Facebook is registered? How is the cloud regulated? Is it exempted because it is the "cloud" or is the cloud a "fallacy"? Sala On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> A friend of mine on another list posted this which is from the Regulators >> in Germany, see https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/presse/ >> 20110819-facebook-en.htm >> >> Apparently Facebook has till September 2011 to comply. >> > > > From the link you sent: "Institutions must be aware that they cannot shift > their responsibility for data privacy upon the enterprise Facebook which > does not have an establishment in Germany and also not upon the users." > > > It's not that the DE authorities are taking on FB itself, they are > currently targeting websites that use the "Like" button. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Sala " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Aug 20 04:36:12 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:36:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E4F71FC.1040604@gmail.com> Of course I am! It was a cheeky slight intended for those who advocated the almost absolute supremacy of Northern governance regimes, including "representative" ICANN over any other arrangements! While these debates are learning processes, and things move on and change, for me the tenor of these issues are merely an indication of a proverbial North/South divide in discourse on these matters. So called claims to universalism that do violence to difference, in other words. While many may not feel empathy, my hat tips to Parminder et al for chugging along despite these pressures. riaz On 2011/08/20 11:21 AM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > What wonderful convergence! Of course the mainstream media > reporting on countries in the South doing this has/had an edge of > "look at how primitive these people are" while the case of the UK > considering such actions are more "reasonable", "measured" and > "considered". > > And if we take the recent years preponderant arguments of this > forum of democratizing institutions (like control over Critical > Internet Resources) so that some form of control can be exercised, > why not simply expand ICANN's control so its mandate can cover > these kinds of "censorship" issues too? In for a penny in for > pound, eh? > > > > I hope you are joking!! > > -- > 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Aug 20 04:51:45 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:51:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> On 2011/08/20 11:15 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > The Internet Governance question is: does the involvement of the > Internet cast a veil of immunity over all acts of badness, or only > some of them? Perhaps one can look at a more procedural question first - in what fora? Internationally, the multi-stakeholder non-binding forum of the IGF, the Human Rights Council, or other treaty making body? Or should this be left to national discretion? And is it really about "internet immunity" or about the right to free speech or association, that traditionally has limits and requires due process before being violated, albeit with special enforcement issues (although not too different from the mobile phone, like the San Francisco pre-emptory strike on mobile communications recently, which itself raises questions beyond the Bushisms on telecoms operators). And while this is one level to look at this issue, there are others, where criminal and civil sanctions are being shaped in other fora like ACTA or the TPP. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 20 05:58:05 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:58:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Aug 20, 2011, at 12:34 , Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > The reality is whether the company hosting the Application is based abroad, the fact that its reach is in Germany, and where according to the German Regulators, privacy laws are breached then their responsibility is to notify whoever is in breach. It follows then that Facebook can either revise the protocols or web analytics for the German community where they are not in breach. This reminds me of the times, when it was illegal to listen to foreign radio stations, like "Radio Free Europe", or watch foreign TV programs. Few things I know of that time: 1. It was fun. 2. Anybody who wanted to listen or watch, did it. 3. Governments spent enormous resources to build anti-broadcast installations to 'silence' those frequency bands. 4. Lots of people were declared criminals, because they were just curious or wanted say, to learn a foreign language. 5. It was used as political tool. Nothing new under the sun... > How is the cloud regulated? Is it exempted because it is the "cloud" or is the cloud a "fallacy"? Internet has been "cloud" ever since it's inception. You have the device in front of you (tablet, PC, TV set, server, mainframe, if you wish) that presents to you the resources that are available 'locally', which may be within the device, at the device's connect point, on the 'local' LAN, on the not-so-local WAN and on the "Internet". Within Internet, by design, the resource can be anywhere, you need to just know the URI and your local device needs to know the protocol. About the only way Internet can be regulated is to regulate what the end-device can do. I for one am of the opinion, that it is way too late for this. 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 karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Sat Aug 20 06:33:19 2011 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:33:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C40E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4ce9c.77ffc3ba.3b7e24d5@aol.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C405@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C40E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <1313836399.4e4f8d6fae5d2@gold.itu.ch> Interesting! We often forget that the Internet is represented by a cloud, and depending on where you observe it, a cloud may appear as an apple (fruit) or a dragon (who wants to burn you). >From Wikileaks to London riots by the way what happened in North Africa with the power of social networks, developed countries understood really what means “freedom of expression” and try to adopt the same reaction like what they banned a couple past months. Now we can not ignore everything we can do with the Internet. The negative side of the Internet feels too underdeveloped countries than developed countries. So, will we continue to proclaim the freedom of expression of yesterday life or we are going to define all the concepts of today life by taking in account the ICT? Translated from French by google translator. Best regards Karim, Comoros Quoting "\"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang\"" : > http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-08/12/c_131046237.htm > > http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/670718/Riots-lead-to-rethink-of-Internet-freedom.aspx > > any comments? > > 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Aug 20 07:26:50 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:26:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <4E4F75A1.7060900 at gmail.com>, at 11:51:45 on Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Riaz K Tayob writes >And is it really about "internet immunity" or about the right to free >speech or association, that traditionally has limits and requires due >process before being violated, albeit with special enforcement issues >(although not too different from the mobile phone, like the San >Francisco pre-emptory strike on mobile communications recently, which >itself raises questions beyond the Bushisms on telecoms operators). Most countries have provisions to declare a curfew, when there is civil disorder. As always, it's a case of balancing the right of free assembly (of thieves and rioters) against the rights of the citizens whose property is being stolen and destroyed. Perhaps it would help understand the issues to characterise short interruptions in telecoms as an "electronic curfew". Where should this be debated: - we may find the basic principles are already in various treaties and declarations, and national governments will have legislated their own implementations of these long ago. The "Internet immunity" idea arises because of pressure to exclude it from any such curfew measures. The best place to address that is probably within the individual countries, because getting a global consensus first is likely to be much more difficult. These tensions have already arisen in a few countries where "Internet as a human right" collides with "three strikes and you are out" for intellectual property theft. But a three times convicted robber will have many of his freedoms taken away, but how many times do you allow someone to tweet instructions on which shops are available to loot? -- 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 ivarhartmann at gmail.com Sat Aug 20 08:31:36 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:31:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: We can't forget that a curfew is a impediment on *actions* (violence, theft etc) and will therefore always be something different than cutting off communications or the free flow of *information* (incitements of violence, threats, planning of crimes). After we blur the difference between *stopping criminal actions* themselves and *censoring communication that arguably leads* to such actions, it's only downhill from there... Ivar On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 07:26, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4E4F75A1.7060900 at gmail.com>, at 11:51:45 on Sat, 20 Aug 2011, > Riaz K Tayob writes > > And is it really about "internet immunity" or about the right to free >> speech or association, that traditionally has limits and requires due >> process before being violated, albeit with special enforcement issues >> (although not too different from the mobile phone, like the San Francisco >> pre-emptory strike on mobile communications recently, which itself raises >> questions beyond the Bushisms on telecoms operators). >> > > Most countries have provisions to declare a curfew, when there is civil > disorder. As always, it's a case of balancing the right of free assembly > (of thieves and rioters) against the rights of the citizens whose property > is being stolen and destroyed. Perhaps it would help understand the issues > to characterise short interruptions in telecoms as an "electronic curfew". > > Where should this be debated: - we may find the basic principles are > already in various treaties and declarations, and national governments will > have legislated their own implementations of these long ago. > > The "Internet immunity" idea arises because of pressure to exclude it from > any such curfew measures. The best place to address that is probably within > the individual countries, because getting a global consensus first is likely > to be much more difficult. > > These tensions have already arisen in a few countries where "Internet as a > human right" collides with "three strikes and you are out" for intellectual > property theft. But a three times convicted robber will have many of his > freedoms taken away, but how many times do you allow someone to tweet > instructions on which shops are available to loot? > -- > 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 Sat Aug 20 08:44:41 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:44:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , at 08:31:36 on Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann writes >We can't forget that a curfew is a impediment on actions (violence, >theft etc) and will therefore always be something different than >cutting off communications or the free flow of information (incitements >of violence, threats, planning of crimes).  I disagree. A curfew doesn't just operate inside shops which are being looted. It applies to a neighbourhood, where people in the streets are simply planning on robbing and burning, or even planning on assembling in order to decide where to rob and burn. >After we blur the difference between stopping criminal actions >themselves and censoring communication that arguably leads to such >actions, it's only downhill from there.. Censorship is about selective barring of communications. A curfew bars them all. -- 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 Sat Aug 20 10:03:11 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:03:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > The reality is whether the company hosting the Application is based abroad, > the fact that its reach is in Germany, and where according to the German > Regulators, privacy laws are breached then their responsibility is to notify > whoever is in breach. It follows then that Facebook can either revise the > protocols or web analytics for the German community where they are not in > breach. I don't think that follows at all. What the DE authorities can try to do is prosecute German websites for using the "Like" button. I have serious doubts that FB will disable "Like" for all German FB users. -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Aug 20 17:46:02 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 09:46:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> Message-ID: McTim, one thing is for certain, it will be fun to watch and see what happens in the space. Watching the debate between Paul and Daniel reminds and others of course reminds me of a picture which was shown to a class. Students were asked what the picture was, some said, it's of a beautiful lady in her 20s who is refined and polished and I would not mind taking her out. Others said, it's a picture of an old lady, some said she looked like an old hag. The distinction of course was in perception. They were both seeing the same picture but seeing totally different images. Stephen R Covey in his "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective people" illustrates this example in the first two chapters, I think. I am not trying in any way to reduce the ongoing debate by boxing it but would merely like to as an observer of the debate appreciate where each debater is seeing from so I can appreciate the various rich contexts that you all have to offer. I think that when Daniel mentioned the regulation of the end point and the internet being a cloud, it helped me to see how his perception was being formed. Perhaps because my training is in law, so my natural paradigm is configured to see where Paul is coming from. As someone who is immersed in internet governance, I am enjoying the multi-layered complexity and the challenges that governance discussion brings. In Covey's book, he explores how as people begin to attempt to see and understand the diverse perspectives, they could then start discussing solutions. Best, Sala On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:03 AM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The reality is whether the company hosting the Application is based >> abroad, the fact that its reach is in Germany, and where according to the >> German Regulators, privacy laws are breached then their responsibility is to >> notify whoever is in breach. It follows then that Facebook can either revise >> the protocols or web analytics for the German community where they are not >> in breach. > > > I don't think that follows at all. What the DE authorities can try to do is > prosecute German websites for using the "Like" button. I have serious > doubts that FB will disable "Like" for all German FB users. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Sala " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Aug 21 11:11:06 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:11:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] BECKSTROM TO LEAVE ICANN AT END OF HIS TERM Message-ID: <001e01cc6014$8f716ed0$ae544c70$@yahoo.com> Dear All, Just to share following information: ICANN release that "Rod Beckstrom will continue to fulfill his term as ICANN's President and CEO, which will be completed on 1 July 2012. He has held this position since 1 July 2009". http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_president_ceo_to_step_down_from_icann_ju ly_2012/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/17/icann_chief_quits/ Thanks Imran ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 21 13:07:48 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:07:48 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] BECKSTROM TO LEAVE ICANN AT END OF HIS TERM References: <001e01cc6014$8f716ed0$ae544c70$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C411@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/icann-departures-draw-criticism/2011/08/19/gIQAzpeDTJ_story.html 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Sun Aug 21 15:01:59 2011 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (mail at christopherwilkinson.eu) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:01:59 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] BECKSTROM TO LEAVE ICANN AT END OF HIS TERM Message-ID: <380-22011802119159652@M2W140.mail2web.com> There is an obvious conflict of interest in this context which should have been regulated, before, by the ICANN Board or by the ICANN Nominating Committee. Failure to do so will lead to additional intrusion by GAC or the US. Movements of this kind between the Regulator and the Operators should be subject to a 24 month cooling off period. Regards, CW Original Message: ----------------- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:07:48 +0200 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] BECKSTROM TO LEAVE ICANN AT END OF HIS TERM FYI http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/icann-departures-draw-criticism/2011/ 08/19/gIQAzpeDTJ_story.html 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Sun Aug 21 16:54:15 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 16:54:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] A Rudderless World: we've moved from an ocean of separate boats to 190 cabins on a boat without a captain Message-ID: <4E517077.40704@communisphere.com> See New York Times Op-Ed b y Singapore's Kishore Mahbabuni where he says: First, the world has changed structurally, yet our systems for managing global affairs have not adapted. In the past, when the billions of citizens of planet earth lived in separated countries, it was like having an ocean of separate boats. Hence, the postwar order created rules to ensure that the boats did not collide; it created rules for cooperation. Up until now, this arrangement has worked well. World War III did not follow World Wars I and II. But today the world's seven billion citizens no longer live in separate boats. They live in more than 190 cabins on the same boat. Each cabin has a government to manage its affairs. And the boat as a whole moves along without a captain or a crew. The world is adrift.... Tom Lowenhaupt -------------- 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Aug 21 10:31:00 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:31:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E5116A4.7020502@gmail.com> In all of these issues there is the Human Rights requirement of proportionality. It is easy to turn it all off, or to violate the piracy of many. In what circumstances would this be justified given the ambivalent nature of technology (i.e. snooping and deep packet searching are technologies that impose obligations on the state too, why cut when these are available)? Funny how so much of this "spy" stuff is used to track ordinary folk but can't catch a Madoff! Riaz On 2011/08/20 03:44 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , > at 08:31:36 on Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann > writes >> We can't forget that a curfew is a impediment on actions (violence, >> theft etc) and will therefore always be something different than >> cutting off communications or the free flow of information >> (incitements of violence, threats, planning of crimes). > > I disagree. A curfew doesn't just operate inside shops which are being > looted. It applies to a neighbourhood, where people in the streets are > simply planning on robbing and burning, or even planning on assembling > in order to decide where to rob and burn. > >> After we blur the difference between stopping criminal actions >> themselves and censoring communication that arguably leads to such >> actions, it's only downhill from there.. > > Censorship is about selective barring of communications. A curfew bars > them all. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Sun Aug 21 23:19:08 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:19:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Rudderless World: we've moved from an ocean of separate boats to 190 cabins on a boat without a captain In-Reply-To: <4E517077.40704@communisphere.com> References: <4E517077.40704@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear Thomas, Thank you for this very important issue. We truly need a Captain! How do we go about it? Warm wishes, Sea. On 21 Aug 2011 21:54, "Thomas Lowenhaupt" wrote: See New York Times Op-Ed by Singapore's Kishore Mahbabuni where he says: First, the world has changed structurally, yet our systems for managing global affairs have not adapted. In the past, when the billions of citizens of planet earth lived in separated countries, it was like having an ocean of separate boats. Hence, the postwar order created rules to ensure that the boats did not collide; it created rules for cooperation. Up until now, this arrangement has worked well. World War III did not follow World Wars I and II. But today the world’s seven billion citizens no longer live in separate boats. They live in more than 190 cabins on the same boat. Each cabin has a government to manage its affairs. And the boat as a whole moves along without a captain or a crew. The world is adrift.... Tom Lowenhaupt ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Aug 22 03:56:55 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:56:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Rudderless World: we've moved from an ocean of separate boats to 190 cabins on a boat without a captain In-Reply-To: References: <4E517077.40704@communisphere.com> Message-ID: In message , at 04:19:08 on Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Sonigitu Ekpe writes >Thank you for this very important issue. > >We truly need a Captain! > >How do we go about it You could always set up an organisation which united all the nations, and let them decide, perhaps at big annual meetings. I wonder what would be a good name for that! (Only joking). -- 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 Aug 22 03:54:49 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:54:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: <4E5116A4.7020502@gmail.com> References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> <4E5116A4.7020502@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <4E5116A4.7020502 at gmail.com>, at 17:31:00 on Sun, 21 Aug 2011, Riaz K Tayob writes >In all of these issues there is the Human Rights requirement of >proportionality. > >It is easy to turn it all off, or to violate the piracy of many. Exactly so, just as physical curfew does. That's why I think it's a good analogy, and either form of curfew needs to be imposed only when it's necessary and proportionate. >In what circumstances would this be justified given the ambivalent >nature of technology (i.e. snooping and deep packet searching are >technologies that impose obligations on the state too, why cut when >these are available)? Funny how so much of this "spy" stuff is used to >track ordinary folk but can't catch a Madoff! "You should see the other guy" is never a good justification for one's own wrongdoing. Roland. >On 2011/08/20 03:44 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message >>, >>at 08:31:36 on Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann >> writes >>> We can't forget that a curfew is a impediment on actions (violence, >>>theft etc) and will therefore always be something different than >>>cutting off communications or the free flow of information >>>(incitements of violence, threats, planning of crimes). >> >> I disagree. A curfew doesn't just operate inside shops which are >>being looted. It applies to a neighbourhood, where people in the >>streets are simply planning on robbing and burning, or even planning >>on assembling in order to decide where to rob and burn. >> >>> After we blur the difference between stopping criminal actions >>>themselves and censoring communication that arguably leads to such >>>actions, it's only downhill from there.. >> >> Censorship is about selective barring of communications. A curfew >>bars them all. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Aug 22 03:50:03 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> <4E5116A4.7020502@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E520A2B.50002@gmail.com> On 2011/08/22 10:54 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > Exactly so, just as physical curfew does. That's why I think it's a > good analogy, and either form of curfew needs to be imposed only when > it's necessary and proportionate. Anticipatory shut downs (San Francisco metro), or lack of due process (Bush with telecoms operators) will need to be looked at with a different eye. Limits on speech and association are the rule, everything else is the exception and should be treated as such. > ambivalent nature of technology > "You should see the other guy" is never a good justification for one's > own wrongdoing. That is not the point at all. The state has a responsibility to uphold freedoms and must intervene when necessary. Given that technology provides a number of options with which to "keep to the peace" the use of the nuclear option (curfew/blackout) would need to be carefully assessed, particularly that thinking about crimes are NOT crimes themselves. What happened in SanF recently is analogous to crimimal law's "death penalty" in terms of civil and political expression/association rights. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Aug 22 06:03:48 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:03:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] A Rudderless World: we've moved from an ocean of separate boats to 190 cabins on a boat without a captain In-Reply-To: References: <4E517077.40704@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <4E522984.6040602@digsys.bg> On 22.08.11 10:56, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , > at 04:19:08 on Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Sonigitu Ekpe > writes >> We truly need a Captain! > > You could always set up an organisation which united all the nations, > and let them decide, perhaps at big annual meetings. Getting all human beings at one spot, in order to democratically vote for their Captain could seriously disrupt the Earth's spinning balance and we might get out of orbit. (guess, this is why it hasn't happened yet) 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 Mon Aug 22 07:08:30 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:08:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: <4E520A2B.50002@gmail.com> References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> <4E5116A4.7020502@gmail.com> <4E520A2B.50002@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <4E520A2B.50002 at gmail.com>, at 10:50:03 on Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Riaz K Tayob writes > >On 2011/08/22 10:54 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> Exactly so, just as physical curfew does. That's why I think it's a >>good analogy, and either form of curfew needs to be imposed only when >>it's necessary and proportionate. > >Anticipatory shut downs (San Francisco metro), or lack of due process >(Bush with telecoms operators) will need to be looked at with a >different eye. Limits on speech and association are the rule, >everything else is the exception and should be treated as such. That's right. Which is why if there's a reasonable expectation of civil disorder barricades will be put out on the streets. You don't wait until the riot has started. But such things are indeed an exception. >> ambivalent nature of technology >> "You should see the other guy" is never a good justification for >>one's own wrongdoing. >That is not the point at all. The state has a responsibility to uphold >freedoms and must intervene when necessary. Given that technology >provides a number of options with which to "keep to the peace" the use >of the nuclear option (curfew/blackout) would need to be carefully >assessed, particularly that thinking about crimes are NOT crimes >themselves. What happened in SanF recently is analogous to crimimal >law's "death penalty" in terms of civil and political >expression/association rights. I think you are exaggerating, about SanF, blocking a few mobile phones is nothing like a "death penalty". I'm sure that if there was a reasonable expectation of an organised riot at a station they'd put barricades across the door and instruct passing trains not to stop. I'm not agreeing that in this particular case the right thing was done (I don't think any of us have enough information to judge) but it's a scenario where action might be reasonable in the right circumstances. -- 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 sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Mon Aug 22 07:09:56 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:09:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Rudderless World: we've moved from an ocean of separate boats to 190 cabins on a boat without a captain Message-ID: Dear Daniel, Thank you for this input. We do not need to get all humans to one spot, the Internet will be able to bring us all to one spot. Think of profiling and assigning unique numberings according to the already configuration of Developed, Developing and Least Developed Countries. That may be a starting point for true identity. What do think? With regards, Sea On 22 Aug 2011 11:04, "Daniel Kalchev" wrote: On 22.08.11 10:56, Roland Perry wrote: > > > > In message < > CALLeeauLyxbxz7uTX4HpB9yFM-Q2FksxhMZwmBCySQcQ6HexKQ at mail.gmail.com>, at > 04:19:08 on ... > >> We truly need a Captain! >> > > > You could always set up an organisation which united all the nations, and > let them decide, perhaps... > Getting all human beings at one spot, in order to democratically vote for their Captain could seriously disrupt the Earth's spinning balance and we might get out of orbit. (guess, this is why it hasn't happened yet) Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscri... -------------- 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 Aug 22 07:10:11 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:10:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Rudderless World: we've moved from an ocean of separate boats to 190 cabins on a boat without a captain In-Reply-To: <4E522984.6040602@digsys.bg> References: <4E517077.40704@communisphere.com> <4E522984.6040602@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4E522984.6040602 at digsys.bg>, at 13:03:48 on Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >Getting all human beings at one spot, in order to democratically vote >for their Captain could seriously disrupt the Earth's spinning balance >and we might get out of orbit. Does this even happen for our largest democratic countries? As far as I'm aware even the USA presidential election is done by proxy - people in different states decide who to send to an electoral college to place a block vote on their behalf. -- 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 sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Mon Aug 22 07:33:54 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:33:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Rudderless World: we've moved from an ocean of separate boats to 190 cabins on a boat without a captain In-Reply-To: <4E522984.6040602@digsys.bg> References: <4E517077.40704@communisphere.com> <4E522984.6040602@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Dear All A true identity is the only way to put us on the path to ascertain if really, we are SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE on planet earth. This will kick start the emergence of a CREW with a Captain. Looking forward ............ Warm wishes, Sea On 22 Aug 2011 11:04, "Daniel Kalchev" wrote: On 22.08.11 10:56, Roland Perry wrote: > > > > In message < > CALLeeauLyxbxz7uTX4HpB9yFM-Q2FksxhMZwmBCySQcQ6HexKQ at mail.gmail.com>, at > 04:19:08 on ... > >> We truly need a Captain! >> > > > You could always set up an organisation which united all the nations, and > let them decide, perhaps... > Getting all human beings at one spot, in order to democratically vote for their Captain could seriously disrupt the Earth's spinning balance and we might get out of orbit. (guess, this is why it hasn't happened yet) Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscri... -------------- 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Aug 22 09:28:40 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:28:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> <4E5116A4.7020502@gmail.com> <4E520A2B.50002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E525988.7000302@gmail.com> On 2011/08/22 02:08 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > I think you are exaggerating, about SanF, blocking a few mobile phones > is nothing like a "death penalty". I'm sure that if there was a > reasonable expectation of an organised riot at a station they'd put > barricades across the door and instruct passing trains not to stop. Getting your comms blocked when you have a right to expression/association is the most extreme sanction. I guess that the US case of allowing Neo-Nazi's to march through a popular Jewish area (Skokie) would be regarded as too much of a provocation too? Blocking a few mobile phones... is not that serious in a riot? Is it just me or is there a new tendency to take security more seriously than individual liberties? Post 911 there is a tendency even amongst "liberals" to even allow the discussion of whether torture can be justified in certain circumstances or not (like 911 or in Erik Prince's Hollywood 24 hours). The default used to be protect my liberties and the state must make do. We come from recent history that has seen some of the most egregious violations and sanitising of them. More circumspection is needed particularly given how few Northerners took these rights seriously allowing not only their degradation but there internationalisation. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Mon Aug 22 10:59:26 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:59:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] A Rudderless World: we've moved from an ocean of separate boats to 190 cabins on a boat without a captain In-Reply-To: References: <4E517077.40704@communisphere.com> <4E522984.6040602@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E526ECE.1070206@communisphere.com> While the solution is obviously elusive, I thought Mahbabuni's analogy might help us all explain to those off this list the issues with which we grapple. Best, Tom On 8/22/2011 7:33 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Dear All > > A true identity is the only way to put us on the path to ascertain if > really, we are SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE on planet earth. > > This will kick start the emergence of a CREW with a Captain. > > Looking forward ............ > > Warm wishes, > > > Sea > > >> On 22 Aug 2011 11:04, "Daniel Kalchev" > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 22.08.11 10:56, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> > >> > In message >> > >, >> at 04:19:08 on ... >> >> We truly need a Captain! >> >> >> > You could always set up an organisation which united all the >> nations, and let them decide, perhaps... >> >> >> Getting all human beings at one spot, in order to democratically vote >> for their Captain could seriously disrupt the Earth's spinning >> balance and we might get out of orbit. >> >> (guess, this is why it hasn't happened yet) >> >> Daniel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscri... >> -------------- 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 devonrb at gmail.com Mon Aug 22 12:18:51 2011 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:18:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] A Rudderless World: we've moved from an ocean of separate boats to 190 cabins on a boat without a captain In-Reply-To: <4E526ECE.1070206@communisphere.com> References: <4E517077.40704@communisphere.com> <4E522984.6040602@digsys.bg> <4E526ECE.1070206@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Well the ship with 190 cabins, and I suppose there are some store rooms, cupboard etc, in some of which people hide, has some two billion people from most if not all countries. The IGF should expand its mandate, as its multi-stakeholder approach, provides the ideal springboard to engage in a unified approach, to democratic principles. On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > While the solution is obviously elusive, I thought Mahbabuni's analogy > might help us all explain to those off this list the issues with which we > grapple. > > Best, > > Tom > > > On 8/22/2011 7:33 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Dear All > > A true identity is the only way to put us on the path to ascertain if > really, we are SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE on planet earth. > > This will kick start the emergence of a CREW with a Captain. > > Looking forward ............ > > Warm wishes, > > > Sea > > > On 22 Aug 2011 11:04, "Daniel Kalchev" wrote: > > > > On 22.08.11 10:56, Roland Perry wrote: > >> > >> > In message < >> CALLeeauLyxbxz7uTX4HpB9yFM-Q2FksxhMZwmBCySQcQ6HexKQ at mail.gmail.com>, at >> 04:19:08 on ... >> >>> We truly need a Captain! >>> >> >> > You could always set up an organisation which united all the nations, >> and let them decide, perhaps... >> > > Getting all human beings at one spot, in order to democratically vote for > their Captain could seriously disrupt the Earth's spinning balance and we > might get out of orbit. > > (guess, this is why it hasn't happened yet) > > Daniel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscri... > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Devon Blake Special Projects Director Earthwise Solutions Limited 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-589-6369 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- 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 Aug 22 12:55:42 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:55:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] China supports UK Internet Policy In-Reply-To: <4E525988.7000302@gmail.com> References: <4E4F5A39.3040704@gmail.com> <4E4F75A1.7060900@gmail.com> <4E5116A4.7020502@gmail.com> <4E520A2B.50002@gmail.com> <4E525988.7000302@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <4E525988.7000302 at gmail.com>, at 16:28:40 on Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Riaz K Tayob writes >> I think you are exaggerating, about SanF, blocking a few mobile >>phones is nothing like a "death penalty". I'm sure that if there was >>a reasonable expectation of an organised riot at a station they'd put >>barricades across the door and instruct passing trains not to stop. > >Getting your comms blocked when you have a right to >expression/association is the most extreme sanction. Getting your shop burnt by smartphone-carrying thieves is also rather extreme. What's necessary in these situations is to balance one set of rights against the other. -- 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 sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Mon Aug 22 15:23:54 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:23:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] A Rudderless World: we've moved from an ocean of separate boats to 190 cabins on a boat without a captain In-Reply-To: References: <4E517077.40704@communisphere.com> <4E522984.6040602@digsys.bg> <4E526ECE.1070206@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear Blake, Thanks for the inputs. Referring to Thomas input 'solution is obviously elusive, I thought Mahbabuni's analogy might help us all explain' * *How do you explain when people drudge from the truth? How can we move on when the 190 cabins have different *"type"* of governments managing their affairs? How can this different/forms of government accept a crew without the enabling environment for cooperation?, How do you secure people you do not know their identities? or how do you alleviate poverty without profiling and using sets of indicators to ascertain who is poor? and impact measurement? For long some set of opportunist have being fooling so many and diverting the peoples wealth; How long will this continue? It is time for us to truly protect our brothers and sisters, neighbors and friends ? Without a clear vision, transparent process, mutual trust and accountability to does will claim to protect, How do we move forward? Regards, Sea * "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" * On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Devon Blake wrote: > Well the ship with 190 cabins, and I suppose there are some store rooms, > cupboard etc, in some of which people hide, has some two billion people from > most if not all countries. The IGF should expand its mandate, as its > multi-stakeholder approach, provides the > ideal springboard to engage in a unified approach, to democratic > principles. > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt < > toml at communisphere.com> wrote: > >> While the solution is obviously elusive, I thought Mahbabuni's analogy >> might help us all explain to those off this list the issues with which we >> grapple. >> >> Best, >> >> Tom >> >> >> On 8/22/2011 7:33 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: >> >> Dear All >> >> A true identity is the only way to put us on the path to ascertain if >> really, we are SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE on planet earth. >> >> This will kick start the emergence of a CREW with a Captain. >> >> Looking forward ............ >> >> Warm wishes, >> >> >> Sea >> >> >> On 22 Aug 2011 11:04, "Daniel Kalchev" wrote: >> >> >> >> On 22.08.11 10:56, Roland Perry wrote: >> >>> > >>> > In message < >>> CALLeeauLyxbxz7uTX4HpB9yFM-Q2FksxhMZwmBCySQcQ6HexKQ at mail.gmail.com>, at >>> 04:19:08 on ... >>> >>>> We truly need a Captain! >>>> >>> >>> > You could always set up an organisation which united all the nations, >>> and let them decide, perhaps... >>> >> >> Getting all human beings at one spot, in order to democratically vote for >> their Captain could seriously disrupt the Earth's spinning balance and we >> might get out of orbit. >> >> (guess, this is why it hasn't happened yet) >> >> Daniel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscri... >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -- > Devon Blake > Special Projects Director > Earthwise Solutions Limited > 29 Dominica Drive > Kgn 5 > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-589-6369 > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > *Earthwise ... For Life!* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 philippe.blanchard at me.com Wed Aug 24 13:11:47 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:11:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <1E66C679-DAEA-49D2-AC3E-757EC2A73D32@me.com> I would like to bounce back on Salanieta's comments and push the analogy a bit further. Definitely we all come from different perspectives and some exchanges are truly lively and interesting because they show the gap between our "respective perspectives". I wonder if the issues we are facing are not related to the fact we are trying to apprehend a n dimension space and project it onto a (n-i) dimension space. It is like Mercator world maps : it is closer to reality that our classical maps, however, it is still a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 D object. Hence a distorted representation. I am sure we will all agree that the bigger the "i" (or the bigger the difference between (n) and (n-i)), the more distortion we have. Those distortions however are not real, they are just artefacts incepted by our projections. Going back to Salanieta's image, the drawing is BOTH a beautiful lady AND an old hag. As far as I understand, the democratic model relies on a transfer of responsibility to another, upper one. It has 2 pre-requisites : an ability/opportunity to choose your representatives AND the separation between the legislative, executive and judiciary responsibilities. THis democratic model is hence based on a vertical distribution of powers and some hierarchical representations (me; my town representatives; my deputy; my government; my President (if I happen to live in a democracy); Inter-regional Unions - EU for instance ; ...and United Nations atop). What if we have not only a vertical/some vertical representation model(s) but at the same time vertical AND horizontal organizations ? What if we shift from a - let's say - 1 dimension space (x axis) to 2 (or n) dimensions... ? What if not only Nation States but also other stakeholders (private, foreign) are the decision makers ? Then our vertical democratic model is then clearly challenged. We all agree that the internet has brought new interconnection possibilities. And I think we all agree there will be no turning back, we are not going to give away our expression rights... Ok, Ok, I know the risks and remember clearly the work of Wilhelm Reich's "Mass psychology of fascism" ! However, we are now in a position to better benefit from the "1789 Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen" where article 11 (freedom of expression) and article 15 (control of government action) are clearly applicable. We have the power to now express ourselves on one hand, and on the other hand, as a communicating group, we represent also a new entity... (For the sociologists, refer to the 3 levels of information : 1/ someone knows, the individual knowledge 2/ the collective knowledge : through media (press, radio...) we share some descending knowledge 3/ the global knowledge: we all know that we all know. We are now handling an information level and its "meta-level"). And that is where control of govt action applies. Therefore, one core question is how can we counter-balance, not to over-throw but to re-balance, the power between Nation States, transnational corporations. PJ Proudhon used to say " anarchy is order without power", I do think the net can breed auto-organizations if and only if we reach and feed this global knowledge level. Best regards, Philippe On Aug 20, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: McTim, one thing is for certain, it will be fun to watch and see what happens in the space. Watching the debate between Paul and Daniel reminds and others of course reminds me of a picture which was shown to a class. Students were asked what the picture was, some said, it's of a beautiful lady in her 20s who is refined and polished and I would not mind taking her out. Others said, it's a picture of an old lady, some said she looked like an old hag. The distinction of course was in perception. They were both seeing the same picture but seeing totally different images. Stephen R Covey in his "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective people" illustrates this example in the first two chapters, I think. I am not trying in any way to reduce the ongoing debate by boxing it but would merely like to as an observer of the debate appreciate where each debater is seeing from so I can appreciate the various rich contexts that you all have to offer. I think that when Daniel mentioned the regulation of the end point and the internet being a cloud, it helped me to see how his perception was being formed. Perhaps because my training is in law, so my natural paradigm is configured to see where Paul is coming from. As someone who is immersed in internet governance, I am enjoying the multi-layered complexity and the challenges that governance discussion brings. In Covey's book, he explores how as people begin to attempt to see and understand the diverse perspectives, they could then start discussing solutions. Best, Sala On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:03 AM, McTim wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: The reality is whether the company hosting the Application is based abroad, the fact that its reach is in Germany, and where according to the German Regulators, privacy laws are breached then their responsibility is to notify whoever is in breach. It follows then that Facebook can either revise the protocols or web analytics for the German community where they are not in breach. I don't think that follows at all. What the DE authorities can try to do is prosecute German websites for using the "Like" button. I have serious doubts that FB will disable "Like" for all German FB users. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -- Sala " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Wed Aug 24 14:24:27 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:24:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <1E66C679-DAEA-49D2-AC3E-757EC2A73D32@me.com> References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> <1E66C679-DAEA-49D2-AC3E-757EC2A73D32@me.com> Message-ID: The picture I was referring to can be seen in http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb234/vurdlak8/illusions/il_fullxfull25123265.jpg On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Philippe Blanchard < philippe.blanchard at me.com> wrote: > I would like to bounce back on Salanieta's comments and push the analogy a > bit further. > > Definitely we all come from different perspectives and some exchanges are > truly lively and interesting because they show the gap between our > "respective perspectives". > > I wonder if the issues we are facing are not related to the fact we are > trying to apprehend a n dimension space and project it onto a (n-i) > dimension space. It is like Mercator world maps : it is closer to reality > that our classical maps, however, it is still a 2 dimensional representation > of a 3 D object. Hence a distorted representation. I am sure we will all > agree that the bigger the "i" (or the bigger the difference between (n) and > (n-i)), the more distortion we have. > > Those distortions however are not real, they are just artefacts incepted by > our projections. Going back to Salanieta's image, the drawing is BOTH a > beautiful lady AND an old hag. > > As far as I understand, the democratic model relies on a transfer of > responsibility to another, upper one. It has 2 pre-requisites : an > ability/opportunity to choose your representatives AND the separation > between the legislative, executive and judiciary responsibilities. > THis democratic model is hence based on a vertical distribution of powers > and some hierarchical representations (me; my town representatives; my > deputy; my government; my President (if I happen to live in a democracy); > Inter-regional Unions - EU for instance ; ...and United Nations atop). > > What if we have not only a vertical/some vertical representation model(s) > but at the same time vertical AND horizontal organizations ? What if we > shift from a - let's say - 1 dimension space (x axis) to 2 (or n) > dimensions... ? What if not only Nation States but also other stakeholders > (private, foreign) are the decision makers ? > Then our vertical democratic model is then clearly challenged. > > > We all agree that the internet has brought new interconnection > possibilities. And I think we all agree there will be no turning back, we > are not going to give away our expression rights... > Ok, Ok, I know the risks and remember clearly the work of Wilhelm Reich's > "Mass psychology of fascism" ! However, we are now in a position to better > benefit from the "1789 Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen" > where article 11 (freedom of expression) and article 15 (control of > government action) are clearly applicable. > > We have the power to now express ourselves on one hand, and on the other > hand, as a communicating group, we represent also a new entity... > (For the sociologists, refer to the 3 levels of information : > 1/ someone knows, the individual knowledge > 2/ the collective knowledge : through media (press, radio...) we share some > descending knowledge > 3/ the global knowledge: we all know that we all know. We are now handling > an information level and its "meta-level"). And that is where control of > govt action applies. > > > Therefore, one core question is how can we counter-balance, not to > over-throw but to re-balance, the power between Nation States, transnational > corporations. > > PJ Proudhon used to say " anarchy is order without power", I do think the > net can breed auto-organizations if and only if we reach and feed this > global knowledge level. > > Best regards, > Philippe > > > > On Aug 20, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > McTim, one thing is for certain, it will be fun to watch and see what > happens in the space. Watching the debate between Paul and Daniel reminds > and others of course reminds me of a picture which was shown to a class. > Students were asked what the picture was, some said, it's of a beautiful > lady in her 20s who is refined and polished and I would not mind taking her > out. Others said, it's a picture of an old lady, some said she looked like > an old hag. > > The distinction of course was in perception. They were both seeing the same > picture but seeing totally different images. Stephen R Covey in his "The 7 > Habits of Highly Effective people" illustrates this example in the first two > chapters, I think. > > I am not trying in any way to reduce the ongoing debate by boxing it but > would merely like to as an observer of the debate appreciate where each > debater is seeing from so I can appreciate the various rich contexts that > you all have to offer. > > I think that when Daniel mentioned the regulation of the end point and the > internet being a cloud, it helped me to see how his perception was being > formed. Perhaps because my training is in law, so my natural paradigm is > configured to see where Paul is coming from. > > As someone who is immersed in internet governance, I am enjoying the > multi-layered complexity and the challenges that governance discussion > brings. In Covey's book, he explores how as people begin to attempt to see > and understand the diverse perspectives, they could then start discussing > solutions. > > Best, > > Sala > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:03 AM, McTim wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The reality is whether the company hosting the Application is based >>> abroad, the fact that its reach is in Germany, and where according to the >>> German Regulators, privacy laws are breached then their responsibility is to >>> notify whoever is in breach. It follows then that Facebook can either revise >>> the protocols or web analytics for the German community where they are not >>> in breach. >> >> >> I don't think that follows at all. What the DE authorities can try to do >> is prosecute German websites for using the "Like" button. I have serious >> doubts that FB will disable "Like" for all German FB users. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> > > > >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > > > > -- > Sala > > " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 > > > -- Sala " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- 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 Wed Aug 24 15:26:26 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:26:26 +1200 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: <1E66C679-DAEA-49D2-AC3E-757EC2A73D32@me.com> References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> <1E66C679-DAEA-49D2-AC3E-757EC2A73D32@me.com> Message-ID: Definitely we all come from different perspectives and some exchanges are truly lively and interesting because they show the gap between our "respective perspectives". I wonder if the issues we are facing are not related to the fact we are trying to apprehend a n dimension space and project it onto a (n-i) dimension space. It is like Mercator world maps : it is closer to reality that our classical maps, however, it is still a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 D object. Hence a distorted representation.* I am sure we will all agree that the bigger the "i" (or the bigger the difference between (n) and (n-i)), the more distortion we have.* Those distortions however are not real, they are just artefacts incepted by our projections. Going back to Salanieta's image, the drawing is BOTH a beautiful lady AND an old hag. I am enjoying the mathematical representation of the difference in perception. I would like to introduce another assumption, am not sure what the mathematical representation would be but I will give it a try: *Perspective 1* i: a< i < b; where the range represents those who subscribe to the view that there are regulatory mechanisms and proven governance models within countries that can deal with issues in relation to internet governance and we don't need more organisations and laws; *Perspective 2* i:c wrote: > I would like to bounce back on Salanieta's comments and push the analogy a > bit further. > > Definitely we all come from different perspectives and some exchanges are > truly lively and interesting because they show the gap between our > "respective perspectives". > > I wonder if the issues we are facing are not related to the fact we are > trying to apprehend a n dimension space and project it onto a (n-i) > dimension space. It is like Mercator world maps : it is closer to reality > that our classical maps, however, it is still a 2 dimensional representation > of a 3 D object. Hence a distorted representation. I am sure we will all > agree that the bigger the "i" (or the bigger the difference between (n) and > (n-i)), the more distortion we have. > > Those distortions however are not real, they are just artefacts incepted by > our projections. Going back to Salanieta's image, the drawing is BOTH a > beautiful lady AND an old hag. > > As far as I understand, the democratic model relies on a transfer of > responsibility to another, upper one. It has 2 pre-requisites : an > ability/opportunity to choose your representatives AND the separation > between the legislative, executive and judiciary responsibilities. > THis democratic model is hence based on a vertical distribution of powers > and some hierarchical representations (me; my town representatives; my > deputy; my government; my President (if I happen to live in a democracy); > Inter-regional Unions - EU for instance ; ...and United Nations atop). > > What if we have not only a vertical/some vertical representation model(s) > but at the same time vertical AND horizontal organizations ? What if we > shift from a - let's say - 1 dimension space (x axis) to 2 (or n) > dimensions... ? What if not only Nation States but also other stakeholders > (private, foreign) are the decision makers ? > Then our vertical democratic model is then clearly challenged. > > > We all agree that the internet has brought new interconnection > possibilities. And I think we all agree there will be no turning back, we > are not going to give away our expression rights... > Ok, Ok, I know the risks and remember clearly the work of Wilhelm Reich's > "Mass psychology of fascism" ! However, we are now in a position to better > benefit from the "1789 Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen" > where article 11 (freedom of expression) and article 15 (control of > government action) are clearly applicable. > > We have the power to now express ourselves on one hand, and on the other > hand, as a communicating group, we represent also a new entity... > (For the sociologists, refer to the 3 levels of information : > 1/ someone knows, the individual knowledge > 2/ the collective knowledge : through media (press, radio...) we share some > descending knowledge > 3/ the global knowledge: we all know that we all know. We are now handling > an information level and its "meta-level"). And that is where control of > govt action applies. > > > Therefore, one core question is how can we counter-balance, not to > over-throw but to re-balance, the power between Nation States, transnational > corporations. > > PJ Proudhon used to say " anarchy is order without power", I do think the > net can breed auto-organizations if and only if we reach and feed this > global knowledge level. > > Best regards, > Philippe > > > > On Aug 20, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > McTim, one thing is for certain, it will be fun to watch and see what > happens in the space. Watching the debate between Paul and Daniel reminds > and others of course reminds me of a picture which was shown to a class. > Students were asked what the picture was, some said, it's of a beautiful > lady in her 20s who is refined and polished and I would not mind taking her > out. Others said, it's a picture of an old lady, some said she looked like > an old hag. > > The distinction of course was in perception. They were both seeing the same > picture but seeing totally different images. Stephen R Covey in his "The 7 > Habits of Highly Effective people" illustrates this example in the first two > chapters, I think. > > I am not trying in any way to reduce the ongoing debate by boxing it but > would merely like to as an observer of the debate appreciate where each > debater is seeing from so I can appreciate the various rich contexts that > you all have to offer. > > I think that when Daniel mentioned the regulation of the end point and the > internet being a cloud, it helped me to see how his perception was being > formed. Perhaps because my training is in law, so my natural paradigm is > configured to see where Paul is coming from. > > As someone who is immersed in internet governance, I am enjoying the > multi-layered complexity and the challenges that governance discussion > brings. In Covey's book, he explores how as people begin to attempt to see > and understand the diverse perspectives, they could then start discussing > solutions. > > Best, > > Sala > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:03 AM, McTim wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The reality is whether the company hosting the Application is based >>> abroad, the fact that its reach is in Germany, and where according to the >>> German Regulators, privacy laws are breached then their responsibility is to >>> notify whoever is in breach. It follows then that Facebook can either revise >>> the protocols or web analytics for the German community where they are not >>> in breach. >> >> >> I don't think that follows at all. What the DE authorities can try to do >> is prosecute German websites for using the "Like" button. I have serious >> doubts that FB will disable "Like" for all German FB users. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> > > > >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > > > > -- > Sala > > " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 > > > -- Sala " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- 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 sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Thu Aug 25 00:15:31 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:15:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei... In-Reply-To: References: <4E4B9BC5.3050901@digsys.bg> <4E4CB08D.90902@digsys.bg> <4E4CC4C4.2040409@digsys.bg> <4E4CD615.9090301@digsys.bg> <4E4E3DC2.7090506@digsys.bg> <1E66C679-DAEA-49D2-AC3E-757EC2A73D32@me.com> Message-ID: Dear Sala, You are making more sense in the thread. Many do know, but they just want the issue of regulations to sound like......, we must understand that moving forward entails concrete actions & efforts rather than leapfogging. Your points are great and modification of regulations should be seen in terms of profits. Best regards, Sea On 24 Aug 2011 20:27, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: Definitely we all come from different perspectives and some exchanges are truly lively and interesti... I am enjoying the mathematical representation of the difference in perception. I would like to introduce another assumption, am not sure what the mathematical representation would be but I will give it a try: *Perspective 1* i: a< i < b; where the range represents those who subscribe to the view that there are regulatory mechanisms and proven governance models within countries that can deal with issues in relation to internet governance and we don't need more organisations and laws; *Perspective 2* i:c wrote: > > I would like to bounce back on Salanieta's comments and push the analogy a bit further. > > Defi... -- Sala " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Aug 25 04:02:28 2011 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:02:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] US web host takes down Zimbabwean site to avoid a 'fight' over content Message-ID: From the Committee to Protect Journalists A US web host has taken down the website of a Zimbabwean online political newsletter citing it does need to be dragged into a fight. "Steve Sydness, executive chairman of the Endurance International Group, the company that owns Powweb and dozens of similar small-scale hosting providers ... confirmed that Rukuni's account had been canceled due to a single dispute. Sydness said that felt that it was not Endurance's business to host sites like Rukuni's: "Guys like us." he told me, "don't need to be dragged into a fight between someone in Zimbabwe and someone in South Africa." " So, if that sets a precedent or becomes a norm, then - simplistically - all it will take to bring down a site is to challenge the content and the host simply rolls over and ditches the site so as not to be bothered! The story here: http://www.cpj.org/internet/2011/08/legal-protection-falls-short-for-zimbabwes-insider.php -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - 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 toml at communisphere.com Thu Aug 25 09:56:21 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:56:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Toward a Governance Policy for New York's TLD Message-ID: <4E565485.8080006@communisphere.com> September is going to be Governance Month at Connecting.nyc Inc. as we convert our comprehensive and confusing Governance Ecology pages on our wiki into something understandable by New York's Internet community. Our hope is to move the conversation to the city's NYCShare.org site upon its completion. Amongst our "conversion" activities are weekly meetings on my Google+ Hangout on the topic, Thursday's from 10-11 AM NYC time. We're holding a prep today, same time, 10-11. Here's the notice we've sent out: Who owns New York's TLD? What is the governance process? These most fundamental questions will be topic of this weeks Tea and .nyc at my Google+ Hangout on Thursday from 10-11 AM. This is a intro to a month of Thursday's discussions on the topic that are tied in with reorganization our Governance Ecology pages on the wiki. A multi-stakeholder governance model, in line with the global Internet governance model, is the presumed outcome. But let's explore and discuss. Join us. Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. The limit is 10 live video tickets, so click in early. If you're new to G+ show up 5 minutes early and we'll provide an operational runthrough. For those not using G+, the event will be recorded for posting on YouTube. If anyone from this list want's to attend, visit the G+ Hangout link . Also, if you want a G+ invite, I've got 149. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ----------------------------------------------- Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair Connecting.nyc Inc. tom at connectingnyc.org Jackson Hts., NYC 11372 718 639 4222 Web Wiki Blog -------------- 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 Aug 26 04:36:49 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:06:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not Message-ID: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> The below may be a good addition to the context in which this list has been discussing the application of local laws and regulations to global digital space/ business, vis a vis the power of different countries/ jurisdiction to apply their law, especially for the more legitimate purposes as in the below case. My point is, will a developing country, especially a small one, be able to penalise google and make it behave as the UG gov could. (See the earleir instance of Taipie city government versus google). Is it not a major global IG issue? parminder http://governancenow.com/gov-next/egov/google-agrees-usd-500-million-settlement-over-pharmacy-adds Google agrees to USD 500 million settlement over pharmacy adds PTI | August 25 2011 Internet search giant Google has agreed to pay USD 500 million to settle charges that it allowed Canadian pharmacies to place ads on its website that resulted in prescription drugs being imported from Canada to the US unlawfully. The Justice Department said the forfeiture is "one of the largest ever in the United States" and represents the gross revenue received by Google as a result of Canadian pharmacies advertising through its 'AdWords' programme, plus gross revenue made by Canadian pharmacies from their sales of controlled and non-controlled prescription drugs to US consumers. "The Department of Justice will continue to hold accountable companies who in their bid for profits violate federal law and put at risk the health and safety of American consumers," Deputy Attorney General James Cole said in a statement on Wednesday. The settlement ensures that Google will reform its "improper advertising practices with regard to these pharmacies while paying one of the largest financial forfeiture penalties in history," Cole said. Google said it "accepts" responsibility for its conduct, acknowledging that it improperly assisted Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to run advertisements on its site. Under the terms of an agreement signed by Google and the government, Google must also undertake a number of compliance and reporting measures to insure it does not indulge in such practices in the future. An investigation by the US Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island had found that Google was aware as early as 2003 that online Canadian pharmacies were advertising prescription drugs to Google users in the US through its AdWords advertising programme. -------------- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Aug 26 07:15:31 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:15:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: If a "local" or "state" jurisdiction is prevented from applying its laws to the internet as it comes within its borders, that does not at all mean that no laws are being applied to that internet stream coming within those borders. As discussed at length in prior threads, there is always "law coming in" - it's just more heavily weighted in contract law and property law, with tort or consumer protection law bearing the brunt of the exclusion of local or state laws, whenever that exclusion happens. If local or state laws are forbidden, think of it this way: the corporate (or non-corporate) internet companies use contract law, especially, to specify which country's laws shall apply to transactions between the parties. This is called a "choice of law" clause. With unhindered freedom of contract (free of consumer protection "hindrances"), these companies get to pick and choose which country's contract laws apply, so long as that country's laws have some modest connection to at least one of the parties to the contract. However, if local or state jurisdictions are deemed to be able to regulate, to that extent these companies have no choice on what laws apply, and they can not use their overpowering contract bargaining power to impose the most favorable laws they can find. With choice of law clauses, there is an incentive for countries to "compete" to provide the most corporate-friendly laws so as to attract their business. (The companies must have a major office or something in that country to support that country being the designated country for choice of law purposes). The above is not an exhaustive analysis of all considerations, but I think not very many people realize this kind of legal/economic perspective does have significant power to influence the perspectives of companies. It's a battle between sovereign countries or democracies exercising self-government and corporations as to Who gets to Dictate the Laws applicable to the internet. If democracies win out, that's self-government (aka democracy). If corporations or companies win out, then they rule the internet. The fundamental question, thus, is: Who's in Charge? People may not like some of the choices legislatures have made or will make. But consider this reality: No country's people are free if they are not free to make MISTAKES. Self-government means not just being able to make laws, but to make even mistaken laws, provided they are not unconstitutional or human rights violations. If one is not free to make mistakes or implement unwise policies, then one is not free, one is living in a managed environment. The managers are the ones that control, and are free... Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/26/11, parminder wrote: > The below may be a good addition to the context in which this list has > been discussing the application of local laws and regulations to global > digital space/ business, vis a vis the power of different countries/ > jurisdiction to apply their law, especially for the more legitimate > purposes as in the below case. > > My point is, will a developing country, especially a small one, be able > to penalise google and make it behave as the UG gov could. (See the > earleir instance of Taipie city government versus google). Is it not a > major global IG issue? > > parminder > > http://governancenow.com/gov-next/egov/google-agrees-usd-500-million-settlement-over-pharmacy-adds > > > Google agrees to USD 500 million settlement over pharmacy adds > > PTI | August 25 2011 > > Internet search giant Google has agreed to pay USD 500 million to settle > charges that it allowed Canadian pharmacies to place ads on its website > that resulted in prescription drugs being imported from Canada to the US > unlawfully. > > The Justice Department said the forfeiture is "one of the largest ever > in the United States" and represents the gross revenue received by > Google as a result of Canadian pharmacies advertising through its > 'AdWords' programme, plus gross revenue made by Canadian pharmacies from > their sales of controlled and non-controlled prescription drugs to US > consumers. > > "The Department of Justice will continue to hold accountable companies > who in their bid for profits violate federal law and put at risk the > health and safety of American consumers," Deputy Attorney General James > Cole said in a statement on Wednesday. > > The settlement ensures that Google will reform its "improper advertising > practices with regard to these pharmacies while paying one of the > largest financial forfeiture penalties in history," Cole said. Google > said it "accepts" responsibility for its conduct, acknowledging that it > improperly assisted Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to run > advertisements on its site. > > Under the terms of an agreement signed by Google and the government, > Google must also undertake a number of compliance and reporting measures > to insure it does not indulge in such practices in the future. > > An investigation by the US Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island had found > that Google was aware as early as 2003 that online Canadian pharmacies > were advertising prescription drugs to Google users in the US through > its AdWords advertising programme. > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Fri Aug 26 07:28:17 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:28:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1314358097437500000@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Dear All, I strongly support the need for a Global Government to define the laws and how it can be implemented across board for a truly International acceptance. Because Paul's question is very very important, "Who is in Charge?" and Parminder's point, "My point is, will a developing country, especially a small one, be able to penalize google and make it behave as the UG gov could. (See the earlier instance of Taipei city government versus google). Is it not a major global IG issue?" Thank you all.-- Sonigitu Ekpe Project Support Officer[Agriculturist] Cross River Farm Credit Scheme Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" Paul Lehto wrote: > If a "local" or "state" jurisdiction is prevented from applying its > laws to the internet as it comes within its borders, that does not at > all mean that no laws are being applied to that internet stream coming > within those borders. As discussed at length in prior threads, there > is always "law coming in" - it's just more heavily weighted in > contract law and property law, with tort or consumer protection law > bearing the brunt of the exclusion of local or state laws, whenever > that exclusion happens. > > If local or state laws are forbidden, think of it this way: the > corporate (or non-corporate) internet companies use contract law, > especially, to specify which country's laws shall apply to > transactions between the parties. This is called a "choice of law" > clause. > > With unhindered freedom of contract (free of consumer protection > "hindrances"), these companies get to pick and choose which country's > contract laws apply, so long as that country's laws have some modest > connection to at least one of the parties to the contract. However, > if local or state jurisdictions are deemed to be able to regulate, to > that extent these companies have no choice on what laws apply, and > they can not use their overpowering contract bargaining power to > impose the most favorable laws they can find. > > With choice of law clauses, there is an incentive for countries to > "compete" to provide the most corporate-friendly laws so as to attract > their business. (The companies must have a major office or something > in that country to support that country being the designated country > for choice of law purposes). > > The above is not an exhaustive analysis of all considerations, but I > think not very many people realize this kind of legal/economic > perspective does have significant power to influence the perspectives > of companies. > > It's a battle between sovereign countries or democracies exercising > self-government and corporations as to Who gets to Dictate the Laws > applicable to the internet. If democracies win out, that's > self-government (aka democracy). If corporations or companies win > out, then they rule the internet. > > The fundamental question, thus, is: Who's in Charge? > > People may not like some of the choices legislatures have made or will > make. But consider this reality: No country's people are free if > they are not free to make MISTAKES. Self-government means not just > being able to make laws, but to make even mistaken laws, provided they > are not unconstitutional or human rights violations. If one is not > free to make mistakes or implement unwise policies, then one is not > free, one is living in a managed environment. The managers are the > ones that control, and are free... > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > > On 8/26/11, parminder wrote: > > The below may be a good addition to the context in which this list has > > been discussing the application of local laws and regulations to global > > digital space/ business, vis a vis the power of different countries/ > > jurisdiction to apply their law, especially for the more legitimate > > purposes as in the below case. > > > > My point is, will a developing country, especially a small one, be able > > to penalise google and make it behave as the UG gov could. (See the > > earleir instance of Taipie city government versus google). Is it not a > > major global IG issue? > > > > parminder > > > > http://governancenow.com/gov-next/egov/google-agrees-usd-500-million-settlement-over-pharmacy-adds > > > > > > Google agrees to USD 500 million settlement over pharmacy adds > > > > PTI | August 25 2011 > > > > Internet search giant Google has agreed to pay USD 500 million to settle > > charges that it allowed Canadian pharmacies to place ads on its website > > that resulted in prescription drugs being imported from Canada to the US > > unlawfully. > > > > The Justice Department said the forfeiture is "one of the largest ever > > in the United States" and represents the gross revenue received by > > Google as a result of Canadian pharmacies advertising through its > > 'AdWords' programme, plus gross revenue made by Canadian pharmacies from > > their sales of controlled and non-controlled prescription drugs to US > > consumers. > > > > "The Department of Justice will continue to hold accountable companies > > who in their bid for profits violate federal law and put at risk the > > health and safety of American consumers," Deputy Attorney General James > > Cole said in a statement on Wednesday. > > > > The settlement ensures that Google will reform its "improper advertising > > practices with regard to these pharmacies while paying one of the > > largest financial forfeiture penalties in history," Cole said. Google > > said it "accepts" responsibility for its conduct, acknowledging that it > > improperly assisted Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to run > > advertisements on its site. > > > > Under the terms of an agreement signed by Google and the government, > > Google must also undertake a number of compliance and reporting measures > > to insure it does not indulge in such practices in the future. > > > > An investigation by the US Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island had found > > that Google was aware as early as 2003 that online Canadian pharmacies > > were advertising prescription drugs to Google users in the US through > > its AdWords advertising programme. > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > __________________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly destroy this message and notify the sender by replying the email in such instances. We do not accept responsibility for any changes made to this message after it was originally sent and any views, opinions, conclusions or other information in this message which do not relate to the business of this firm or are not authorized by us.The Cross River State Government is not liable neither for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt. -------------- 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 Aug 26 07:35:56 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:35:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 8/26/11, Paul Lehto wrote: > > The fundamental question, thus, is: Who's in Charge? The fundamental answer (at least for the last 4 decades is "no one, and everyone"). I'm happy for that to continue. Do we as a Caucus really want to advocate that every state, every municipality can regulate the Internet globally? -- 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 Aug 26 08:32:22 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 18:02:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E579256.1080807@itforchange.net> On Friday 26 August 2011 05:05 PM, McTim wrote: > On 8/26/11, Paul Lehto wrote: > > >> The fundamental question, thus, is: Who's in Charge? > The fundamental answer (at least for the last 4 decades is "no one, > and everyone"). > > I'm happy for that to continue. Do we as a Caucus really want to > advocate that every state, every municipality can regulate the > Internet globally? The option is US alone regulates (along with some allied-interest countries), or as you say every state/ municipality is able to do it, or there is a more democratically decided global (loose and broad) framework of agreed norms and principles, giving enough flexibilities, but perhaps over some predictable calibrated set of options, to states/ municipalities etc. I choose the third option, you cha tell me which one do you choose. 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 daniel at digsys.bg Fri Aug 26 08:47:59 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:47:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E5795FF.5080606@digsys.bg> On 26.08.11 14:35, McTim wrote: > On 8/26/11, Paul Lehto wrote: > > >> The fundamental question, thus, is: Who's in Charge? > The fundamental answer (at least for the last 4 decades is "no one, > and everyone"). > > I'm happy for that to continue. Do we as a Caucus really want to > advocate that every state, every municipality can regulate the > Internet globally? > Imagine say, another country, where Google is not incorporated. Google ads aid in selling illegal "Canadian" drugs. According to the 'government rule' opinion, that country's government should be able to sue Google and/or the "Canadian" drug sellers for breaching their national laws. Has this ever happened? There are lots of things, that Internet makes accessible to anyone, including people whose local government has decided they are not entitled to it. What typically happens is it is the consumer that gets beaten for not assisting the law. If a large company like Google is asked to comply, this of course happens at the cost of appropriate bribe for the appropriate government level. Bribe is not always in money, let's not forget. Another example. Consider the recent events in Africa. What would you prefer, to support the local governments in their applying the LAW in that country. (I will not argue if these are democratic or not, everything is relative in this world) Or do we fight for the freedom of the people and assist them in breaking the LAW in their own countries? Just asking... ;) Daniel PS: By the way, there was a reason why AT&T was split into pieces decades ago. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Aug 26 08:57:44 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:57:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 8/26/11, McTim wrote: > On 8/26/11, Paul Lehto wrote: > > >> >> The fundamental question, thus, is: Who's in Charge? > > The fundamental answer (at least for the last 4 decades is "no one, > and everyone"). "No one, and everyone" is fundamentally a form of legal B.S., if it is meant to be a statement about the application of law, which is what this is about. It has validity only as a form of internet cultural self-talk concerning the claimed ethos of the internet, but bears little resemblance to legal reality on the ground. This is a question of whose law applies, and what subject matters within those laws apply (contract, IP and property only, or consumer protection too?) > I'm happy for that to continue. Do we as a Caucus really want to > advocate that every state, every municipality can regulate the > Internet globally? Right now, real corporations I will say are hypothetically based in China, are coming into my country and regulating the internet backbone or other areas via contract, making foreign law apply. How in the world do these foreign-based businesses do this globally, extending the reach of foreign law FAR outside its home country? Well, I just told everyone how: with choice of law clauses, enforceable in domestic courts in my country. We could also ask: should this be allowed? Do we as a Caucus really want to advocate that every business corporation can regulate the internet globally? What a chaos! The question, again, is Who is In Charge? Democracy(ies) or business (corporations, mostly)? Basically, business interests and their supporters are saying "democracies can be allowed to be in charge more or less for purposes of contract property and IP laws. But as to consumer protection laws? That's an outrageous patchwork of confusion! Oh my! We can not tolerate democratic consumer protection laws! To which i say: Please.....the sky is not falling. Let's talk about the real issue. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 18:03:01 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:03:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 14:35:56 on Fri, 26 Aug 2011, McTim writes >Do we as a Caucus really want to advocate that every state, every >municipality can regulate the Internet globally? They already regulate the content that their citizens can access, wherever in the world that content is. This is no different (for example) to existing laws regarding cross-border selling using traditional methods. This should be no surprise, and although harmonising the laws would arguably make things easier for users, it's going to be difficult to persuade governments to take similar views on content such as "XXX", gambling, pharmaceuticals etc. -- 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 Fri Aug 26 18:13:44 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:13:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E5795FF.5080606@digsys.bg> References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> <4E5795FF.5080606@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4E5795FF.5080606 at digsys.bg>, at 15:47:59 on Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >According to the 'government rule' opinion, that country's government >should be able to sue Google and/or the "Canadian" drug sellers for >breaching their national laws. Has this ever happened? There are lots >of things, that Internet makes accessible to anyone, including people >whose local government has decided they are not entitled to it. >What typically happens is it is the consumer that gets beaten for not >assisting the law. Pharmaceuticals are an interesting case because what's normally being regulated is the ability to prescribe them, not the consumption. Therefore, there are some pharmaceuticals which are available "over the counter" in some countries, but a Doctor's prescription is required in other countries. Similarly there are certain pharmaceuticals which are available by Doctor's prescription in some countries, but only if you are on a clinical trial in other countries (where the regulator has not yet determined that they are safe to use). If the medical community, which is relatively joined-up worldwide, has not been able to harmonise these things yet, I'm not sure that those of us in the Internet Governance space can do much to help. -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Aug 26 19:42:56 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:42:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> <4E5795FF.5080606@digsys.bg> Message-ID: The issues are more complex than this, but this is my attempt to reduce the debate to get to the crux of what and how to address the debate: *Should there be a global global governance mechanism that creates the law to regulate all States/ multinationals etc?* or *Should there be mechanisms which allows for countries to adopt global best practices?* Both in my mind already exist in parts...To a large extent this exists through Mutilateral or Bilateral agreements between nation states and the existence of international and regional standards. If countries are sovereign and choose to regulate as they please which is their sovereign right to do, self determination provided that it does not infringe what universally is agreed as "acceptable conduct". Even with Human Rights debates and discussions/disourse there are diverse views on jurisprudence such as the universalism vrs cultural relativism debate. There will always be diverse views, the question is how do we come up with clear feasible solutions. We just have to build capacity locally, learn from strengths and weaknesses of those who have developed and draw from the good, discard the bad. This is why the IGF and the multistakeholder process is relevant to developing countries. Sala On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <4E5795FF.5080606 at digsys.bg>, at 15:47:59 on Fri, 26 Aug 2011, > Daniel Kalchev writes > > According to the 'government rule' opinion, that country's government >> should be able to sue Google and/or the "Canadian" drug sellers for >> breaching their national laws. Has this ever happened? There are lots of >> things, that Internet makes accessible to anyone, including people whose >> local government has decided they are not entitled to it. >> What typically happens is it is the consumer that gets beaten for not >> assisting the law. >> > > Pharmaceuticals are an interesting case because what's normally being > regulated is the ability to prescribe them, not the consumption. > > Therefore, there are some pharmaceuticals which are available "over the > counter" in some countries, but a Doctor's prescription is required in other > countries. Similarly there are certain pharmaceuticals which are available > by Doctor's prescription in some countries, but only if you are on a > clinical trial in other countries (where the regulator has not yet > determined that they are safe to use). > > If the medical community, which is relatively joined-up worldwide, has not > been able to harmonise these things yet, I'm not sure that those of us in > the Internet Governance space can do much to help. > -- > 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 > > -- Sala " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- 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 Aug 26 23:52:28 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 06:52:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> <4E5795FF.5080606@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > The issues are more complex than this, but this is my attempt to reduce the > debate to get to the crux of what and how to address the debate: > > *Should there be a global global governance mechanism that creates the law > to regulate all States/ multinationals etc?* > > or > > *Should there be mechanisms which allows for countries to adopt global > best practices?* > This survey asks a slightly different question: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/the_fp_survey_the_internet?page=0,6 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > Both in my mind already exist in parts...To a large extent this exists > through Mutilateral or Bilateral agreements between nation states and the > existence of international and regional standards. > > If countries are sovereign and choose to regulate as they please which is > their sovereign right to do, self determination provided that it does not > infringe what universally is agreed as "acceptable conduct". Even with Human > Rights debates and discussions/disourse there are diverse views on > jurisprudence such as the universalism vrs cultural relativism debate. > There will always be diverse views, the question is how do we come up with > clear feasible solutions. > > We just have to build capacity locally, learn from strengths and weaknesses > of those who have developed and draw from the good, discard the bad. This is > why the IGF and the multistakeholder process is relevant to developing > countries. > > Sala > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message <4E5795FF.5080606 at digsys.bg>, at 15:47:59 on Fri, 26 Aug 2011, >> Daniel Kalchev writes >> >> According to the 'government rule' opinion, that country's government >>> should be able to sue Google and/or the "Canadian" drug sellers for >>> breaching their national laws. Has this ever happened? There are lots of >>> things, that Internet makes accessible to anyone, including people whose >>> local government has decided they are not entitled to it. >>> What typically happens is it is the consumer that gets beaten for not >>> assisting the law. >>> >> >> Pharmaceuticals are an interesting case because what's normally being >> regulated is the ability to prescribe them, not the consumption. >> >> Therefore, there are some pharmaceuticals which are available "over the >> counter" in some countries, but a Doctor's prescription is required in other >> countries. Similarly there are certain pharmaceuticals which are available >> by Doctor's prescription in some countries, but only if you are on a >> clinical trial in other countries (where the regulator has not yet >> determined that they are safe to use). >> >> If the medical community, which is relatively joined-up worldwide, has not >> been able to harmonise these things yet, I'm not sure that those of us in >> the Internet Governance space can do much to help. >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Sala > > " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Aug 27 04:27:24 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 11:27:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> <4E5795FF.5080606@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E58AA6C.7090608@gmail.com> I think it is important that the issue of pharmaceuticals regulation on the internet be treated with caution - there the issue is being used along with efforts by BigPharma to prevent parallel importation (and not consumer protection). And regarding choice of laws, I am not convinced that it is as easily resolvable as all that. As Nader in the US has pointed out, why is it we accept contractual terms set in fine print etc for regulation of most of our arrangements - and many of these terms contract out of consumer protection or benefits that the law would provide (example waivers etc). But in common law (roman dutch jurisdictions) contractual liability can attach, notwithstanding claims of choice of laws in some cases, where the contract was entered into, where either party resides, and where there is a the possibility of not rendering an empty verdict (like getting a judgement and then seeking enforcement of that judgement in a foreign jurisdiction). While contractual claims may be difficult, it is the violation of "fair contracting" terms that (consumer protection) etc that makes liability issues a global concern. And hence something that puts poorer countries at disadvantage. Riaz On 2011/08/27 01:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4E5795FF.5080606 at digsys.bg>, at 15:47:59 on Fri, 26 Aug > 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >> According to the 'government rule' opinion, that country's government >> should be able to sue Google and/or the "Canadian" drug sellers for >> breaching their national laws. Has this ever happened? There are lots >> of things, that Internet makes accessible to anyone, including people >> whose local government has decided they are not entitled to it. >> What typically happens is it is the consumer that gets beaten for not >> assisting the law. > > Pharmaceuticals are an interesting case because what's normally being > regulated is the ability to prescribe them, not the consumption. > > Therefore, there are some pharmaceuticals which are available "over > the counter" in some countries, but a Doctor's prescription is > required in other countries. Similarly there are certain > pharmaceuticals which are available by Doctor's prescription in some > countries, but only if you are on a clinical trial in other countries > (where the regulator has not yet determined that they are safe to use). > > If the medical community, which is relatively joined-up worldwide, has > not been able to harmonise these things yet, I'm not sure that those > of us in the Internet Governance space can do much to help. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 27 05:42:43 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:12:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E58AA6C.7090608@gmail.com> References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> <4E5795FF.5080606@digsys.bg> <4E58AA6C.7090608@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E58BC13.3090901@itforchange.net> Riaz The merits of any particular law being applied is not the issue here. It is the right of political communities to have systems to govern themselves, and not be subject to the dictates/ laws of the most powerful, vis a vis whom people subject to the power/ laws have no right of representation or redress. A position on this second issue, which is the intended one in the present thread, is imp to take, whatever it may be. It should not be confused with a discussion on the actual merits of a particular law. (In the present case, you may have a point, but what do you thus imply. US gov should not be able to apply its politically developed laws to acts taking place within its boundaries in an area as crucial to public interest as health. Improving these laws, and removing the influence of special interest is an entirely different issue which we would of course agree on.) ... parminder On Saturday 27 August 2011 01:57 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > I think it is important that the issue of pharmaceuticals regulation > on the internet be treated with caution - there the issue is being > used along with efforts by BigPharma to prevent parallel importation > (and not consumer protection). > > And regarding choice of laws, I am not convinced that it is as easily > resolvable as all that. > > As Nader in the US has pointed out, why is it we accept contractual > terms set in fine print etc for regulation of most of our arrangements > - and many of these terms contract out of consumer protection or > benefits that the law would provide (example waivers etc). But in > common law (roman dutch jurisdictions) contractual liability can > attach, notwithstanding claims of choice of laws in some cases, where > the contract was entered into, where either party resides, and where > there is a the possibility of not rendering an empty verdict (like > getting a judgement and then seeking enforcement of that judgement in > a foreign jurisdiction). While contractual claims may be difficult, it > is the violation of "fair contracting" terms that (consumer > protection) etc that makes liability issues a global concern. And > hence something that puts poorer countries at disadvantage. > > Riaz > > On 2011/08/27 01:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4E5795FF.5080606 at digsys.bg>, at 15:47:59 on Fri, 26 Aug >> 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >>> According to the 'government rule' opinion, that country's >>> government should be able to sue Google and/or the "Canadian" drug >>> sellers for breaching their national laws. Has this ever happened? >>> There are lots of things, that Internet makes accessible to anyone, >>> including people whose local government has decided they are not >>> entitled to it. >>> What typically happens is it is the consumer that gets beaten for >>> not assisting the law. >> >> Pharmaceuticals are an interesting case because what's normally being >> regulated is the ability to prescribe them, not the consumption. >> >> Therefore, there are some pharmaceuticals which are available "over >> the counter" in some countries, but a Doctor's prescription is >> required in other countries. Similarly there are certain >> pharmaceuticals which are available by Doctor's prescription in some >> countries, but only if you are on a clinical trial in other countries >> (where the regulator has not yet determined that they are safe to use). >> >> If the medical community, which is relatively joined-up worldwide, >> has not been able to harmonise these things yet, I'm not sure that >> those of us in the Internet Governance space can do much to help. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Sat Aug 27 10:03:35 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:03:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E58AA6C.7090608@gmail.com> References: <4E575B21.7060206@itforchange.net> <4E5795FF.5080606@digsys.bg> <4E58AA6C.7090608@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4qQNPxV3kPWOFA3i@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4E58AA6C.7090608 at gmail.com>, at 11:27:24 on Sat, 27 Aug 2011, Riaz K Tayob writes >I think it is important that the issue of pharmaceuticals regulation on >the internet be treated with caution - there the issue is being used >along with efforts by BigPharma to prevent parallel importation (and >not consumer protection). There are trade barriers in many industries, which pre-date the arrival of the Internet. But the Internet allows us more easily to research where to purchase items which will have the least barrier to importation to our countries. >And regarding choice of laws, I am not convinced that it is as easily >resolvable as all that. Because items have to pass through national customs posts, it's the local laws which apply. >As Nader in the US has pointed out, why is it we accept contractual >terms set in fine print etc for regulation of most of our arrangements >- and many of these terms contract out of consumer protection or >benefits that the law would provide (example waivers etc). That also depends on the jurisdiction. In the UK there are several circumstances where laws prohibit contracts from waiving your legal rights. -- 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 Sat Aug 27 10:42:36 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:12:36 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: Re: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not Message-ID: <4E59025C.1020409@itforchange.net> This email seems to meant for the IGC list and got marked by mistake to my id alone. And I think i makes some very important points. One of which is that global harmonisation should increase rather than decrease outcomes on public interest. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Re: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:39:33 +0200 (CEST) From: marie.georges at noos.fr To: parminder Hi every one May I add to the discussion the basic reference to the discussed matter which is the worldwide rule relating to the free trade of goods and services contained in the The General Agreement on Trade in Services (**GATS**) , the treaty of the*World Trade Organization*(**WTO**), that entered into force in January 1995 as a result of the Uruguay Round. Article XIV of this general agreement provides for an agreed list of public interests grounds on the basis of which States are allowed to forbid importation of goods and services which are not complying with national laws. The adoption of that article made the success of the GATS Interesting enough is one those grounds: health (another is data protection....) That is why the only way to prevent obstacles from the "free flow..;" is "harmonization". That is why in the EU, and other regional organizations, such harmonization are set up. Secondly in those fields as in the Human rights field, the harmonization needed to allow the "free flow.." has to be "on a high level", which means that the harmonized system of protection cant lead to lower the level of protection insured prior to it in the concerned States. ---- Message d'origine ---- De : "parminder" À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : Re: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not Date : 27/08/2011 11:42:43 CEST Riaz The merits of any particular law being applied is not the issue here. It is the right of political communities to have systems to govern themselves, and not be subject to the dictates/ laws of the most powerful, vis a vis whom people subject to the power/ laws have no right of representation or redress. A position on this second issue, which is the intended one in the present thread, is imp to take, whatever it may be. It should not be confused with a discussion on the actual merits of a particular law. (In the present case, you may have a point, but what do you thus imply. US gov should not be able to apply its politically developed laws to acts taking place within its boundaries in an area as crucial to public interest as health. Improving these laws, and removing the influence of special interest is an entirely different issue which we would of course agree on.) ... parminder On Saturday 27 August 2011 01:57 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > I think it is important that the issue of pharmaceuticals regulation > on the internet be treated with caution - there the issue is being > used along with efforts by BigPharma to prevent parallel importation > (and not consumer protection). > > And regarding choice of laws, I am not convinced that it is as easily > resolvable as all that. > > As Nader in the US has pointed out, why is it we accept contractual > terms set in fine print etc for regulation of most of our arrangements > - and many of these terms contract out of consumer protection or > benefits that the law would provide (example waivers etc). But in > common law (roman dutch jurisdictions) contractual liability can > attach, notwithstanding claims of choice of laws in some cases, where > the contract was entered into, where either party resides, and where > there is a the possibility of not rendering an empty verdict (like > getting a judgement and then seeking enforcement of that judgement in > a foreign jurisdiction). While contractual claims may be difficult, it > is the violation of "fair contracting" terms that (consumer > protection) etc that makes liability issues a global concern. And > hence something that puts poorer countries at disadvantage. > > Riaz > > On 2011/08/27 01:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4E5795FF.5080606 at digsys.bg>, at 15:47:59 on Fri, 26 Aug >> 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >>> According to the 'government rule' opinion, that country's >>> government should be able to sue Google and/or the "Canadian" drug >>> sellers for breaching their national laws. Has this ever happened? >>> There are lots of things, that Internet makes accessible to anyone, >>> including people whose local government has decided they are not >>> entitled to it. >>> What typically happens is it is the consumer that gets beaten for >>> not assisting the law. >> >> Pharmaceuticals are an interesting case because what's normally being >> regulated is the ability to prescribe them, not the consumption. >> >> Therefore, there are some pharmaceuticals which are available "over >> the counter" in some countries, but a Doctor's prescription is >> required in other countries. Similarly there are certain >> pharmaceuticals which are available by Doctor's prescription in some >> countries, but only if you are on a clinical trial in other countries >> (where the regulator has not yet determined that they are safe to use). >> >> If the medical community, which is relatively joined-up worldwide, >> has not been able to harmonise these things yet, I'm not sure that >> those of us in the Internet Governance space can do much to help. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Sat Aug 27 11:40:04 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:40:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Question for those in the US Message-ID: Dear All, I am watching on CNN how Hurricane Irene is sweeping through the United States of America particularly New York and North Carolina. Firstly, I hope you are all safe and ok. Hurricanes often affect the Pacific and it is interesting to see it affect the US and am wondering whether this is out of the ordinary for the US. I was wondering whether your internet connections are affected via the Hurricane. Keep safe and stay well. Best wishes from Busan, Korea at APNIC 32. -- Sala " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 27 11:46:01 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 11:46:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Question for those in the US In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Salanieta, thank you for your concern! I'm in Cambridge, MA, and Irene will supposedly have slowed down when it passes us. But I'll let you know if our internet actually goes offline. Best, Ivar On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:40, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I am watching on CNN how Hurricane Irene is sweeping through the > United States of America particularly New York and North Carolina. > Firstly, I hope you are all safe and ok. Hurricanes often affect the > Pacific and it is interesting to see it affect the US and am wondering > whether this is out of the ordinary for the US. > > I was wondering whether your internet connections are affected via the > Hurricane. > > Keep safe and stay well. > > Best wishes from Busan, Korea at APNIC 32. > > -- > Sala > > " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 27 13:38:57 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 10:38:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: IMHO (and following Sala, Paul, Parminder et al... The issue is not who/how should "regulate the Internet" but rather who/how can regulate commerce and the flow of goods, money, people, and information in an Internet enabled world. As we are seeing on this list and in the real world the difficulties of regulating activities in these areas both at the intra-national, national and global levels are rapidly outrunning the capacity of existing instrumentalities to respond. National and global instititutions are currently going through various convoluted and ultimately futile processes to attempt to adapt. New institutions are, as we speak, in the process of being developed. The role of Civil Society in this is not IMHO to argue about how existing institutions can adapt (or not) but rather to be working towards global institutions that reflect the basic values of civil society -- democratic governance, accountability, transparency, and so on. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 8:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: The issues are more complex than this, but this is my attempt to reduce the debate to get to the crux of what and how to address the debate: Should there be a global global governance mechanism that creates the law to regulate all States/ multinationals etc? or Should there be mechanisms which allows for countries to adopt global best practices? This survey asks a slightly different question: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/the_fp_survey_the_internet? page=0,6 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel Both in my mind already exist in parts...To a large extent this exists through Mutilateral or Bilateral agreements between nation states and the existence of international and regional standards. If countries are sovereign and choose to regulate as they please which is their sovereign right to do, self determination provided that it does not infringe what universally is agreed as "acceptable conduct". Even with Human Rights debates and discussions/disourse there are diverse views on jurisprudence such as the universalism vrs cultural relativism debate. There will always be diverse views, the question is how do we come up with clear feasible solutions. We just have to build capacity locally, learn from strengths and weaknesses of those who have developed and draw from the good, discard the bad. This is why the IGF and the multistakeholder process is relevant to developing countries. Sala On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Roland Perry wrote: In message <4E5795FF.5080606 at digsys.bg>, at 15:47:59 on Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes According to the 'government rule' opinion, that country's government should be able to sue Google and/or the "Canadian" drug sellers for breaching their national laws. Has this ever happened? There are lots of things, that Internet makes accessible to anyone, including people whose local government has decided they are not entitled to it. What typically happens is it is the consumer that gets beaten for not assisting the law. Pharmaceuticals are an interesting case because what's normally being regulated is the ability to prescribe them, not the consumption. Therefore, there are some pharmaceuticals which are available "over the counter" in some countries, but a Doctor's prescription is required in other countries. Similarly there are certain pharmaceuticals which are available by Doctor's prescription in some countries, but only if you are on a clinical trial in other countries (where the regulator has not yet determined that they are safe to use). If the medical community, which is relatively joined-up worldwide, has not been able to harmonise these things yet, I'm not sure that those of us in the Internet Governance space can do much to help. -- 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 -- Sala " Perfect Stillness in the midst of the noise". ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Aug 27 15:01:21 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:01:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8/27/11, michael gurstein wrote: > IMHO (and following Sala, Paul, Parminder et al...) > The issue is not who/how should "regulate the Internet" but rather who/how > can regulate commerce and the flow of goods, money, people, and information > in an Internet enabled world. If that's really the case, then your suggestion here amounts to placing this group's task beyond any reasonable scope of the charter, because "commerce and the flow of goods, money, people and information" implicates (respectively), WTO and GATT (flow of goods), registration requirements in the USA for example for every dollar that flows in or out of the country (flow of money), immigration law at national borders (flow of people), and trade secrecy law among other topics (flow of information, especially restricted at national borders with trade secrecy/industrial espionage involved). Now, given that the flow of goods, money, people and owned-information is fairly heavily regulated by almost all nation-states for usually but not always good reasons, why would we have any cause for despairing of the "difficulty" of internet policy or law? Crime, for example, has always been with us in all of these areas, and yet nobody is complaining that the efforts of governments in the area of criminal law is so fraught with difficulty that it ought not be attempted. Yet the suggestion of something quite like that is made here on this list with regard to the internet. Difficult! Impossible! The tech policy of free countries has been to experiment with nature and culture by releasing technologies and then letting the law and science catch up with the impacts caused by the technologies. The argument that one ought to give up -- or at least find very "difficult" -- the project of getting the law to do its perennial task of catching up in the context of the global internet -- just because of the varying approaches of all the different countries) is a concern or objection not often heard in the area of goods in commerce (WTO treaties, etc), immigration laws, flow of information, or the flow of money. In all of these areas, governments eventually all over the world get to work and pass a fragmented, diverse, and "chaotically varying" set of laws around the world, and nobody's seriously saying we can't regulate commerce, immigration, money or owned-information that way. But when it comes to consumer protection on the internet, it seems some think we need to draw the line here. We can't tolerate allowing democracies to have varying consumer protection laws, can we? :) > As we are seeing on this list and in the real world the difficulties of > regulating activities in these areas both at the intra-national, national > and global levels are rapidly outrunning the capacity of existing > instrumentalities to respond. No, not really. "Existing instrumentalities" are unavoidably and inherently behind the pace to the extent technology is allowed free introduction to society without permits, which it nearly always is. > National and global instititutions are > currently going through various convoluted and ultimately futile processes > to attempt to adapt. Futile? One certainly wants to give up when faced with futility. However, there are few or no signs of giving up on the regulation of global commerce by nations, immigration, money or information-ownership regulation (IP law). The criminal law is "convoluted and ultimately futile" process if the goal is to eliminate crime. Should we give up on that futile project of the criminal law? > New institutions are, as we speak, in the process of > being developed. > The role of Civil Society in this is not IMHO to argue about how existing > institutions can adapt (or not) but rather to be working towards global > institutions that reflect the basic values of civil society -- democratic > governance, accountability, transparency, and so on. Such global institutions, if democratic in nature, would be legitimate but not necessary for good internet policy amongst existing nation states. If anyone thinks that projecting influence or power of civil society is hard on the national governmental level, just try projecting power or influence on a worldwide or global level, which is even harder. Without paying strict attention to the full requirements of real democracy, a globalized internet policy entity that nevertheless has real legislative power (unlike us) is virtually guaranteed to be dominated by business interests involved with the internet because only they can cost justify the levels of investment necessary to be a player in that global governance game. Real grass roots folks have no incentive to participate from a practical standpoint, but many do because of the love of the issues or their importance. Basically, without real global democracy, you have a PROFESSIONAL, FULL-TIME business interest consortium that pays people to do policy and governance, against a VOLUNTEER PART TIME force of grass roots activists. There's no fair match here, unless we can call the question and submit it to a vote of the people. Paul Lehto, J.D. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 28 21:44:43 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:44:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Question for those in the US In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <175C34E4-78A3-432D-859D-ECACC7BF1CD0@arin.net> On Aug 27, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > I am watching on CNN how Hurricane Irene is sweeping through the > United States of America particularly New York and North Carolina. > Firstly, I hope you are all safe and ok. Hurricanes often affect the > Pacific and it is interesting to see it affect the US and am wondering > whether this is out of the ordinary for the US. There are usually a dozen or so atlantic tropical storm system on the eastern US seaboard every season (June to October), but most are only tropical storms and not hurricanes (> 75 mph winds) There are one or two of hurricane strength that make landfall in a typical season. In this manner, Irene is not all that unusual. The unusual aspect of Irene is that the storm track was not the typical one heading straight ashore, but instead a sweeping arc which basically hit every eastern seaboard city from N. Carolina up to and including New York City. This is not typical (and when combined with the potential strength of the storm) and caused a high level of attention to the potential for widespread damage. It appears to have lost quite a bit of strength before making landfall, and that is good for all involved. > I was wondering whether your internet connections are affected via the > Hurricane. I'm not hearing reports of significant outages in the N. Virginia/DC area, nor on the various operator mailing lists. FYI, /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 daniel at digsys.bg Mon Aug 29 02:04:36 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:04:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> On 27.08.11 22:01, Paul Lehto wrote: > Basically, without real global democracy, you have a PROFESSIONAL, > FULL-TIME business interest consortium that pays people to do policy > and governance, against a VOLUNTEER PART TIME force of grass roots > activists. There's no fair match here, unless we can call the question > and submit it to a vote of the people. Paul Lehto, J.D. Then, human life is short. Even the most prominent activists realize at one point, that life is going on, with or without their "efforts". Most "volunteers" eventually end up in a chair high enough in the "governance" mesh and once there, forget how it was in the grass roots. Handful of people are bright enough to survive this temptation, but as a rule those people are not interested. Otherwise, I agree with you: however imperfect, the current multi-national system of governance works. It regulates more or less global trade, immigration etc. But it does not regulate the Internet. Not because of lack of desire, but because nobody in these 'governmental' structures understands Internet. You cannot regulate or police something that you don't understand. Daniel PS: 'real global democracy' is utopia, much like the 'advanced socialism' or 'communism' are. If only because these utopian ideas ignore the human nature. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 07:26:29 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:26:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> (message from Daniel Kalchev on Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:04:36 +0300) References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Daniel Kalchev wrote: > however imperfect, the current > multi-national system of governance works. It regulates more or less > global trade, immigration etc. But it does not regulate the Internet. > Not because of lack of desire, but because nobody in these > 'governmental' structures understands Internet. I'm getting the impression though that in a lot of countries, the executive, legislative and judicative branches of government are no longer willing to leave the Internet alone. I think that there are several reasons for this trend: On one hand, the Internet is becoming so dramatically practically important that it makes less and less sense to try to regulate trade, communications, etc, while not regulating the Internet. On the other hand, the "we don't understand the Internet" caution among the people in the 'governmental' structures is fading. > You cannot regulate or police something that you don't understand. It is however easily possible to create quite a lot of messy human rights violations and other injustices by trying to regulate and police the Internet without valid understanding. Superficial understanding is a dangerous thing, especially in the context of a highly complex system which is a lifeline for many people. 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 jpohle at vub.ac.be Mon Aug 29 08:06:47 2011 From: jpohle at vub.ac.be (Julia Pohle) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:06:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program and registration for GigaNet Annual Symposium, 26 September 2011 In-Reply-To: <4E5B7EAA.5080504@googlemail.com> References: <4E4CFFF4.3010904@vub.ac.be> <4E5B7EAA.5080504@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <4E5B80D7.9070309@vub.ac.be> > > > *GigaNet Sixth Annual Symposium* > > *UNON complex, Nairobi, Kenya, Room 4 > * > > *September 26, 2011* > > The *Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)* will hold > its Sixth Annual Symposium on 26 September 2011, one day before the > United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Nairobi, Kenya. > > Since 2006, GigaNet has organized an Annual Symposium to showcase > research about Internet Governance, focusing on an interdisciplinary > approach. Prior successful symposia took place in Greece (2006), > Brazil (2007), India (2008), Egypt (2009) and Lithuania (2010). In > 2011, the Internet Governance Forum has entered its second phase, > after having reached the end of its first 5-years mandate. This year's > event will provide room to discuss the challenges encountered and > results achieved during the first five years of IGF. As in previous > years the GigaNet Symposium will further discuss current and future > questions of Global Internet Governance. > > > *GigaNet*is a scholarly community that promotes the development of > Internet Governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study > and facilitates informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters > between scholars and governments, international organizations, the > private sector and civil society. http://giga-net.org/ > > The symposium will be organized in co-operation with *Research ICT > Africa (RIA)*. RIA is a network of researchers in 20 African countries > conducting research on ICT policy and regulation and facilitating > evidence-based and informed policy making for improved access, use and > application of ICT for social development and economic growth. > http://www.researchictafrica.net/ > > > > *Registration* > > Registration is free of charge. If you are planning to either attend > in person or remotely participate, please register at > http://www.amiando.com/giganet2011 > > or send an email to jpohle at vub.ac.be. > > * > Preliminary program* > Please check http://giga-net.org/page/2011-annual-symposium for > program updates > > ** > > *9.00-9.15: Introduction & Welcome > > * > > *9.15-11.00 Panel 1: Internet Governance Processes and Institutions* > > * *Jeremy Malcolm* (Consumers International): Arresting the decline > of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance ** > ** > * *Shawn Gunnarson* (Kirton & McConkie): Theorizing fact-based > policy development at ICANN** > * *Gitte Stald* (IT University of Copenhagen): EU Kids online. > Informing evidence-based policy for children's online > opportunities and risks > > *11.00-11.15: Coffee > > * > > *11.15-12.15: Roundtable on the state of Internet Governance Research > and Practice in Africa* > **Participants to be confirmed later. > > *12.15-13.45: Lunch* > > > *13.45-15.15: Panel 2: Theories of Internet Governance* > > * *Biel Perez* (Open University of Catalonia): Constitutionalism, > global administrative law and the global internet governance** > * *Caroline Agguerre* (Universidad de San Andres): Internet > communities in Argentina and Brazil. Origins, networks and > institutional development > * *John Gathegi* (University of South Florida): Internet anonymity, > reputation and freedom of speech. The US legal landscape. > > * > 15.15-15.30: Coffee** > > * > > *15.30- 17.00: Panel 3: Internet Rights and Repression* > > * *Matthias C. Ketteman* (University of Graz): The legality of > internet blackouts in times of crisis. An assessment at the > intersection of human rights law, humanitarian law and internet > governance principles > * *Sanja Kelly & Sarah Cook* (Freedom House): New technologies, > Innovative repression. Growing threats to Internet freedom > * *Robert Bodle* (College of Mount St. Joseph): Upholding online > anonymity in Internet governance. Affordances, ethical frameworks, > and regulatory practices* > > * > > *17.15-18.15: Roundtable* *on the state of Internet Rights* > Roundtable jointly organized by GigaNet and APC. Participants to be > confirmed later. > > > > *GigaNet 2011 Program Committee* > > * Leo Van Audenhove -- PC Chair, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium > * Roy Balleste -- St. Thomas University, Miami, USA > * William Drake - University of Zurich, Switzerland > * Dmitry Epstein -- Cornell University, USA > * Marianne Franklin -- Goldsmiths University London, UK > * Raquel Gatto -- Catholic University of São Paulo, Brazil > * Alison Gillwald -- Director Research ICT Africa > * Nanette Levinson -- American University, USA > * Milton Mueller -- Syracuse University, USA > * Rolf H. Weber -- University of Zurich, Switzerland > > *Contact* > > If you have any question related to the symposium, please e-mail the > Program Committee Chair: leo.van.audenhove at vub.ac.be > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > *Julia Pohle* | Researcher > > *SMIT, Studies on Media, Information and Telecommunication* > Vrije Universiteit Brussel > > Julia.Pohle at vub.ac.be > office: +32 2 629 16 32 > mobile: +32 488 596721 > > Pleinlaan 9 | 1050 Brussels | Belgium > http://www.vub.ac.be | http://smit.vub.ac.be > > _______________________________________________________________ -------------- 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 Mon Aug 29 08:08:51 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:08:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: (message from Paul Lehto on Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:01:21 -0400) References: Message-ID: <20110829120851.89C5615C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Paul Lehto wrote: > Basically, without real global democracy, you have a PROFESSIONAL, > FULL-TIME business interest consortium that pays people to do policy > and governance, against a VOLUNTEER PART TIME force of grass roots > activists. There's no fair match here, unless we can call the > question and submit it to a vote of the people. IMO, with any global governance system, great caution should be taken to avoid giving it too much power. Even in governance systems that are intended to be democratic, the possibility of obvious or covert power grabs can never be completely rules out. (I'm not talking about unreasonable conspiracy theories here. History is full of examples. And if you include in the "power grab" scenarios the very typical situations of regulators paying just a bit too much attention to what industry lobbyists are saying, it becomes very difficult to find any country where this kind of thing is not happening right now.) The fact that there multiple (quite a few) countries provides an important corrective, in several ways: Different countries will (to some degree) try different policies, resulting in greater understanding of the effects of various policies. Well-educated people often have the possisbility to emigrating to a country where they like the political system better, and will be able to publish critical literature while in such a country. All this would be lost by establishing a global government, even if strong efforts are made to make it a democratic government. That said, I like the indea of an "international internet parliament", provided the scope of decidion-making in that parliament is limited to questions which really need to be addressed globally. I would point out though that there's a clear non sequitur in Paul's argument. There's no reason why the problem of the current undue influence of professional corporate lobbyists couldn't be countered in other ways. In fact there's no reason why, especially in countries with democratic governance system, national governments can't wise up to the problem and pay people to really represent the public interest, advocate for human rights, etc, in those fora. Of course mechanisms need to be put in place to unmask and discredit and fire those who would represent corporate particular interests while pretending to represent the public interest. This happens in the scientific community to people who tell pseudo-scientific lies in order to further a corporate agenda, and I'm sure that it is possible to establish similar mechanisms also in the area of "government funded public interest advocacy" that I'm proposing. Furthermore, establishing this kind of thing would not require convincing national governments to let go of a very significant part of their power, which is a precondition for any "global democrary". So I would argue that the obstacles against this kind of solution strategy are less that the obstacles to implementing any kind of global democracy. 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Aug 29 09:48:55 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:48:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE at quill.bollow.ch>, at 13:26:29 on Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Norbert Bollow writes >> however imperfect, the current >> multi-national system of governance works. It regulates more or less >> global trade, immigration etc. But it does not regulate the Internet. >> Not because of lack of desire, but because nobody in these >> 'governmental' structures understands Internet. > >I'm getting the impression though that in a lot of countries, >the executive, legislative and judicative branches of government >are no longer willing to leave the Internet alone. Depending on the country, this has been going on for at least 10-15 years. What normally happens is some branch of government, regulation or law enforcement wakes up to the fact that a traditional harm in their country (eg tobacco advertising or unregulated child adoption agencies) seems to be flourishing "on the Internet" and they can't see why the "perpetrators" concerned should be exempt, just because they use the Internet rather than (eg newspapers and television) to ply their trade. -- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 29 10:36:26 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:36:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 8/29/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >>> however imperfect, the current >>> multi-national system of governance works. It regulates more or less >>> global trade, immigration etc. But it does not regulate the Internet. >>> Not because of lack of desire, but because nobody in these >>> 'governmental' structures understands Internet. "Understanding the internet" in some technical or even metaphysical way is definitely *not* a prerequisite to regulation. Given the instances where bills that do in fact become law and regulation are claimed to be neither read by the representatives nor understood by them, we have many examples of failure to understand a system combined with actual regulation. This being said, in a few cases at least, it's entirely possible that claiming one never read a bill prior to passage might be an "ignorance is bliss" defense for what in fact WAS understood, even if understood through an analysis of the bill written by a staffer or some public policy organization, rather than reading the bill itself. At least in my country, much is regularly made about "not reading a bill", referring both to congress not reading bills and to voters about to lobby congress having not read a bill. But the fact is that "reading a bill" often times makes the reader more dangerous because they think they understand it and are informed, when in fact only a relatively sophisticated legal analysis about how the bill will interact with and shift the kaleidoscope of the law in that area will give a person a real idea about what the bill truly means. This means that even a person with a Ph.D. in the native language will not really understand many complicated bills, no matter how carefully they read it. This is a symptom of a probably-necessary over-reliance on a group of experts known as lawyers (or those trained in the law). That being said, voters can choose their expert interpreters of proposed legislation from the various politicians and interest groups out there, all of whom have lawyers studying the bill, and thus become reasonably well informed in that manner. > -- > 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 > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Aug 29 10:59:25 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:59:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> On 29.08.11 17:36, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 8/29/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >>>> however imperfect, the current >>>> multi-national system of governance works. It regulates more or less >>>> global trade, immigration etc. But it does not regulate the Internet. >>>> Not because of lack of desire, but because nobody in these >>>> 'governmental' structures understands Internet. > "Understanding the internet" in some technical or even metaphysical > way is definitely *not* a prerequisite to regulation. > You are correct Paul. Ignorance is not Internet-specific attribute. However "Internet" -- not the collection of wires -- is different in that it is very new as a concept to regulators. (unless you embrace some of the concepts that I outlined in earlier discussions -- that make it well known, from ages to the human civilization, just incompatible with modern "democratic" governance models) It is also particularly troublesome to regulators, because they chose, almost without exception, to ignore it's existence under the influence and guidance of the PTT-types (this is why I mentioned the role of ITU earlier, those are/were very closely tied to Governments and other regulators). But Internet not only existed and grew, it also became the foundation of many other tasks, including trade, telecommunications and everyday social life. During this lack of interest by democratically (or otherwise) elected Governments to govern (but also encourage) Internet development, it had to exist and grow somehow. Various forms of self-regulation or other form of governance emerged. Like it or not, Internet does develop and grow without apparent Government regulation and "laws". At the same time it manages to police itself much better than any Government could even do in other areas. This is not to say that some Governmental support for Internet will not help. :) By the way, Governments don't understand the Internet, because the typical regulation relies on the principle "follow the money". Which does not work with Internet. (again, I am not calling the bunch of wires "the Internet") 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 29 12:10:01 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:10:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On 8/29/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 29.08.11 17:36, Paul Lehto wrote: >> On 8/29/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >>>>> however imperfect, the current >>>>> multi-national system of governance works. It regulates more or less >>>>> global trade, immigration etc. But it does not regulate the Internet. >>>>> Not because of lack of desire, but because nobody in these >>>>> 'governmental' structures understands Internet. >> "Understanding the internet" in some technical or even metaphysical >> way is definitely *not* a prerequisite to regulation. >> > You are correct Paul. Ignorance is not Internet-specific attribute. > > However "Internet" -- not the collection of wires -- is different in > that it is very new as a concept to regulators. > During this lack of interest by democratically (or otherwise) elected > Governments to govern (but also encourage) Internet development, it had > to exist and grow somehow. Various forms of self-regulation or other > form of governance emerged. Like it or not, Internet does develop and > grow without apparent Government regulation and "laws". This is not really true. As several of my past posts have established, without any contradiction on this particular point, the internet presently (and in the past) relies upon many governmental laws in the form of contract, property, and intellectual property laws to facilitate its expansion (to be sure) and arguably to support its existence as we know it. I don't think there's any significant internet company that has been able to function effectively without employing lawyers at least from time to time, and usually on a steady retainer due to the volume of work. > At the same time > it manages to police itself much better than any Government could even > do in other areas. Self-policing, to the extent it exists, is not unusual in human affairs. Income tax laws heavily rely upon voluntary compliance (self-policing) because audit rates are 1/2 of 1 percent or less. Within the internet, the criminal law is completely insufficient to punish every internet "pirate" much less all criminals generally - the effectiveness of laws in that area depends upon voluntary compliance, i.e. "self-policing" by internet users, if it is to be effective at all. (This is some of the self-policing to which you refer, but not all of it). There's simply not enough prison space available, and not enough prosecutors, to bust everyone that's arguably guilty, whether on the internet or off. So, here again, your concept of "self-policing" both ignores the manifest presence of law on the internet now for the lifetime of the internet (and increasing some as time goes by, as it catches up with technology, though never to completely catch up). The way you assert the existence and value of "self-policing" also keeps open an improper inference, namely that the internet can function as we know it without law. That's a false statement, just look at all the internet lawyers running around making money for interpreting laws related to the internet. The above being said, I will only that I am sure you can cite dozens or hundreds examples of various forms of "self-policing." However, none of these will (1) disprove the "structural law" requirements of the internet, or (2) show why so many internet lawyers exist if law is not being applied to the internet. In addition, if any of your examples of self-policing point to areas that arguably are a sort of anarchistic free-for-all, or whatever you like to call it, with true self-policing being the only "law" (this is often called vigilantism) those would be the areas of the internet that either (a) governments have chosen to abstain from, even as to basic "structural laws", or (b) relatively new areas or niches of the internet that governments are in the necessary and perennial process of "catching up" in, because technology is free to be introduced within the confines of structural laws, with the option of governments or private litigants acting in the public interest to "catch up" by regulating or prosecuting these areas as a specific need arises to do so. (e.g. Napster) Maybe you will get a nickname on this listserv, Daniel, like "Sheriff" - for your assertion of self-policing and your assumed activity in this area. "Sheriff" would be much more polite than "vigilante". ;) > By the way, Governments don't understand the Internet, because the > typical regulation relies on the principle "follow the money". Which > does not work with Internet. (again, I am not calling the bunch of wires > "the Internet") This observation is a direct result of lobbyists for the money-interests on the internet being paid to work full time to advance their money interests, and too many activists being fixed solely on reacting to the money-interests, thus the resulting regulation is all about money-interests or "follow the money" and not so much on public interest or a deep understanding of the internet. While politicians may not all understand the internet the way you do, a few do understand it fairly well, but the most important fact is that paid lobbyists who understand their own interests on the internet extremely well are the ones who have the ear of the politicians the most. Even absent the slightest corruption, it is natural for human beings to follow and be persuaded by those arguments they actually hear (lobbyists) versus those arguments they hear hardly any of, or none at all (public interest or "deep understanding of internet" arguments). Paul Lehto, J.D. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 13:34:18 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:34:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: (message from Paul Lehto on Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:10:01 -0400) References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Paul Lehto wrote: > This is not really true. As several of my past posts have > established, without any contradiction on this particular point, the > internet presently (and in the past) relies upon many governmental > laws in the form of contract, property, and intellectual property laws > to facilitate its expansion (to be sure) and arguably to support its > existence as we know it. I'm sure that I'm not alone in disagreeing with this statement as formulated here as well as with your claim that you have "established" it. As a clear counter-example, I would point to the re-establishment of the Internet in Libya. Also note how many core internet governance functions have worked well for a long time in the absence of contractual or other legal obligations. Also, when such legal frameworks are added to something can work reasonably well without them, it is not accurate to claim reliance on these legal frameworks. For example, even in the presence of a contract between an ISP and a customer, and in a legal environment in which enforcing such a contract is possible, it may well be that neither side has any need to rely on contract law etc to enforce the contract. The ISP can simply stop providing the service if the customer does not pay, and customers can stop paying and give the ISP a bad reputation if the ISP doesn't fulfil its responsibility. More generally, Paul, please do not infer from lack of response to some aspects of your postings the lack of disagreement or that those who disagree do not have (possibly just in their heads) well-founded counterarguments. Given the quantities of text that you post, and that you speak from a perspective that is very different from that of myself and probably most others here (that it itself is not a bad thing at all, of course) it is simply impossible to react to everything that one disagrees with. Furthermore, given that it is necessary to set priorities with regard to which messages and which points one reacts to, there are several aspects of your postings that give at least me an additional inclination to avoid spending a lot of time on corresponding with you: I prefer to correspond with those who give me the impression of listening well to what is being said, who are able to follow thoughts that don't fit too well into a given ideological framework, and who treat everyone who participates in the conversation with prefessional courtesy and respect. 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 29 14:29:00 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:29:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 8/29/11, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Paul Lehto wrote: >> This is not really true. As several of my past posts have >> established, without any contradiction on this particular point, the >> internet presently (and in the past) relies upon many governmental >> laws in the form of contract, property, and intellectual property laws >> to facilitate its expansion (to be sure) and arguably to support its >> existence as we know it. > > I'm sure that I'm not alone in disagreeing with this statement > as formulated here as well as with your claim that you have > "established" it. As a clear counter-example, I would point to > the re-establishment of the Internet in Libya. Norbert, without something like a "Uniform Commercial Code" (as it is called in the United States) and its legal system supporting the clearance of checks or credit card transactions, only cash transactions are available and e-commerce as most know it collapses. The laws in this area are not the ONLY thing required, but it is required. I'll bet that Libya, in whatever shape it may be in, still has legal structures allowing for the collection of funds other than cash, and as such it is the technical side of the internet that was interrupted, and not the legal system. I do realize that the role of law, especially when it functions well, is invisible to most everyone. That does not mean it doesn't exist. The reason I say that this is "established" is because it is not reasonably debatable that such laws exist, and that they are structural supports for all or part of the internet. You can claim that silence is not consent, and refer to an inability on the part of yourself and others to keep up with my volume of fact and argument, but that is not "debate". Even now, when you have taken the time to respond, you have not pointed to a single instance or even a likely instance where the internet functions without any law to support its operations. If you did, you'd be pointing to an all-cash economy, and a key feature of the internet -- transactions over great distance -- would be greatly hampered or defeated. Even for non-commercial internet activity, there needs to be payment for internet connectivity (unless the government provides it for free, in which case the government's quite involved in the internet in that way, then). To disprove what I say, show me an internet company without lawyers, show me the internet with cash-only transactions, show me a part of the internet that does not use contracts and does not put customers into collections, nor use the governmental court system. That and more would be required to prove an internet without law. But if you could do that, I will then show you an "internet" that is not the internet as any of us know it on this list. It's an internet that nowhere exists. I'll mail you $100US if you can show a real example of the above. Because I don't think I'll have to pay, that's why I consider the point established that this "structural law" is required for the internet as we know it: contract law, IP law, etc. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Aug 29 15:04:41 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:04:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <3D3A614C-9835-489F-9875-937AB239DDA8@digsys.bg> On Aug 29, 2011, at 21:29 , Paul Lehto wrote: > Even for non-commercial internet activity, there needs to be payment for > internet connectivity (unless the government provides it for free, in > which case the government's quite involved in the internet in that > way, then). It will help your perspective greatly, if you forget the "government" part. Where Internet is 'free' this is not because of any Government. Most places that provide "free Internet" are commercial enterprises by the way. Also, you seem to imagine that Internet is only the connectivity aspect. I would have expected, as you seem to know a lot about the Domain name Registries, that you would consider their service to be part of Internet. Believe you or not, but these registries provided services to the Internet community, absolutely free of charge for over a decade and if it was not the US-invented payment for domain name registrations and the 'trademark' craze, this would have continued even today. That payment by the way, was very interesting, because part of it was going to a private corporation, and another part of it was going to the US Government, like some form of worldwide "Internet tax". That was later declared illegal and the price "reduced".. Enlightening, eh? As you suspect, I can give you countless examples why your vision of what Internet is, is wrong. You talk about laws, but all your arguments are based on … money. Who gets the money. Who gets to regulate the money flow. Of course, in the public interests. I have lived enough of my life in a "communist" country and believe it or not, have heard this very argument many, many times. Enough times, I would say. In order to understand what Internet is, it helps to imagine, even for a moment, that for most people, Internet is not about money. > > To disprove what I say, show me an internet company without lawyers, > show me the internet with cash-only transactions, show me a part of > the internet that does not use contracts and does not put customers > into collections, nor use the governmental court system. Take my word (I am not going to prove anything): my own company, has operated for well over a decade, in a cash-mostly (that is, only few ever used bank transfers, nobody - credit cards) and did not employ a single lawyer during that time. Of course, from day one, we had contracts with users (note, I didn't even understand the word customers at that time) --- with the sole purpose to declare our obligations to them. Well, that is no longer possible -- but reasons are far more complex. By the way, I value your input, as some of the points you share are valuable to explain many participants motives. 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 matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Mon Aug 29 15:29:14 2011 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:29:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4E5BE88A.4040904@uni-graz.at> Dear all, I think this thread is very interesting as it has at its center the intricate (and often controversialI relationship of internaitonal and national law, custom and standards in the regulation of online behaviour and the evolution of the online environment. Laws do matter in the regulation of national approaches to online behaviour. As the economic dimension of the Internet has grown over the last decades, the 'normative need' - in the eyes of legislators - has grown, too. The answers to that need are of differing elegance and functionality. Better designing national Internet regulation is an important concern. With regard to Internet Governance, however, normative approaches are supplemented by custom and other forms of not legally binding (but often just as effective) arrangements. Generally, I believe that we need a more comprehensive understanding of existing normative attemps - at a national and an international level - to the challenges of governing the Internet and the behaviour of users. It is here where Norbert's Internet Mapping approach can make important contributions. Our understanding of the normative challenges can further be informed by the multitude of recently developed principles and standards, including the 10 Internet Rights and Principles those from the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition. Kind regards Matthias ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 29 16:17:30 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:17:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <3D3A614C-9835-489F-9875-937AB239DDA8@digsys.bg> References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <3D3A614C-9835-489F-9875-937AB239DDA8@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On 8/29/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > It will help your perspective greatly, if you forget the "government" part. > > Where Internet is 'free' this is not because of any Government. Where there is no government and no law, it is pure survival of the most predatory (not "fittest") and there are no rights, and certainly not any equality of opportunity. Governments are created to "secure these rights" as our own Declaration of Independence put it, yet from time to time all governments, including my own, get away from this most fundamental purpose for which they were created. I grant you all the government abuses you wish to cite, what I am saying is that government must do its proper job in order to have a level playing field and the rights and equality of opportunity that most people highly associate with a "free" country. > Take my word (I am not going to prove anything): my own company, has > operated for well over a decade, in a cash-mostly (that is, only few ever > used bank transfers, nobody - credit cards) and did not employ a single > lawyer during that time. Of course, from day one, we had contracts with > users (note, I didn't even understand the word customers at that time) --- > with the sole purpose to declare our obligations to them. > Well, that is no longer possible -- but reasons are far more complex. I rest my case. You come closer than most would, but you still rely on some minimum of laws, like contracts. Even if one swears never to go to court and really means it, contracts are still understood on the basis of the rules of contracts that would be used in a court, if there is a dispute. I.e. what is "fair" under the obligations of the parties in the contract for which no one will go to court is nevertheless what a court would do if fully informed and just, and there were no cost to go to court.... > By the way, I value your input, as some of the points you share are valuable > to explain many participants motives. Thank you. You are yourself an interesting one to dialogue with. > > Daniel -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 16:48:31 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 23:48:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Paul Lehto wrote: > > This is not really true. As several of my past posts have > > established, without any contradiction on this particular point, the > > internet presently (and in the past) relies upon many governmental > > laws in the form of contract, property, and intellectual property laws > > to facilitate its expansion (to be sure) and arguably to support its > > existence as we know it. > > I'm sure that I'm not alone in disagreeing with this statement > as formulated here as well as with your claim that you have > "established" it. As a clear counter-example, I would point to > the re-establishment of the Internet in Libya. Also note how > many core internet governance functions have worked well for a > long time in the absence of contractual or other legal obligations. > Also, when such legal frameworks are added to something can work > reasonably well without them, it is not accurate to claim reliance > on these legal frameworks. For example, even in the presence of a > contract between an ISP and a customer, and in a legal environment > in which enforcing such a contract is possible, it may well be that > neither side has any need to rely on contract law etc to enforce > the contract. The ISP can simply stop providing the service if the > customer does not pay, and customers can stop paying and give the > ISP a bad reputation if the ISP doesn't fulfil its responsibility. > > More generally, Paul, please do not infer from lack of response to > some aspects of your postings the lack of disagreement or that those > who disagree do not have (possibly just in their heads) well-founded > counterarguments. Given the quantities of text that you post, and > that you speak from a perspective that is very different from that > of myself and probably most others here (that it itself is not a > bad thing at all, of course) it is simply impossible to react to > everything that one disagrees with. Furthermore, given that it is > necessary to set priorities with regard to which messages and which > points one reacts to, there are several aspects of your postings > that give at least me an additional inclination to avoid spending a > lot of time on corresponding with you: I prefer to correspond > with those who give me the impression of listening well to what is > being said, who are able to follow thoughts that don't fit too well > into a given ideological framework, and who treat everyone who > participates in the conversation with prefessional courtesy and > respect. > +1 to all of the above. At heart, the Internet is the suite of protocols and standards that allow networks to communicate. These have never legislated. It's the services that run over these networks and the resulting epiphenomenon that so many seem hell bent on regulating. -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Aug 29 17:13:27 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 23:13:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: (message from Paul Lehto on Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:29:00 -0400) References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20110829211327.F0F7015C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Paul Lehto wrote: > Even now, when you have taken > the time to respond, you have not pointed to a single instance or even > a likely instance where the internet functions without any law to > support its operations. On the contrary, I have pointed to Libya. And I have described a (rather typical) kind of ISP-customer business relationship which does not rely on a "law" framework for being able to function. > If you did, you'd be pointing to an all-cash economy As the recent posting of Daniel Kalchev illustrates, that kind of situation is not incompatible with internet services being commercially provided. > and a key feature of the internet -- transactions over great > distance -- would be greatly hampered or defeated I agree that facilitating transactions which involve "making a payment via the Internet" (in the sense of a transfer of money) requires a functioning legal framework to exist somewhere in the world. This however does not in any way contradict anything that I have written. The Internet has many purposes and functions besides facilitation of e-commerce. > Even for non-commercial internet activity, there needs to be > payment for internet connectivity So what? Even in countries and situations where the government and the legal system have collapsed entirely, as is currently the case in Libya, some aspects of the economy are still able to function, because people are able to figure out how to conduct the necessary transactions to pay for some kinds of things even in the absence of any support from a functioning legal system or functioning other aspects of government. Another important point is that goodwill, respect and attention are currencies that are effectively used to pay for many services in the Internet context. Transactions involving these kinds of currencies can also happen rather independently of any kind of regulatory or other government efforts to facilitate them. (I'm not claiming that an economy is possible without some kind of money or cash-equivalent physical goods. But not all activites of non-government actors have commercial motives. And then there are commercial activities where the users of a service pay collectively in a way that is not of monetary kind. And there are commercial activities where the payment is of monetary kind but happens quite independently of any governmental "contract law" framework.) > I'll mail you $100US if you can show a real example of the above. Well, I believe the examples that I gave to be valid, but I don't expect to be able to convince you that this is the case. And even if it should turn out that you are (contrary to the impression that I've gotten so far) able to follow arguments that don't fit into the ideological framework that you've been using so far, it would cost me much more than $100 worth of my time to debate this with you. So that conditional promise of $100US, especially at the US dollar's current exchange rate to the Swiss Franc, is not of interest to me. I'm withdrawing from this particular conversation at this point. 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 Aug 29 18:20:54 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 00:20:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Mon, 29 Aug 2011 23:48:31 +0300) References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20110829222054.A055215C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > At heart, the Internet is the suite of protocols and standards that allow > networks to communicate. These have never legislated. Indeed. Well, internal to the Swiss federal government an attempt to legislate regarding this kind of thing has been made: For *many* years now there has been a binding internal rule ("Weisung") that whenever the network of the Swiss federal admininistration is extended, IPv6 is to be used for that. Last week I asked someone about this who knows very well what is and what isn't done in that area. I was unsurprised to learn that after so many years, the Swiss federal government still doesn't have a single IPv6 host, not even a locally IPv6 enabled LAN, nothing. He did mention some local governments (where that that "Weisung" doesn't apply) that have that kind of thing. So here in Switzerland at least, progress in the direction of IPv6 is happening in some places where it's not legislated, but where it's legislated it's not happening. (The federal government has IPv6 address space reserved, but it's not being used, and there is absolutely no work underway in the direction of creating a migration plan or any other kind of plan for implementing that "Weisung".) So much for the idea that Internet "relies" on the law. :-) > It's the services that run over these networks and the resulting > epiphenomenon that so many seem hell bent on regulating. Yes. I think that everyone agrees that some things that can be done while using the Internet need regulation and laws either to facititate or to prohibit those activities, or to ensure some degree of fairness, regardless of whether the activies are conducted via the Internet or in some other way. That's not really a property of the Internet. What the disagreements are about is IMO primarily about how to cope with the reality that the Internet disrupts many of the assumptions on which existing laws and regulations are based. Those assumptions are simply no longer valid, so that without some kind of action to fix those laws and regulations, they're simply not compatible with the existence of the Internet (which can result e.g. in laws becoming ineffective or grossly unfair or both). 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Aug 29 19:20:14 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:20:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Proposed Expert Panel on Human Rights and the Internet Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 4:01 PM To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: [IRP] Proposed Expert Panel on Human Rights and the Internet Hi all - an update following on from the Frank La Rue report to the UN Human Rights Council in June. The Swedish Government have picked up the civil society suggestion of an expert panel on human rights and the internet and will propose a resolution on this at the HRC 18the session in September. Check out: http://www.apc.org/en/press/freedom/breaking-news-sweden-propose-expert-pane l-internet Support for this resolution is important, so please spread the news through your contacts and encourage governments to vote in support. Joy Liddicoat Project Coordinator Internet Rights are Human Rights www.apc.org Tel: +64 21 263 2753 Skype id: joy.liddicoat Yahoo id: strategic at xtra.co.nz -------------- 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 Mon Aug 29 23:54:59 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 06:54:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 8/29/11, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Paul Lehto wrote: > >> This is not really true. As several of my past posts have > >> established, without any contradiction on this particular point, the > >> internet presently (and in the past) relies upon many governmental > >> laws in the form of contract, property, and intellectual property laws > >> to facilitate its expansion (to be sure) and arguably to support its > >> existence as we know it. > > > > I'm sure that I'm not alone in disagreeing with this statement > > as formulated here as well as with your claim that you have > > "established" it. As a clear counter-example, I would point to > > the re-establishment of the Internet in Libya. > > Norbert, without something like a "Uniform Commercial Code" (as it is > called in the United States) and its legal system supporting the > clearance of checks or credit card transactions, only cash > transactions are available and e-commerce as most know it collapses. > The laws in this area are not the ONLY thing required, but it is > required. I'll bet that Libya, in whatever shape it may be in, still > has legal structures allowing for the collection of funds other than > cash, and as such it is the technical side of the internet that was > interrupted, and not the legal system. > > I do realize that the role of law, especially when it functions well, > is invisible to most everyone. That does not mean it doesn't exist. > The reason I say that this is "established" is because it is not > reasonably debatable that such laws exist, and that they are > structural supports for all or part of the internet. > > You can claim that silence is not consent, and refer to an inability > on the part of yourself and others to keep up with my volume of fact > and argument, but that is not "debate". Even now, when you have taken > the time to respond, you have not pointed to a single instance or even > a likely instance where the internet functions without any law to > support its operations. If you did, you'd be pointing to an all-cash > economy, and a key feature of the internet -- transactions over great > distance -- would be greatly hampered or defeated. Even for > non-commercial internet activity, there needs to be payment for > internet connectivity (unless the government provides it for free, in > which case the government's quite involved in the internet in that > way, then). > > To disprove what I say, show me an internet company without lawyers, > show me the internet with cash-only transactions, show me a part of > the internet that does not use contracts and does not put customers > into collections, nor use the governmental court system. That and > more would be required to prove an internet without law. But if you > could do that, I will then show you an "internet" that is not the > internet as any of us know it on this list. It's an internet that > nowhere exists. > > I'll mail you $100US if you can show a real example of the above. > rootserver operators don't get paid and most only have a "handshake agreement" to run a rootserver. They do it for the good of the Internet. -- 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 daniel at digsys.bg Tue Aug 30 03:18:25 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:18:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <3D3A614C-9835-489F-9875-937AB239DDA8@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E5C8EC1.10201@digsys.bg> On 29.08.11 23:17, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 8/29/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> It will help your perspective greatly, if you forget the "government" part. >> >> Where Internet is 'free' this is not because of any Government. > Where there is no government and no law, it is pure survival of the > most predatory (not "fittest") and there are no rights, and certainly > not any equality of opportunity. Governments are created to "secure > these rights" as our own Declaration of Independence put it, yet from > time to time all governments, including my own, get away from this > most fundamental purpose for which they were created. There can be law, even without "government". This is very fundamental. > I grant you all the government abuses you wish to cite, what I am saying is that > government must do its proper job in order to have a level playing field and the rights and equality of opportunity that most people highly associate with a "free" country. I am glad we agree on this basic principle. Governments (and laws) are here precisely to provide and maintain (usually by using force) adequate environments where society, business and individuals do what they do. Governments and laws cannot exists for their own purposes, and when this happens, it is soon followed by some form of revolution that blows them away (both governments AND laws) with force. In the end, there is the universal law of "Common Sense" (my wording), that rules over all other laws created by humans. Some chose to call it "Human Rights". It rules over Internet too. 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 Tue Aug 30 12:04:28 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:04:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 23:48:31 on Mon, 29 Aug 2011, McTim writes >At heart, the Internet is the suite of protocols and standards that >allow networks to communicate.  These have never legislated. > >It's the services that run over these networks and the resulting >epiphenomenon that so many seem hell bent on regulating Not just the services, but the content carried by those services. -- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Aug 30 12:35:58 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:35:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 8/30/11, Roland Perry wrote: > 23:48:31 on Mon, 29 Aug 2011, McTim writes >>At heart, the Internet is the suite of protocols and standards that >>allow networks to communicate. These have never legislated. >> >>It's the services that run over these networks and the resulting >>epiphenomenon that so many seem hell bent on regulating > > Not just the services, but the content carried by those services. The printing press invention by Gutenberg is said to be the most important invention of the last millenium, and like the internet it involves the technology of community, facilitating it over a distance among other things. Why would the fact that the "heart" of a communications medium is technological mean anything in terms of whether or not the law can facilitate such things through what I'm calling structural law (such as copyright law for printed works), or whether the law can proscribe abuses of that technology through the criminal law and consumer protection law (such as proscribing typed death threats, or false advertising using the printing press)??? The only alleged counter-example to the necessity or inevitability of law for technology is the example given of Libya, where rebels are fighting what amounts to a civil war and the internet is said to continue to run. So what? Do printing presses stop making leaflets during a civil war? Even if guns or the destruction of printing presses by force completely replace civil laws, aren't printing presses still "regulated" during civil war? I'm not approving that kind of "regulation" I'm saying that law is inevitably necessary, and that this law may be good or bad. I highly suspect, nearly to the point of certainty, that if the internet presently runs in a meaningful way in Libya, it is in the hopes of stability of government soon returning to Libya, and based very much on a gamble in that area. But, if this is not so, then Libya must be asserted as a positive example of the kind of system that we'd like to see everywhere, a kind of lawless state of "freedom." Asserting Libya as a positive example strikes me as a joke, and not a good one. I can easily imagine a punchline at the end of a brief recitation of the facts of this discussion about whether or not law is necessary and inevitable regarding the internet, and the punchline goes like this: "And then the gentleman from Bulgaria said LIBYA was an example of how we can have the internet without law!" This borders on the funny or laughable. Is this Libyan example really a state of affairs that we can support? Or, is the situation in Libya perhaps something that news organizations in other countries are depicting in a completely different way from what we see about Libya's situation in my country of the USA? I say that just as the printing press has structural laws to encourage it (copyright) and to restrict it (defamation and consumer protection laws) so too does and will the internet have quite similar laws both supporting and encouraging communication as well as proscribing the abuses of this communication. It seems that anybody that would want the law to be absent from the "heart" of the internet doesn't fully understand the role of the law. They just have an acute understanding of the abuses of the law itself, but are missing a robust understanding of the necessity of the law in its structural and consumer protection functions. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 13:01:18 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:01:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 12:35:58 on Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Paul Lehto writes >I say that just as the printing press has structural laws to encourage >it (copyright) and to restrict it (defamation and consumer protection >laws) so too does and will the internet have quite similar laws both >supporting and encouraging communication as well as proscribing the >abuses of this communication. Unless those structural laws specifically exclude the Internet, the situation is that they will have always applied. There will always be some difficulties in interpretation - for example a newspaper editor is responsible for defamations printed in his publication, but are the IGC Co-ordinators responsible for defamations appearing on this list? It's that kind of issue that I've always regarded as the most useful to study, rather than trying to deny that defamation could apply to the Internet at all. (Some people do occasionally claim that, for example citing a "right to reply" as sufficient remedy for the defamed). -- 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 Tue Aug 30 13:34:16 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:34:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 8/30/11, Roland Perry wrote: >> 23:48:31 on Mon, 29 Aug 2011, McTim writes >>>At heart, the Internet is the suite of protocols and standards that >>>allow networks to communicate.  These have never legislated. >>> >>>It's the services that run over these networks and the resulting >>>epiphenomenon that so many seem hell bent on regulating >> >> Not just the services, but the content carried by those services. > > The printing press invention by Gutenberg is said to be the most > important invention of the last millenium, and like the internet it > involves the technology of community, facilitating it over a distance > among other things. > > Why would the fact that the "heart" of a communications medium is > technological mean anything in terms of whether or not the law can > facilitate such things through what I'm calling structural law (such > as copyright law for printed works), or whether the law can proscribe > abuses of that technology through the criminal law and consumer > protection law (such as proscribing typed death threats, or false > advertising using the printing press)??? > > The only alleged counter-example to the necessity or inevitability of > law for technology is the example given of Libya, where rebels are > fighting what amounts to a civil war and the internet is said to > continue to run.  So what?  Do printing presses stop making leaflets > during a civil war?   Even if guns or the destruction of printing > presses by force completely replace civil laws, aren't printing > presses still "regulated" during civil war?  I'm not approving that > kind of "regulation" I'm saying that law is inevitably necessary, and > that this law may be good or bad. > > I highly suspect, nearly to the point of certainty, that if the > internet presently runs in a meaningful way in Libya, it is in the > hopes of stability of government soon returning to Libya, and based > very much on a gamble in that area.   But, if this is not so, then > Libya must be asserted as a positive example of the kind of system > that we'd like to see everywhere, a kind of lawless state of > "freedom."  Asserting Libya as a positive example strikes me as a > joke, and not a good one. > > I can easily imagine a punchline at the end of a brief recitation of > the facts of this discussion about whether or not law is necessary and > inevitable regarding the internet, and the punchline goes like this: > "And then the gentleman from Bulgaria said LIBYA was an example of how > we can have the internet without law!"  This borders on the funny or > laughable.   Is this Libyan example really a state of affairs that we > can support?  Or, is the situation in Libya perhaps something that > news organizations in other countries are depicting in a completely > different way from what we see about Libya's situation in my country > of the USA? > > I say that just as the printing press has structural laws to encourage > it (copyright) and to restrict it (defamation and consumer protection > laws) so too does and will the internet have quite similar laws both > supporting and encouraging communication as well as proscribing the > abuses of this communication.  It seems that anybody that would want > the law to be absent from the "heart" of the internet doesn't fully > understand the role of the law. I think you missed my point. TCP/IP is ~40 years old. It has never been enshrined in any laws AFAIK. Would you seek to regulate it now? -- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Aug 30 14:27:32 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:27:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 8/30/11,Paul Lehto wrote: >> Why would the fact that the "heart" of a communications medium is >> technological mean anything in terms of whether or not the law can >> facilitate such things through what I'm calling structural law (such >> as copyright law for printed works), or whether the law can proscribe >> abuses of that technology through the criminal law and consumer >> protection law (such as proscribing typed death threats, or false >> advertising using the printing press)??? >> McTim wrote/replied: > > I think you missed my point. TCP/IP is ~40 years old. It has never > been enshrined in any laws AFAIK. Would you seek to regulate it now? TCP/IP is useless without the computer networks attached to it which it allows to communicate with each other, so it is misleading to call TCP/IP standing alone as the "heart" of the internet. More like the specialized carrier blood cells carrying nutrition and messages to the "body" of computer networks without which TCP/IP is unnecessary. Communication has always been regulated, and its regulation supported EVEN by the vast majority of "free speech" advocates. The reason regulatory issues concern "epiphenomenon" and not TCP/IP itself is that TCP/IP is irrelevant and useless without the *communicating* computer networks it connects. And regulation of communication has always been supported by even free speech advocates, the issue being one of how much regulation is appropriate, not IF there should be regulation at all. Here's some examples: Even free speech advocates don't claim death threats are legally protected speech, or that fraudulent advertising is not actionable. O In fact, even where free speech advocates *win* they still claim the law should be involved in regulation in the broadest sense because free speech advocates invoke the *protection* of the law to insist that courts enforce limits on governmental action where the limits are exceeded. But courts are government, too. it's only a question of what kind of law, and how much law, when it comes to communication. The only exception is for something so narrowly defined (TCP/IP) that, standing alone, it is useless and/or unoffensive. Of COURSE, it's the communication that is the fit target for regulation, because communication has and always will be regulated in some way, at least until death threats are not against the law. Maybe that's the case right now in Libya? Perhaps we have a Libyan member on this list if the internet is big in Libya in the past and/or now? -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 14:57:18 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:57:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4E5D328E.5020902@digsys.bg> On 30.8.2011 г. 19:35 ч., Paul Lehto wrote: > I can easily imagine a punchline at the end of a brief recitation of > the facts of this discussion about whether or not law is necessary and > inevitable regarding the internet, and the punchline goes like this: > "And then the gentleman from Bulgaria said LIBYA was an example of how > we can have the internet without law!" This borders on the funny or > laughable. Paul, as far as I am aware, I am the only gentlemen from Bulgaria who participates in this multi-monologue. It seems you don't even try to read what others wrote. As they say in my country: "it would have been funny or laughable, if it was not tragic" > Is this Libyan example really a state of affairs that we can support? I have several observations to make on your positions with regards to "Libian" and similar cases: - You have absolutely no idea what it is to have to live trough events like this. Yet, you give advice and competent opinion. - You have absolutely no idea how Internet functions, how it is 'regulated' and how it can heal itself. Just a hint: none of this involves 'governments' or 'law'. - You asume that Libia (and it seems, Bulgaria too) are sort of lesser nations. I am not offended - your opinion is yours -- no idea about the Libian or other African participants here, but cannot ignore the feeling that you have extremely distorted view of the world. - One interesting observation from the above is that probably places like Libia are embracing the Internet, because they recognize similar pattern -- Internet struggles to survive as much as their society struggles to survive. Please note, the society -- not the 'government' or the 'law'. - Libia will eventually get 'good' laws and governance from the 'western world', but trust me -- just like the Internet, it's society will survive. Because those who will try, do not understand that society, just like they do not understand 'Internet'. Even if it was not me, who gave the Libian example, I do consider it very good, from a governance point of view. 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 daniel at digsys.bg Tue Aug 30 15:34:06 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:34:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4E5D3B2E.4050901@digsys.bg> On 30.8.2011 ?. 21:27 ?., Paul Lehto wrote: > McTim wrote/replied: >> I think you missed my point. TCP/IP is ~40 years old. It has never >> been enshrined in any laws AFAIK. Would you seek to regulate it now? > TCP/IP is useless without the computer networks attached to it which > it allows to communicate with each other, so it is misleading to call > TCP/IP standing alone as the "heart" of the internet. There have been other networks, besides the Internet based on different protocols, without regulation or government imposed laws. TCP/IP as such is of course regulated. Just not by governments. It is regulated more or less by consent and agreement. Which is cast in many protocol specifications, the low-level laws of the Internet. In order to create these protocols, one needs understanding and vision. The network, based on TCP/IP that we know as the Internet is regulated too. At higher level. What regulates the Internet is the law of Common Sense. No Government regulates the Common Sense, because it is incompatible with Governments. It is a private thing. Shared by billions of humans. > Communication has always been regulated, and its regulation supported > EVEN by the vast majority of "free speech" advocates. Not neccesarily by Governments. Not neccesarily by public law. Most people do not care about these things (communication), and therefore do not see a poin tto have laws regulating them. If you trully believe in democracy, you need to recognize that those elected are in fact servants of the people who elected them. In an ideal democracy, laws are created to regulate the areas that concern most people. If say, I have an argument with my neighbor Paul Letho, do you consider it appropriate for the government to step in and regulate our relationip? Pass a specific Paul-Daniel law? (*) <- read this at the end :) > The reason regulatory issues concern "epiphenomenon" and not TCP/IP itself is > that TCP/IP is irrelevant and useless without the *communicating* > computer networks it connects. There is no point for government imposed law to regulate computers. Laws exists to regulate humans. By the way, in your previous example, with the Guttenberg press, no law regulated the press, as such. All related laws regulated the human's use of the press and the products of that use. By the way, none of the 'copyright' laws has nothing to do with the printing press as such, but more with the preserving of the status quo and protecting the investment --- 'folow the money'. Then, I am curious how one prosecutes a Guttenberg press. Burn it in fire? Chip it in pieces? Or order the press to produce prints for free for the rest of it's life? Or pay one print to the government for every five prints it produces? How one prosecutes an immaterial subject like the Internet, for not obeying the law someone made? > And regulation of communication has always been supported by even free speech advocates, the issue being one of how much regulation is appropriate, not IF there should be > regulation at all. There is fundamental conflict between 'free speech' and 'regulation'. Reminds me of *Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. ~Abbott Joseph Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" New Yorker, 4 May 1960 * > In fact, even where free speech advocates *win* they still claim the > law should be involved in regulation in the broadest sense because > free speech advocates invoke the *protection* of the law to insist > that courts enforce limits on governmental action where the limits are > exceeded.*But courts are government, too.* Very interesting revelation. Daniel (*) Here is a true case of the first 'road law' in Bulgaria. As you probably know, in he beginnig of 20th century Bulgaria was a monarchy. At that time in Sofia there were exactly two cars. The car of the Tzar and the car of the richest banker. One day, in a funny twist of fate, both cars collided at the center of the town. The Tzar was very angry, and forced the 'Parliament' to pass a law, that amounted to: "When the car of the Tzar is on the road, the car of mr. Burov stays at it's garage." Was it a law? Yes. Was it made by the Government? Definitely. Was is 'democratic' -- well, that depends -- those who voted the law, were in fact 'democratically' elected by the people -- they only chose to obey the desire of the more powerful party (after all, mr. Burov did not have his own private army). -------------- 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 Tue Aug 30 19:16:24 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:16:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] MEASURING the digital space - whose MEASURES apply, and whose do not Message-ID: To shift the argument a bit from the current interesting but now rather repititious issues... One of the basic understandings of the Philosophy/Sociology of Science is that we all tend to reduce our understanding of new phenomena down to a mode which is intelligible within our existing framework of understanding/knowledge. When it is no longer possible to do this then a new framework (paradigm) comes haltingly forward that allows us to explain those phenomena that remain inexplicable--incommensurable--with the attempts at imposing the existing framework and a new frammework/paradigm of understanding is born and very soon becomes the new orthodoxy and in turn becomes "that of which it is impossible to consider an alternative". I think these somewhat simple "truths" are reflected quite well in the current discussion. One of the core elements of these conceptual frameworks are the various systems of standards/definitions/measurements that allow us to order and "manage" our processes of knowing and thus our actions in the world. As examples, Paul's system of national legal frameworks is one such paradigm, McTim's system of IETF formulated and prescribed standards is another. In the economics (and thus to a considerable degree the policy) world one of the basic frameworks is the SNA--the System of National Accounts which presents a means for a consolidated measurement at the national level (and thus comparative at the global level) of "all significant economic activity". As we all know, much of current economic policy nationally (and globally) (within the competitive market/neo-liberal policy environment) is founded on/driven by these measures as outputted as GDP/GNP etc. Various waves of civil society interventions have subjected these measurement procedures/strategies to what might be called "paradigmatic" critiques--the consumer's movement critiqued the exclusive focus on production (and the absence of measurements concerned with consumption/consuming); the environmental movement critiqued on the basis of the absence of measures reflecting the lifecycle costs of goods and including impacts on the environment from resource depletion and contributions to environmental degradation and change); the women's movement critiqued on the basis of a failure to include measures reflecting women's contribution to domestic work; ; and as well there have been a number of critiques/alternatives proposed along the lines of the GPI--General Performance Index, and the recently widely noted "Happiness Index"--these latter being presented as more meaningful and significant from a "sustainablity" policy perspective. (As well, the SNA has a very strong bias away from the measurement of "social capital" related activities (and towards the measurement of production of physical goods). In many respects this area is perhaps the most damaging from the perspective of Less Developed Countries and the poor and marginalized in Developed countries since it tends to privilege (and give emphasis to) the production of consumer goods (and public policies supportive of this production) over for example, public investments in social capital related activities such as education, health and social support.) I'm wondering in this context whether there are areas of issues concerning measurement and indices specifically associated with the Internet that would be of particular interest to civil society that might (or might not) be of interest from the perspective of a "critique" of the SNA and broad measures such as the the GDP--parallel to the critiques related to the measurement of "women's work" and "environmental costing" for example. The obvious measurement(s) are of course related to the "digital divide" -- those who have access and (I would add) the capability of using the Internet and those who do not. But I'm also thinking that there may be an additional set of arguments that quite significantly link back to the earlier critiques and those have to do with the linkage of the Internet with social capital. Thus, it might be possible (and reasonable) to argue that the enhancement of social capital (internetworking, communication at a distance, speeding up of communications etc.etc.) while not unique to the Internet is so much accelerated and intensified by the Internet that "quantity" becomes "quality" that is, the Internet adds so much to these elements of social capital (and is so much a product of previous investments in social capital) that: 1. it would be impossible realistically to "measure" the economic impact of the Internet without including measurements of the intensification of social capital--social capital is of the very "essence" of the impact (social, economic, cultural) of the Internet that one is trying to measure ("the Internet changes everything" effect). The Internet fundamentally changes the nature of economic (and of course other) relations and activities and the intensification of social capital being of the very essence of the Internet means that this intensification of social capital must similarly be accounted for in one's measurements associated with the SNA. 2. the Internet through its intensification of social capital is transformative (and not simply summative) of the overall economy, economic relations, transactions, production, distribution and consumption; such that it is impossible to describe let alone measure the various components of the SNA without including various of the Internet (and thus social capital) related impacts in any assessment and thus measurement of each of these components (the "Walmart effect"). Thus, for example, a company such as Walmart would not be possible without the affordances provided by telecommunications/the Internet and hence any measurement including Walmart as a component needs to include measures reflecting this relationship. The value of such an argument from a civil society perspective I think, is that it links overall economic activity (GDP) with the Internet, and links the Internet with the production of social capital which in turn becomes something of a backdoor way of arguing that investment in ICT should be as much focused on education, health, and social support as it is on bits and bytes--hardware and software--something I'm assuming we all agree with but also something which is not taken as a necessary given by those folks managing current economic policies. Comments, critiques, suggestions with respect to the above are gratefully welcomed. (Incidentally, I'll be in Paris Sept. 12-19, exceptionally with some time to spare so if anyone is in Paris at the time and interested in a meet-up to discuss this or IGC or CS or other issues I would be delighted. Best, Mike ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Aug 30 20:25:28 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:25:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] MEASURING the digital space - whose MEASURES apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8/30/11, michael gurstein wrote: > One of the basic understandings of the Philosophy/Sociology of Science is > that we all tend to reduce our understanding of new phenomena down to a mode > which is intelligible within our existing framework of > understanding/knowledge. When it is no longer possible to do this then a > new framework (paradigm) comes haltingly forward that allows us to explain > those phenomena that remain inexplicable--incommensurable--with the attempts > at imposing the existing framework and a new frammework/paradigm of > understanding is born and very soon becomes the new orthodoxy and in turn > becomes "that of which it is impossible to consider an alternative". Are you suggesting that many people who don't really understand the internet within their pre-existing frames have invented a quasi-religious frame of awe riddled with phrases like "the internet changes(d) everything?" In my country the phrase "9-11 changed everything" is associated with a dramatic reduction in human freedom. > As examples, Paul's system of national legal frameworks is one such > paradigm, McTim's system of IETF formulated and prescribed standards is > another. Most people have multiple frameworks. The law is more than a mere opinion or point of view, however, and is not of equal validity with every other frame or any other framework. > The value of such an argument from a civil society perspective I think, is > that it links overall economic activity (GDP) with the Internet, and links > the Internet with the production of social capital which in turn becomes > something of a backdoor way of arguing that investment in ICT should be as > much focused on education, health, and social support as it is on bits and > bytes--hardware and software--something I'm assuming we all agree with but > also something which is not taken as a necessary given by those folks > managing current economic policies. > > Comments, critiques, suggestions with respect to the above are gratefully > welcomed. Seems like something worth dialog, not withstanding my critique of the religious beliefs of some concerning the internet. The yardstick used to measure is critically important. If the health of the economy is constantly measured predominantly with stock market value indices as a yardstick, predictable consequences follow... -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 31 02:20:22 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:20:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] MEASURING the digital space - whose MEASURES apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E5DD2A6.7090000@digsys.bg> Very good point Michael -- this is the area where the value of Internet lies and not in the bits and wires. On 31.08.11 02:16, michael gurstein wrote: > The obvious measurement(s) are of course related to the "digital divide" -- > those who have access and (I would add) the capability of using the Internet > and those who do not. But I'm also thinking that there may be an additional > set of arguments that quite significantly link back to the earlier critiques > and those have to do with the linkage of the Internet with social capital. > Unfortunately, most current measurements are based on the economic understanding of Internet. Most measurements are about 'penetration rate', 'access speed' etc. There are no realistic measurements about local content (other than number of sites, volume of traffic etc) or of cultural and language penetration (such as IDN usage etc). The culture-related content makes Internet useful for the individual. Yet another measurement is the efficiency of Internet usage. There are regions, where wast Internet infrastructure is used for .. entertainment, while at other places, much slower and unreliable infrastructure is all about sharing and education. The value of the latter is obviously higher, although by all current measurements that area is underdeveloped. For me, the challenge is to define the set of measurements and the methods of collecting and interpreting those, especially as the most valuable measurements are non-technical and non-monetary. 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Aug 31 06:40:35 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:40:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E5D3B2E.4050901@digsys.bg> (message from Daniel Kalchev on Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:34:06 +0300) References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5D3B2E.4050901@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20110831104035.4C9F015C0E3@quill.bollow.ch> Daniel Kalchev wrote: > No Government regulates the Common Sense, because it is incompatible > with Governments. > It is a private thing. Shared by billions of humans. I find this concept of Common Sense as a kind of non-legalistic law, and the observation about the very often strained relationship between this Common Sense and governments, very interesting. I'm not quite ready though to accept the assertion about Common Sense being incompatible with governments. Definitely Common Sense is incompatible with any government attempts to regulate it. And I would also accept that Common Sense is incompatible with any kind of government that lacks humility. Maybe the kind of human nature that we all share makes it humanly impossible to create a kind of government that does not lack humility, a kind of government that would respect Common Sense as supreme guidance for all of its activites. On the other hand, maybe it is possible? For many problems that were formerly considered impossible to solve, eventually a solution was invented. And in any case, some governments do a much better job at not beeing too far away from Common Sense than others. 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 daniel at digsys.bg Wed Aug 31 07:27:55 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:27:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <20110831104035.4C9F015C0E3@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5D3B2E.4050901@digsys.bg> <20110831104035.4C9F015C0E3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4E5E1ABB.1030401@digsys.bg> On 31.08.11 13:40, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> No Government regulates the Common Sense, because it is incompatible >> with Governments. >> It is a private thing. Shared by billions of humans. [...] > Maybe the kind of human nature that we all share makes it humanly impossible to create a kind of government that does not lack humility, a kind of government that would respect Common Sense as supreme guidance for all of its activites. On the other hand, maybe it is possible? They say Hope leaves us last of all others. I meant 'incompatible with government regulation' of course -- my command of English is rather poor. The problem of Governments, those that are good and those that aren't is their by definition local power. Thinking about that limitation, it is actually a benefit for everybody. Probably exists for a reason or by design. Governments are created by humans, are staffed by humans and it is said, that "there are two known infinite things: the Universe and the Human Stupidity. Yet, for one of these it is not so certain." I am not suggesting that we should invite Aliens to regulate the Internet. 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 Aug 31 10:24:38 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:24:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E5D3B2E.4050901@digsys.bg> References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5D3B2E.4050901@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4E5D3B2E.4050901 at digsys.bg>, at 22:34:06 on Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >There is no point for government imposed law to regulate computers. >Laws exists to regulate humans In the opinion of many Americans "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but governments (even the USA government) seek to regulate guns. -- 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 Wed Aug 31 10:34:11 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:34:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5D3B2E.4050901@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E5E4663.6080605@digsys.bg> On 31.08.11 17:24, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4E5D3B2E.4050901 at digsys.bg>, at 22:34:06 on Tue, 30 Aug > 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes > >> There is no point for government imposed law to regulate computers. >> Laws exists to regulate humans > > In the opinion of many Americans "guns don't kill people, people kill > people", but governments (even the USA government) seek to regulate guns. You mean, like they are regulating cars? On the principle that "no car should be produced to run faster than the police cars"? In the end however, you are prosecuted not because your car ran faster than the Police's, but because you were trying to run away from the Police. This way of thinking explains the attempts to cripple the Internet, in order to gain easier control. 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 cls at rkey.com Wed Aug 31 11:31:23 2011 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:31:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] MEASURING the digital space - whose MEASURES apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E5E53CB.4060102@rkey.com> Michael Gurstein's reflection on "what and whose measures apply in the digital space" strikes me as very productive. Having been curious for quite some time about the extent to which the advent of the Internet compares to the advent of the movable type printing technology, I'll offer this conjecture about the implications. Key measures of human agency in the pre-Westphalian era in Europe included concerns such as who could get into heaven and who could legitimately be crowned king, queen, prince, etc. The socially accepted chain of authority generally led up through officials of the Holy Roman Empire as the effective gatekeepers of such things. (Keeping in mind that any given Pope and his appointed agents claim to be acting as proxy for a divine gatekeeper.) The Gutenberg revolution facilitated the emergence of sovereign royals -- and ultimately sovereign nation-states -- who were, among other things, gatekeepers of national citizenship, contractual regimes, and property rights within bounded territories. In both cases, given this view of things, gatekeepers played an essential role conferring agency within a social structure. Gatekeeping roles will be no less important in the densely internetworked future. That why there was such a big fight over DNS administration... possessing one's "name" was once considered essential to having an effective presence on the Web. Now we see battles between Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, other private operators, and also various state-controlled social networks, all vying to be the gatekeeper of one's authentic presence on line. In all of these spaces, pre-Westphalian, Westphalian, and post-Westphalian, there's a consistent concerning with counting who is an agent and measuring the relative powers of those agents. Craig Simon On 8/30/11 7:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > To shift the argument a bit from the current interesting but now rather > repititious issues... > > One of the basic understandings of the Philosophy/Sociology of Science is > that we all tend to reduce our understanding of new phenomena down to a mode > which is intelligible within our existing framework of > understanding/knowledge. When it is no longer possible to do this then a > new framework (paradigm) comes haltingly forward that allows us to explain > those phenomena that remain inexplicable--incommensurable--with the attempts > at imposing the existing framework and a new frammework/paradigm of > understanding is born and very soon becomes the new orthodoxy and in turn > becomes "that of which it is impossible to consider an alternative". > > I think these somewhat simple "truths" are reflected quite well in the > current discussion. > > One of the core elements of these conceptual frameworks are the various > systems of standards/definitions/measurements that allow us to order and > "manage" our processes of knowing and thus our actions in the world. > > As examples, Paul's system of national legal frameworks is one such > paradigm, McTim's system of IETF formulated and prescribed standards is > another. > > In the economics (and thus to a considerable degree the policy) world one of > the basic frameworks is the SNA--the System of National Accounts which > presents a means for a consolidated measurement at the national level (and > thus comparative at the global level) of "all significant economic > activity". > > As we all know, much of current economic policy nationally (and globally) > (within the competitive market/neo-liberal policy environment) is founded > on/driven by these measures as outputted as GDP/GNP etc. > > Various waves of civil society interventions have subjected these > measurement procedures/strategies to what might be called "paradigmatic" > critiques--the consumer's movement critiqued the exclusive focus on > production (and the absence of measurements concerned with > consumption/consuming); the environmental movement critiqued on the basis of > the absence of measures reflecting the lifecycle costs of goods and > including impacts on the environment from resource depletion and > contributions to environmental degradation and change); the women's movement > critiqued on the basis of a failure to include measures reflecting women's > contribution to domestic work; ; and as well there have been a number of > critiques/alternatives proposed along the lines of the GPI--General > Performance Index, and the recently widely noted "Happiness Index"--these > latter being presented as more meaningful and significant from a > "sustainablity" policy perspective. > > (As well, the SNA has a very strong bias away from the measurement of > "social capital" related activities (and towards the measurement of > production of physical goods). In many respects this area is perhaps the > most damaging from the perspective of Less Developed Countries and the poor > and marginalized in Developed countries since it tends to privilege (and > give emphasis to) the production of consumer goods (and public policies > supportive of this production) over for example, public investments in > social capital related activities such as education, health and social > support.) > > I'm wondering in this context whether there are areas of issues concerning > measurement and indices specifically associated with the Internet that would > be of particular interest to civil society that might (or might not) be of > interest from the perspective of a "critique" of the SNA and broad measures > such as the the GDP--parallel to the critiques related to the measurement of > "women's work" and "environmental costing" for example. > > The obvious measurement(s) are of course related to the "digital divide" -- > those who have access and (I would add) the capability of using the Internet > and those who do not. But I'm also thinking that there may be an additional > set of arguments that quite significantly link back to the earlier critiques > and those have to do with the linkage of the Internet with social capital. > > Thus, it might be possible (and reasonable) to argue that the enhancement of > social capital (internetworking, communication at a distance, speeding up of > communications etc.etc.) while not unique to the Internet is so much > accelerated and intensified by the Internet that "quantity" becomes > "quality" that is, the Internet adds so much to these elements of social > capital (and is so much a product of previous investments in social capital) > that: > 1. it would be impossible realistically to "measure" the economic impact > of the Internet without including measurements of the intensification of > social capital--social capital is of the very "essence" of the impact > (social, economic, cultural) of the Internet that one is trying to measure > ("the Internet changes everything" effect). The Internet fundamentally > changes the nature of economic (and of course other) relations and > activities and the intensification of social capital being of the very > essence of the Internet means that this intensification of social capital > must similarly be accounted for in one's measurements associated with the > SNA. > > 2. the Internet through its intensification of social capital is > transformative (and not simply summative) of the overall economy, economic > relations, transactions, production, distribution and consumption; such that > it is impossible to describe let alone measure the various components of the > SNA without including various of the Internet (and thus social capital) > related impacts in any assessment and thus measurement of each of these > components (the "Walmart effect"). Thus, for example, a company such as > Walmart would not be possible without the affordances provided by > telecommunications/the Internet and hence any measurement including Walmart > as a component needs to include measures reflecting this relationship. > > The value of such an argument from a civil society perspective I think, is > that it links overall economic activity (GDP) with the Internet, and links > the Internet with the production of social capital which in turn becomes > something of a backdoor way of arguing that investment in ICT should be as > much focused on education, health, and social support as it is on bits and > bytes--hardware and software--something I'm assuming we all agree with but > also something which is not taken as a necessary given by those folks > managing current economic policies. > > Comments, critiques, suggestions with respect to the above are gratefully > welcomed. > > (Incidentally, I'll be in Paris Sept. 12-19, exceptionally with some time to > spare so if anyone is in Paris at the time and interested in a meet-up to > discuss this or IGC or CS or other issues I would be delighted. > > Best, > > Mike > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Wed Aug 31 14:24:06 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:24:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E5E4663.6080605@digsys.bg> References: <4E5B2BF4.9090902@digsys.bg> <20110829112629.A8C2A15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5BA94D.1080703@digsys.bg> <20110829173418.D3B0D15C0DE@quill.bollow.ch> <4E5D3B2E.4050901@digsys.bg> <4E5E4663.6080605@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4E5E4663.6080605 at digsys.bg>, at 17:34:11 on Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >> In the opinion of many Americans "guns don't kill people, people kill >>people", but governments (even the USA government) seek to regulate >>guns. > >You mean, like they are regulating cars? On the principle that "no car >should be produced to run faster than the police cars"? Cars are regulated (for example with regard to the quality of their brakes, lighting, air pollution, noise, crash-worthiness...), but I've not come across a regulation on top speed. Most police cars where I live are quite low-cost family saloons, they are used to transport policemen to where they need to be, rather than chasing bank robbers. >In the end however, you are prosecuted not because your car ran faster >than the Police's, but because you were trying to run away from the >Police. You'd probably be prosecuted for careless driving, or exceeding the speed limit, or running a red traffic light. >This way of thinking explains the attempts to cripple the Internet, in >order to gain easier control. The Internet is crippled more by efforts to combat spammers, than anything else. For example by blocking port 25. It all depends what you mean by "control". But having switched to port 587 to appease the ISP I'm using at the moment, I'm free to send any words I like to this mailing list. -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Aug 31 15:56:18 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:56:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] MEASURING the digital space - whose MEASURES apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E5E53CB.4060102@rkey.com> Message-ID: <7F90E1CB1B374D99AA4A78DCA8CE6427@userPC> Very interesting Craig... I understand you here as linking the question of Internet measurement into the broader question of Internet identity i.e. as reflecting a shift away from "national" statistics to "identity" based statistics but understood in a global rather than a national context (to tie this discussion back into the earlier one--where my position was that we need to be thinking of global governance institutions and thus global measurements/measurement strategies, rather than national ones (such as the SNA/GDP etc. I'm not exactly sure where this goes from practically but I think conceptually you are suggesting something quite valuable. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Craig Simon Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:31 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] MEASURING the digital space - whose MEASURES apply, and whose do not Michael Gurstein's reflection on "what and whose measures apply in the digital space" strikes me as very productive. Having been curious for quite some time about the extent to which the advent of the Internet compares to the advent of the movable type printing technology, I'll offer this conjecture about the implications. Key measures of human agency in the pre-Westphalian era in Europe included concerns such as who could get into heaven and who could legitimately be crowned king, queen, prince, etc. The socially accepted chain of authority generally led up through officials of the Holy Roman Empire as the effective gatekeepers of such things. (Keeping in mind that any given Pope and his appointed agents claim to be acting as proxy for a divine gatekeeper.) The Gutenberg revolution facilitated the emergence of sovereign royals -- and ultimately sovereign nation-states -- who were, among other things, gatekeepers of national citizenship, contractual regimes, and property rights within bounded territories. In both cases, given this view of things, gatekeepers played an essential role conferring agency within a social structure. Gatekeeping roles will be no less important in the densely internetworked future. That why there was such a big fight over DNS administration... possessing one's "name" was once considered essential to having an effective presence on the Web. Now we see battles between Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, other private operators, and also various state-controlled social networks, all vying to be the gatekeeper of one's authentic presence on line. In all of these spaces, pre-Westphalian, Westphalian, and post-Westphalian, there's a consistent concerning with counting who is an agent and measuring the relative powers of those agents. Craig Simon On 8/30/11 7:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > To shift the argument a bit from the current interesting but now > rather repititious issues... > > One of the basic understandings of the Philosophy/Sociology of Science > is that we all tend to reduce our understanding of new phenomena down > to a mode which is intelligible within our existing framework of > understanding/knowledge. When it is no longer possible to do this > then a new framework (paradigm) comes haltingly forward that allows us > to explain those phenomena that remain > inexplicable--incommensurable--with the attempts at imposing the > existing framework and a new frammework/paradigm of understanding is > born and very soon becomes the new orthodoxy and in turn becomes "that > of which it is impossible to consider an alternative". > > I think these somewhat simple "truths" are reflected quite well in the > current discussion. > > One of the core elements of these conceptual frameworks are the > various systems of standards/definitions/measurements that allow us to > order and "manage" our processes of knowing and thus our actions in > the world. > > As examples, Paul's system of national legal frameworks is one such > paradigm, McTim's system of IETF formulated and prescribed standards > is another. > > In the economics (and thus to a considerable degree the policy) world > one of the basic frameworks is the SNA--the System of National > Accounts which presents a means for a consolidated measurement at the > national level (and thus comparative at the global level) of "all > significant economic activity". > > As we all know, much of current economic policy nationally (and > globally) (within the competitive market/neo-liberal policy > environment) is founded on/driven by these measures as outputted as > GDP/GNP etc. > > Various waves of civil society interventions have subjected these > measurement procedures/strategies to what might be called > "paradigmatic" critiques--the consumer's movement critiqued the > exclusive focus on production (and the absence of measurements > concerned with consumption/consuming); the environmental movement > critiqued on the basis of the absence of measures reflecting the > lifecycle costs of goods and including impacts on the environment from > resource depletion and contributions to environmental degradation and > change); the women's movement critiqued on the basis of a failure to > include measures reflecting women's contribution to domestic work; ; > and as well there have been a number of critiques/alternatives > proposed along the lines of the GPI--General Performance Index, and > the recently widely noted "Happiness Index"--these latter being > presented as more meaningful and significant from a "sustainablity" > policy perspective. > > (As well, the SNA has a very strong bias away from the measurement of > "social capital" related activities (and towards the measurement of > production of physical goods). In many respects this area is perhaps > the most damaging from the perspective of Less Developed Countries and > the poor and marginalized in Developed countries since it tends to > privilege (and give emphasis to) the production of consumer goods (and > public policies supportive of this production) over for example, > public investments in social capital related activities such as > education, health and social > support.) > > I'm wondering in this context whether there are areas of issues > concerning measurement and indices specifically associated with the > Internet that would be of particular interest to civil society that > might (or might not) be of interest from the perspective of a > "critique" of the SNA and broad measures such as the the GDP--parallel > to the critiques related to the measurement of "women's work" and > "environmental costing" for example. > > The obvious measurement(s) are of course related to the "digital > divide" -- those who have access and (I would add) the capability of > using the Internet and those who do not. But I'm also thinking that > there may be an additional set of arguments that quite significantly > link back to the earlier critiques and those have to do with the > linkage of the Internet with social capital. > > Thus, it might be possible (and reasonable) to argue that the > enhancement of social capital (internetworking, communication at a > distance, speeding up of communications etc.etc.) while not unique to > the Internet is so much accelerated and intensified by the Internet > that "quantity" becomes "quality" that is, the Internet adds so much > to these elements of social capital (and is so much a product of > previous investments in social capital) > that: > 1. it would be impossible realistically to "measure" the economic impact > of the Internet without including measurements of the intensification of > social capital--social capital is of the very "essence" of the impact > (social, economic, cultural) of the Internet that one is trying to measure > ("the Internet changes everything" effect). The Internet fundamentally > changes the nature of economic (and of course other) relations and > activities and the intensification of social capital being of the very > essence of the Internet means that this intensification of social capital > must similarly be accounted for in one's measurements associated with the > SNA. > > 2. the Internet through its intensification of social capital is > transformative (and not simply summative) of the overall economy, > economic relations, transactions, production, distribution and > consumption; such that it is impossible to describe let alone measure > the various components of the SNA without including various of the > Internet (and thus social capital) related impacts in any assessment > and thus measurement of each of these components (the "Walmart > effect"). Thus, for example, a company such as Walmart would not be > possible without the affordances provided by telecommunications/the > Internet and hence any measurement including Walmart as a component > needs to include measures reflecting this relationship. > > The value of such an argument from a civil society perspective I > think, is that it links overall economic activity (GDP) with the > Internet, and links the Internet with the production of social capital > which in turn becomes something of a backdoor way of arguing that > investment in ICT should be as much focused on education, health, and > social support as it is on bits and bytes--hardware and > software--something I'm assuming we all agree with but also something > which is not taken as a necessary given by those folks managing > current economic policies. > > Comments, critiques, suggestions with respect to the above are > gratefully welcomed. > > (Incidentally, I'll be in Paris Sept. 12-19, exceptionally with some > time to spare so if anyone is in Paris at the time and interested in a > meet-up to discuss this or IGC or CS or other issues I would be > delighted. > > Best, > > Mike > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Aug 31 15:56:18 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:56:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] MEASURING the digital space - whose MEASURES apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <4E5DD2A6.7090000@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <21C4D18BD4D94F138A6670D4D193D02E@userPC> Thanks Daniel, So what would be useful measures say that could be gathered as part of the annual "Internet usage" survey that a lot of countries are gathering linked to the management of the their ccTLD's or national statistical agencies? M -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Kalchev [mailto:daniel at digsys.bg] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:20 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] MEASURING the digital space - whose MEASURES apply, and whose do not Very good point Michael -- this is the area where the value of Internet lies and not in the bits and wires. On 31.08.11 02:16, michael gurstein wrote: > The obvious measurement(s) are of course related to the "digital > divide" -- those who have access and (I would add) the capability of > using the Internet and those who do not. But I'm also thinking that > there may be an additional set of arguments that quite significantly > link back to the earlier critiques and those have to do with the > linkage of the Internet with social capital. > Unfortunately, most current measurements are based on the economic understanding of Internet. Most measurements are about 'penetration rate', 'access speed' etc. There are no realistic measurements about local content (other than number of sites, volume of traffic etc) or of cultural and language penetration (such as IDN usage etc). The culture-related content makes Internet useful for the individual. Yet another measurement is the efficiency of Internet usage. There are regions, where wast Internet infrastructure is used for .. entertainment, while at other places, much slower and unreliable infrastructure is all about sharing and education. The value of the latter is obviously higher, although by all current measurements that area is underdeveloped. For me, the challenge is to define the set of measurements and the methods of collecting and interpreting those, especially as the most valuable measurements are non-technical and non-monetary. 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Aug 31 16:07:23 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:07:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [csisac-members] MEASURING the Internet Economy References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7175493707A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Here's my original reply to Michael G. which went to the CSISAC list. -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:36 PM To: 'michael gurstein'; csisac-members at csisac.org Subject: RE: [csisac-members] MEASURING the Internet Economy Michael I appreciate your enthusiasm and look forward to participating in the meeting with you. As a social scientist I do have trouble with some of your assertions. I have no problem when you point to the inadequacy of GDP measurements or the System of National Accounts. What bothers me is that you seem to have already hard-wired into your mind what you want to find, and you are just casting about for some method or definition of "measurement" that will produce the results you want. Here's an example: > > The value of such an argument from a civil society perspective I > > think, is that it links overall economic activity (GDP) with the > > Internet, and links the Internet with the production of social capital > > which in turn becomes something of a backdoor way of arguing that > > investment in ICT should be as much focused on education, health, and > > social support as it is on bits and bytes--hardware and > > software--something I'm assuming we all agree with but also something > > which is not taken as a necessary given by those folks managing > current economic policies. > I am eager to see challenging new ideas about how to measure or what to measure, but I don't see any here. Indeed, I don't see the above as an argument about measurement at all. What I do see is a normative policy argument that "investment in ICT should be as much focused on education, health, and social support as it is on bits and bytes--hardware and software." (Oddly, the policy conclusion is not all that controversial. Western democracies have invested vast sums in education and research, and everyone knows it's feeding into the Internet economy in important ways and I don't know of anyone who believes that it's all about hardware and software exclusively - although those things do get prioritized, I admit.) To my mind, the whole point of good measurement techniques is that we don't know in advance the results they will produce; they tell us something new - and something real - which may or may not conform to what we want to find. Indeed, any system of measurement that is deliberately designed to confirm our pre-existing political views is a disgusting form of self-delusion and propaganda. So the real trick is to figure out new ways of "how" to measure new things that are unmeasured that actually work. Think of Galileo peering into the telescope he invented for the first time, and looking at the moon and other planets, which helped lead to the rejection of the geo-centric concept of the universe. He did that because he was after the truth, not because he wanted to overthrow Christian cosmology. He may have ended up doing that, but that was a secondary consequence of honest inquiry. Many economists are a more sophisticated about these issues than you give them credit for. Are you familiar with the earlier debate on some of the measurement issues of the information economy? The first economist to really pursue this was Fritz Machlup, an Austrian economist who became fascinated with measuring what he called "the knowledge economy." This was 1962 or thereabouts. How did he get to that point? He was trying to figure out whether society was investing too much or too little on education. You might take a look at that. Here is a Google books link: http://books.google.com/books?id=kp6vswpmpjoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mac hlup+Production+and+distribution+of+knowledge&hl=en&ei=r5ZdTvHaEKbK0AG8z MXQAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q &f=false Your own comments however, point to one of the seemingly inherent contradictions of economic measurement. You want to argue for increased investment in health, education, social support, and by "investments" I believe you mean real money, quantifiable sums of cash. Am I right? You are not saying that we should all think favorable thoughts or aim harmonious, warm vibes at our schools.. You want us to put tangible resources into them. But at the same time you seem to be arguing that monetary measures are worthless as indicators of value. Or maybe I am not getting your position. This is a well-recognized problem in economics, actually. Everyone knows that there are all kinds of things that are valuable and important but are outside of the price system and thus difficult or impossible to measure. Until and unless these activities/things somehow engage in or touch upon the exchange economy, we simply don't know how to inter- subjectively calculate or measure their value. This is not some capitalist plot, it's just a basic fact about the human condition. You can't objectively assess the value of something except by looking at what people are willing to give up to get it. And when the unit of exchange is non-monetary (horses, cowrie shells, flowers, land, songs) it's really hard to make sense of it at the scale of a national or international economy. So money, as homogenous and fungible units of value shared by millions of people in an integrated transnational economy, becomes the basis for such measurements. If you can think of some simple way around this problem, more power to you. You'll get the Nobel prize. But please don't trivialize the difficulty of this problem, or attribute it to a conspiracy of evil neoliberals. (In fact, Chinese and Soviet Marxists are famous for putting the most emphasis on the production of physical goods and touting such statistics as proof of the superiority of socialism). --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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Aug 31 16:19:11 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:19:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [csisac-members] MEASURING the Internet Economy Message-ID: <97D91F3177F0454D8EBB0440124C9125@userPC> And here is my reply to Milton which went to the same list :). -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:28 AM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; 'csisac-members at csisac.org' Subject: RE: [csisac-members] MEASURING the Internet Economy Hi Milton, -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:36 PM To: michael gurstein; csisac-members at csisac.org Subject: RE: [csisac-members] MEASURING the Internet Economy Michael I appreciate your enthusiasm and look forward to participating in the meeting with you. As a social scientist I do have trouble with some of your assertions. I have no problem when you point to the inadequacy of GDP measurements or the System of National Accounts. What bothers me is that you seem to have already hard-wired into your mind what you want to find, and you are just casting about for some method or definition of "measurement" that will produce the results you want. Here's an example: > The value of such an argument from a civil society perspective I > think, is that it links overall economic activity (GDP) with the > Internet, and links the Internet with the production of social capital > which in turn becomes something of a backdoor way of arguing that > investment in ICT should be as much focused on education, health, and > social support as it is on bits and bytes--hardware and > software--something I'm assuming we all agree with but also something > which is not taken as a necessary given by those folks managing > current economic policies. WE MAY BE GETTING INTO THE NETHER REGIONS OF EPISTEMOLOGY HERE, BUT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS AMONG THOSE DOING THESE KINDS OF MEASUREMENTS IS THAT YOU FIND WHAT YOU MEASURE RATHER MORE OFTEN THAN YOU MEASURE WHAT YOU FIND (PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE "SOCIAL" SCIENCES RATHER THAN THE "PHYSICAL" SCIENCES BUT EVEN THERE, THERE IS VERY CONSIDERABLE ON-GOING DISPUTE). THE LITERATURE ON THIS IS TRULY ENORMOUS AND IS THE BASIC QUESTION UNDERLYING MOST OF THE PHILOSOPHY (AND NOT INCIDENTALLY THE SOCIOLOGY) OF SCIENCE. I am eager to see challenging new ideas about how to measure or what to measure, but I don't see any here. Indeed, I don't see the above as an argument about measurement at all. What I do see is a normative policy argument that "investment in ICT should be as much focused on education, health, and social support as it is on bits and bytes--hardware and software." (Oddly, the policy conclusion is not all that controversial. Western democracies have invested vast sums in education and research, and everyone knows it's feeding into the Internet economy in important ways and I don't know of anyone who believes that it's all about hardware and software exclusively - although those things do get prioritized, I admit.) I'M NOT NECESSARILY LOOKING FOR NOVELTY IN EITHER HOW TO MEASURE OR EVEN WHAT TO MEASURE BUT RATHER IN THE FRAMEWORK UNDERLYING THE MEASUREMENTS THEMSELVES... AS FOR EXAMPLE THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT MADE VERY CLEAR, THE PROCESS OF NATIONAL ACCOUNTING IS STRUCTURED SO THAT WOMEN'S DOMESTIC WORK, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LEAD TO MEASUREABLE PRODUCT OUTCOMES DOESN'T APPEAR AS WORK AT ALL THUS AS A POLICY CONSEQUENCE WOMEN HAVE HAD TO FIGHT VERY STRONGLY TO HAVE THEIR "WORK" RECOGNIZED WITHIN NATIONAL POLICY AND FOR EXAMPLE HAVE ACCOMMODATIONS MADE FOR INCLUDING THIS WORK WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT THE INTERNET IS BOTH BUILT ON AND BUILT INTO SOCIAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AND THUS IF ONE IS CONCERNED, AS THE OECD HERE SEEMS TO BE, TO HAVE ACCURATE MEASURES OF "THE INTERNET ECONOMY" THEN ITS MEASUREMENT SCHEMES NEED TO EVOLVE TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE CREATION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL. To my mind, the whole point of good measurement techniques is that we don't know in advance the results they will produce; they tell us something new - and something real - which may or may not conform to what we want to find. Indeed, any system of measurement that is deliberately designed to confirm our pre-existing political views is a disgusting form of self-delusion and propaganda. So the real trick is to figure out new ways of "how" to measure new things that are unmeasured that actually work. SEE ABOVE... Think of Galileo peering into the telescope he invented for the first time, and looking at the moon and other planets, which helped lead to the rejection of the geo-centric concept of the universe. He did that because he was after the truth, not because he wanted to overthrow Christian cosmology. He may have ended up doing that, but that was a secondary consequence of honest inquiry. NOW YOU REALLY ARE GETTING INTO EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE PHILSOPHY OF (SOCIAL) SCIENCE. MOST SCHOLARS DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN NATURAL PHENOMENA SUCH AS WHAT GALILEO WAS OBSERVING AND SOCIAL PHENOMENA SUCH AS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING. THE ISSUES OF "REALISM" IN MEASUREMENT IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES IS ITSELF A SUBJECT OF VERY CONSIDERABLE RESEARCH/DEBATE Q.V. KUHN, PUTNAM, FEYERABEND ET AL... THE ISSUES OF MEASUREMENT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME DEBATES BUT WITH A HUGE AMOUNT OF GREATER COMPLEXITY AND DARE I SAY THAT CIVIL SOCIETY HAS BEEN A LEADER IN POINTING OUT THE UNDERLYING BIASES OF CURRENT MEASUREMENT STRUCTURES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY IN LINKING THIS TO THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS THAT RESULT FROM THESE BIASES--CF. THE PREVIOUSLY NOTED FEMINIST CRITIQUE, BUT ALSO THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CRITIQUE, THE EMERGING SUSTAINABILITY CRITIQUE AND SO ON. Many economists are a more sophisticated about these issues than you give them credit for. Are you familiar with the earlier debate on some of the measurement issues of the information economy? The first economist to really pursue this was Fritz Machlup, an Austrian economist who became fascinated with measuring what he called "the knowledge economy." This was 1962 or thereabouts. How did he get to that point? He was trying to figure out whether society was investing too much or too little on education. You might take a look at that. Here is a Google books link: http://books.google.com/books?id=kp6vswpmpjoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Machlup +Production+and+distribution+of+knowledge&hl=en&ei=r5ZdTvHaEKbK0AG8zMXQAg&sa =X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false CERTAINLY, NO QUESTION... I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT ECONOMISTS AREN'T SOPHISTICATED BUT I AM SUGGESTING THAT WE AS CIVIL SOCIETY NEED NOT (AND PERHAPS SHOULD NOT) ACCEPT AS A GIVEN WHAT ECONOMISTS CHOOSE AS THEIR WORKING ASSUMPTIONS/STRUCTURES OF MEASUREMENT AND SO ON. AND AS I SAY ABOVE, ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT (INTELLECTUAL) CONTRIBUTIONS THAT CIVIL SOCIETY HAS MADE IS PRECISELY CHALLENGING THOSE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE AREAS I HAVE POINTED. MY QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER WE, AS CS CONCERNED WITH "THE INTERNET" AND ITS USES AND EFFECTS, ARE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A SIMILAR CHALLENGE... Your own comments however, point to one of the seemingly inherent contradictions of economic measurement. You want to argue for increased investment in health, education, social support, and by "investments" I believe you mean real money, quantifiable sums of cash. Am I right? You are not saying that we should all think favorable thoughts or aim harmonious, warm vibes at our schools.. You want us to put tangible resources into them. But at the same time you seem to be arguing that monetary measures are worthless as indicators of value. Or maybe I am not getting your position. I'M NOT SURE FROM WHERE YOU IMPUTE THE ABOVE STATEMENT. MONETARY TRANSACTIONS ARE ONE MEASURING STICK AMONG OTHERS. ONE OF THE EXTREMELY INTERESTING COROLLARIES OF THE CS INNOVATIONS I'VE POINTED TO ABOVE IS THAT CLEVER FOLKS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PUT MONETARY VALUES ALONGSIDE MANY OF THE CONCEPTUAL INNOVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ARGUED FOR--THERE IS A WHOLE LITERATURE ON MEASURING WOMEN'S WORK FOR EXAMPLE, BUT ALSO ON ENIVORNMENTAL ACCOUNTING ETC.ETC. THE PROBLEM IS, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE DEBATES SURROUNDING THESE INNOVATIONS, THE ECONOMISTS/STATISTICIANS ARE TOO BOUND UP IN IDEOLOGY TO ACCEPT EVEN THESE MEASURES WITHIN THEIR NARROW PARAMETERS (BASICALLY THEY DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS THAT FOLLOW--AND THAT OF COURSE, IS WHERE MEASUREMENT INTERFACES WITH POLICY AND POLICY BECOMES POLITICS... This is a well-recognized problem in economics, actually. Everyone knows that there are all kinds of things that are valuable and important but are outside of the price system and thus difficult or impossible to measure. Until and unless these activities/things somehow engage in or touch upon the exchange economy, we simply don't know how to inter-subjectively calculate or measure their value. This is not some capitalist plot, it's just a basic fact about the human condition. You can't objectively assess the value of something except by looking at what people are willing to give up to get it. And when the unit of exchange is non-monetary (horses, cowrie shells, flowers, land, songs) it's really hard to make sense of it at the scale of a national or international economy. So money, as homogenous and fungible units of value shared by millions of people in an integrated transnational economy, becomes the basis for such measurements. YES, BUT SO WHAT, SEE ABOVE... If you can think of some simple way around this problem, more power to you. You'll get the Nobel prize. But please don't trivialize the difficulty of this problem, or attribute it to a conspiracy of evil neoliberals. (In fact, Chinese and Soviet Marxists are famous for putting the most emphasis on the production of physical goods and touting such statistics as proof of the superiority of socialism). MOST CERTAINLY, AND YOU'VE COMPLETELY DEFEATED AN ARGUMENT I WASN'T (AND WOULDN'T) MAKE. BEST, MIKE --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 cls at rkey.com Wed Aug 31 17:56:00 2011 From: cls at rkey.com (Craig Simon) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:56:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] MEASURING the digital space - whose MEASURES apply, and whose do not In-Reply-To: <7F90E1CB1B374D99AA4A78DCA8CE6427@userPC> References: <7F90E1CB1B374D99AA4A78DCA8CE6427@userPC> Message-ID: <4E5EADF0.8030407@rkey.com> Michael, The question ultimately hinges on who makes up the "we" in your sentence, "my position was that we need to be thinking of global governance institutions and thus global measurements/measurement strategies..." How do the members of "we" constitute themselves as agents capable of voicing grievances and making demands in the first place? Who counts? Who gets counted? And so on. Of course, no practical mechanism exists to coalesce expressions of their/our grievances and demands at a massively internetworked level (despite my lonely efforts to build one). Consequently, there's lots of open ground for individuals to show up in Internet governance fora like these claiming they know what "Netizens" (or humans at an expressly global level) want, or should want. That's politics, which is fine by me. I don't think that we who participate on these discussion lists need much reminding that "we" have yet to be heard. In any case, if the makeup of "we" ever is sorted out, building a knowledgebase that draws sober and insightful attention to statistics of economic well being will be an important test of institutional legitimacy. So I applaud your efforts. Craig Simon On 8/31/11 3:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Very interesting Craig... > > I understand you here as linking the question of Internet measurement into > the broader question of Internet identity i.e. as reflecting a shift away > from "national" statistics to "identity" based statistics but understood in > a global rather than a national context (to tie this discussion back into > the earlier one--where my position was that we need to be thinking of global > governance institutions and thus global measurements/measurement strategies, > rather than national ones (such as the SNA/GDP etc. > > I'm not exactly sure where this goes from practically but I think > conceptually you are suggesting something quite valuable. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 31 23:37:21 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:37:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting at Nairobi IGF Message-ID: Izumi and I would like to invite all those who will be at the Nairobi IGF meeting to attend a general meeting of the Internet Governance Caucus in the evening of 26 September. As in recent years, GIGANET have generously offered that we can have our meeting in their room after their symposium wraps up which I understand will be at around 6:30pm on 26 September. We will try not to take too long, in order that those from the GIGANET or APC meetings who will be dining afterwards will be able to get away on time. There will be no decisions taken at the meeting, but it will be an opportunity for review of the past year and discussion of what is ahead. Suggested items for the agenda are: IGC's workshops at this IGF Next coordinator elections Working groups of the IGC Strategic direction for the IGC Review of the IGC charter Other Internet governance processes If you have any other items to discuss, please reply to this thread. Thanks and we look forward to seeing you there if you can make it. -- 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 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @ConsumersInt Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2212 bytes Desc: not available URL: