From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 03:09:52 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:09:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations In-Reply-To: <4D4786F0.2090802@eff.org> References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <4D45CB0B.7050307@eff.org> <4D4786F0.2090802@eff.org> Message-ID: I accessed the link the first time you sent it and downloaded it immediately for consideration during policy implementation here in Fiji as we can learn lessons. The issue is "governance mechanisms" and redress for citizens. Often because acts are isolated and random, it is not until there is an operational audit (legitimacy is also key) where these acts which when consolidated reeks of the abuse of power. These are challenges that law enforcement authorities have to go through. What are the forms of redress and whose instructions were officers operating under and often, sadly but is true, some prosecutors or law enforcement authorities will say and do anything to secure a conviction against people and often the veil of "national security" or the "public good" will be touted. Redress mechanisms of "malicious prosecution" exist, anyway. Sala On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi Charity, > > This work is based on what we have found as a result of our litigation > under the in our Freedom of Information Act. The report "Patterns of > Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001 - 2008" is available here. > https://www.eff.org/pages/patterns-misconduct-fbi-intelligence-violations > > > On 1/31/11 7:37 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > > Hi, > > I am assuming that this was based on a CNN news report [ > http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/27/siu.fbi.internal.documents/index.html]. I > saw the news report on TV on my way out of the office last week (actually > stopped and watched it). What struck me the most was the gravity of the > offense with only a suspension. Those people swore to uphold the law - "*fidelity, > bravery and integrity*." FBI officials defended those offenses by saying > they're only humans and they make mistakes. A mistake is putting the wrong > number on the form and what they did was a deliberate violation of the rules > that they should follow. If regular people like me follow the speed limit > for instance, people who uphold the law should do the same thing. I'd hate > to pay $180 bucks for a speeding ticket. I don't think there are exceptions > to that rule. Shocking...Uncle Sam takes a lot of taxes from me and taxes > pay my wages, too, but I'd like to think that people in that same situation > should at least work on that thing they call *integrity*...that is. Sure > hope Congress does something. > > Btw Kati, the link for the final report does not seem to work. I would be > interested to read EFF's report but the link [ > https://www.eff.org/files/EFF%20IOB%20Report_Final%20Version.pdf] says "*page > not found*." > > Thanks! > > Regards, > Charity > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> >> >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/eff-releases-report-detailing-fbi-intelligence >> >> EFF has uncovered widespread violations stemming from FBI intelligence >> investigations from 2001 - 2008. In a reportreleased today, EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau’s intelligence >> investigation practices, suggesting that FBI intelligence investigations >> have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more >> frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed. >> >> Using documents obtained through EFF's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) >> litigation , >> the report finds: >> >> • *Evidence of delays of 2.5 years, on average, between the occurrence of >> a violation and its eventual reporting to the Intelligence Oversight Board >> * >> >> • *Reports of serious misconduct by FBI agents including lying in >> declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury >> subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant* >> >> • *Indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible >> intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11* >> >> EFF's report stems from analysis of nearly 2,500 pages of FBI documents, >> consisting of reports of FBI intelligence violations made to the Intelligence >> Oversight Board— an independent, civilian intelligence-monitoring board that reports to the >> President on the legality of foreign and domestic intelligence operations. >> The documents constitute the most complete picture of post-9/11 FBI >> intelligence abuses available to the public. Our earlier analysis of the >> documents showed the FBI's arbitrary disclosure practices. >> >> >> EFF's report underscores the need for greater transparency and oversight >> in the intelligence community. As part of our ongoing effortto inform the public and elected officials about abusive intelligence >> investigations, we are distributing copies of the report to members of >> Congress. >> >> A pdf copy of the report can be downloaded here. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > > > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundationkatitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Tue Feb 1 03:11:43 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:11:43 +1200 Subject: [governance] EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations In-Reply-To: References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <4D45CB0B.7050307@eff.org> <4D4786F0.2090802@eff.org> Message-ID: Correction: last sentence should read (my fingers were too fast, apologies) Redress mechanisms exist for accused persons if they wish to run the "malicious prosecution" argument, anyway. On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > I accessed the link the first time you sent it and downloaded it > immediately for consideration during policy implementation here in Fiji as > we can learn lessons. > > The issue is "governance mechanisms" and redress for citizens. Often > because acts are isolated and random, it is not until there is an > operational audit (legitimacy is also key) where these acts which when > consolidated reeks of the abuse of power. These are challenges that law > enforcement authorities have to go through. What are the forms of redress > and whose instructions were officers operating under and often, sadly but is > true, some prosecutors or law enforcement authorities will say and do > anything to secure a conviction against people and often the veil of > "national security" or the "public good" will be touted. > > Redress mechanisms of "malicious prosecution" exist, anyway. > > Sala > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> Hi Charity, >> >> This work is based on what we have found as a result of our litigation >> under the in our Freedom of Information Act. The report "Patterns of >> Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001 - 2008" is available here. >> https://www.eff.org/pages/patterns-misconduct-fbi-intelligence-violations >> >> >> On 1/31/11 7:37 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am assuming that this was based on a CNN news report [ >> http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/27/siu.fbi.internal.documents/index.html]. >> I saw the news report on TV on my way out of the office last week (actually >> stopped and watched it). What struck me the most was the gravity of the >> offense with only a suspension. Those people swore to uphold the law - "*fidelity, >> bravery and integrity*." FBI officials defended those offenses by saying >> they're only humans and they make mistakes. A mistake is putting the wrong >> number on the form and what they did was a deliberate violation of the rules >> that they should follow. If regular people like me follow the speed limit >> for instance, people who uphold the law should do the same thing. I'd hate >> to pay $180 bucks for a speeding ticket. I don't think there are exceptions >> to that rule. Shocking...Uncle Sam takes a lot of taxes from me and taxes >> pay my wages, too, but I'd like to think that people in that same situation >> should at least work on that thing they call *integrity*...that is. Sure >> hope Congress does something. >> >> Btw Kati, the link for the final report does not seem to work. I would be >> interested to read EFF's report but the link [ >> https://www.eff.org/files/EFF%20IOB%20Report_Final%20Version.pdf] says "*page >> not found*." >> >> Thanks! >> >> Regards, >> Charity >> >> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/eff-releases-report-detailing-fbi-intelligence >>> >>> EFF has uncovered widespread violations stemming from FBI intelligence >>> investigations from 2001 - 2008. In a reportreleased today, EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau’s intelligence >>> investigation practices, suggesting that FBI intelligence investigations >>> have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more >>> frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed. >>> >>> Using documents obtained through EFF's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) >>> litigation , >>> the report finds: >>> >>> • *Evidence of delays of 2.5 years, on average, between the occurrence >>> of a violation and its eventual reporting to the Intelligence Oversight >>> Board * >>> >>> • *Reports of serious misconduct by FBI agents including lying in >>> declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury >>> subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant* >>> >>> • *Indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 >>> possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11* >>> >>> EFF's report stems from analysis of nearly 2,500 pages of FBI documents, >>> consisting of reports of FBI intelligence violations made to the Intelligence >>> Oversight Board— an independent, civilian intelligence-monitoring board that reports to the >>> President on the legality of foreign and domestic intelligence operations. >>> The documents constitute the most complete picture of post-9/11 FBI >>> intelligence abuses available to the public. Our earlier analysis of the >>> documents showed the FBI's arbitrary disclosure practices. >>> >>> >>> EFF's report underscores the need for greater transparency and oversight >>> in the intelligence community. As part of our ongoing effortto inform the public and elected officials about abusive intelligence >>> investigations, we are distributing copies of the report to members of >>> Congress. >>> >>> A pdf copy of the report can be downloaded here. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundationkatitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Feb 1 05:20:00 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:20:00 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:51:49 +0800) References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I'm not inclined to modify the statement on which the consensus call > has been made Hm... I think this means that as far as I'm concerned, we fail to have consensus. In my view, the need for open standards which must be adequate not only to prevent perpetuate of past monopolies but also prevent the formation of new monopolies is an absolutely essential aspect of what the term "open Internet" should be understood to mean. I apologize, I mean I'm really sorry, that I did not participate as immediately actively in the drafting of this statement as I now wish I had. But please note that I first made the request for the inclusion of a mention of the aspect of open standards several days before the consensus call was issued, and that the whole point of a consensus call is to give everyone the opportunity to review a draft statement and speak out if, from any one the verious perspectives represented here, there's something seriously wrong with the draft statement. From my perspective, this is the case. The statement "An open Internet is one that supports development, promotes Access to Knowledge, and resists perpetuating the power of old media and telecommunications empires on the new network." is in my opinion so one-sided that it is actually seriously wrong, unless it is complemented with an additional sentence like the one that I'm proposing. When new media and telecommunication empires (think e.g. of facebook and twitter) become monopolies through lack of adequate standardization, that is in no way better than the perpetuation of the power of old media and telecommunication empires. Greetings, Norbert > On 30/01/2011, at 4:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >> 1. Open Internet - Network Neutrality on Wired and Mobile Networks > >> Open Internet (or Network Neutrality) describes an ideal in which > >> the openness of the Internet to the broadest possible range of > >> commercial and non-commercial content, applications and services is > >> maintained. An open Internet is one that supports development, > >> promotes Access to Knowledge, and resists perpetuating the power of > >> old media and telecommunications empires on the new network. > > > > Please add something like > > > > "An open internet is based on open standards in such a way that it > > also resists the creation of any new monopolies in the area of > > information and communication technologies." > > Once the consensus call is in progress, I can normally only accept > minor and uncontroversial changes to the text. Although I agree > with this addition as a normative statement, it is not usually part > of the definition of open Internet or network neutrality. If the > theme is accepted for Nairobi then we should be sure to make open > standards a part of it, but at this stage I'm not inclined to modify > the statement on which the consensus call has been made. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Feb 1 07:21:10 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:21:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: (message from Roland Perry on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:03:11 +0000) References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20110201122110.5D72315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Roland Perry wrote: > In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 on > Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > >When such technology is readily available for purposes of > >political communication, that will greatly decrease the > >incentive even for police-state regimes to create "national > >emergency" laws for easy internet consorship or even an > >internet shut-down like Egypt seems to be attempting. > > What we've got is a curfew - most administrations have that concept in > their law for extreme circumstances. And online is just a part of real > life, and one part where the concept of a curfew has spilled over. I'm > sure it's inconvenient for many people, but so is staying indoors at > night, or being excluded from areas during the day. I would argue that while a curfew (in the sense of forbidding leaving one's place of residence at night-time) might be justifiable in some kinds of extreme circumstances, not even extreme circumstances can justify internet censorship or an internet shut-down. Please read in this context the UN Human Rights Council decision A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1 [1] adopted on 2 October 2009 [2]. [1] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1 [2] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/12session/resdec.htm 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 avri at acm.org Tue Feb 1 07:35:09 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:35:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20110201122110.5D72315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> <20110201122110.5D72315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <302B9CFC-36C3-41A6-90BD-99465D34542A@acm.org> On 1 Feb 2011, at 07:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I would argue that while a curfew (in the sense of forbidding leaving > one's place of residence at night-time) might be justifiable in some > kinds of extreme circumstances, not even extreme circumstances can > justify internet censorship or an internet shut-down. In general I agree. What I have beens struggling with was whether there were ever any legitimate reason for shutting down segments of the Internet. In think that in terms of content/censorship the answer is no. Then again expression is not a sufficient reason for a curfew either. I think the only possible acceptable reason for a curfew is a highly probably physical threat to the people - though I am not sure what this would be. In parallel the only acceptable reason for shutting down the Internet would be a 'physical' threat to the network or to people's computer systems - e.g. if there were a virus so pernicious that it fried every motherboard after having propagated. Not even sure that is possible, but since SW controls HW it might be. So I think that the point is censorship is never a sufficient reason for either a curfew or for shutting down the network. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Feb 1 08:22:22 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:22:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <302B9CFC-36C3-41A6-90BD-99465D34542A@acm.org> (message from Avri Doria on Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:35:09 -0500) References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> <20110201122110.5D72315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <302B9CFC-36C3-41A6-90BD-99465D34542A@acm.org> Message-ID: <20110201132222.7DD6015C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > In parallel the only acceptable reason for shutting down the > Internet would be a 'physical' threat to the network or to people's > computer systems - e.g. if there were a virus so pernicious that it > fried every motherboard after having propagated. Not even sure that > is possible, but since SW controls HW it might be. Even that is far from even coming close to being an acceptable justification, IMO. Computer mainboards are replacable, it's just a matter of money that can be covered by insurance. So for example, countries can adopt a law that says that if a computer mainboard gets fried by a virus, the shop that sold the computer must repair it free of charge. The shops would probably buy insurance to cover their risk. 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 Tue Feb 1 09:34:35 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:34:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <302B9CFC-36C3-41A6-90BD-99465D34542A@acm.org> References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> <20110201122110.5D72315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <302B9CFC-36C3-41A6-90BD-99465D34542A@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <302B9CFC-36C3-41A6-90BD-99465D34542A at acm.org>, at 07:35:09 on Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Avri Doria writes >I think that the point is censorship is never a sufficient reason for >either a curfew or for shutting down the network. Censorship implies, to me at least, the selective suppression of a specific class of expression (whatever's the current local concern). Not pulling out the plug completely. So I think I agree with you (if we both have the same meanings for these words). -- 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Feb 1 11:08:24 2011 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:08:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous Message-ID: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> A good example. A Web site was legal in its country, but may be illegal in the US. Since the domain was a .org, the US governement can delete it at will: http://torrentfreak.com/us-resume-file-sharing-domain-seizures-110201/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 12:05:59 2011 From: Dixie at global-partners.co.uk (Dixie Hawtin) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:05:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] IRP Statement on Internet restrictions in Egypt Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9755C362@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> (apologies for cross-posting) Hi all, Please find attached a statement that the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition has just released addressing restrictions on Internet access in Egypt. Please do forward it on far and wide to all of your media contacts! Many thanks, Dixie [cid:image003.jpg at 01CBC22E.FD1DE4B0] 1st February 2011 The Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition urges the Egyptian government to end the violation of the Egyptian people's rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly by lifting restrictions on access to the Internet and other Information and Communication Technologies. Internet access has been shut down in Egypt. Mobile phone networks have also been severely disrupted. Restrictions have also been placed on Egyptian and international media, including the blocking of Al Jazeera's broadcast signal and seizure of its equipment. These actions are direct and serious violations of the rights of the Egyptian people to freedom of expression and assembly. The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in international law in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Egypt has ratified. The right includes freedom to seek, receive and impart information through any media, regardless of frontiers. In modern society, the Internet is fundamental for the fulfilment of the right to freedom of expression. It is also an essential tool for peaceful assembly, whether online or offline, as protected by Article 21 of the ICCPR. These restrictions on communications access are a disproportionate and unnecessary response to legitimate political protest. The UN Human Rights Council Resolution 12/16 states that it is never permissible for any government to restrict peaceful demonstrations and political activities, including those for democracy. It also states that placing restrictions on access to, or use of, information and communication technologies is never permissible. This includes access to radio, television and the Internet. The explosion of information and communication technologies across the world has brought with it unprecedented opportunities for the fulfilment of human rights, social and economic development and democracy. These opportunities must not be lost through misguided efforts to control online communication. The Dynamic Coalition calls on the Egyptian government to restore the right to freedom of expression and assembly in Egypt through removing all restrictions on communication. All professional and citizen journalists in Egypt must be free to report on unfolding events through any media platform, to national and international audiences. All people must have full access to the Internet, to mobile phones and SMS, and to national and international media. About the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition The IRP DC is an international network of people who are working to uphold human rights on and through the Internet. The coalition is currently undertaking a major project to draft a Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. This applies international human rights standards to the Internet environment. It outlines what human rights people have when operating online, and what elements of Internet architecture need to be protected in order to realise human rights to the fullest extent possible. The Charter is currently released as a beta version, and we welcome comments and contributions. Join us online at: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/ http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples http://twitter.com/netrights For more information, contact Lisa Horner (coalition chair) - lisah at global-partners.co.uk , or Dixie Hawtin - Dixie at global-partners.co.uk. Phone: +44(0) 207 2398251. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6210 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call for freedom of expression online in Egypt.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 216492 bytes Desc: Call for freedom of expression online in Egypt.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt 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 Feb 1 13:35:11 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:35:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> Message-ID: In message <20110201160824.GA726 at nic.fr>, at 17:08:24 on Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes >A good example. A Web site was legal in its country, but may be >illegal in the US. Since the domain was a .org, the US governement can >delete it at will Not commenting on the merits of the specific case, but would it be more acceptable if that kind of "deletion" was done by order of a court in the USA (rather than the government or the police acting unilaterally), which an organisation based in the USA would probably want to comply with, even if not served via a law enforcement agency? If so, then it's a clash between jurisdictions and the ability of various parties to argue in those different jurisdictions whether or not their rights have been infringed. -- 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Feb 1 14:33:19 2011 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:33:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 06:35:11PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote a message of 29 lines which said: > would it be more acceptable if that kind of "deletion" was done by > order of a court in the USA (rather than the government or the > police acting unilaterally), which an organisation based in the USA > would probably want to comply with, even if not served via a law > enforcement agency? I do not think so since .ORG is, de facto, an international TLD. Why would an US court have more rights than the spanish courts which decided twice that this site was legal in Spain? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 15:03:09 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:03:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> Message-ID: In message <20110201193319.GA17670 at sources.org>, at 20:33:19 on Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes >> would it be more acceptable if that kind of "deletion" was done by >> order of a court in the USA (rather than the government or the >> police acting unilaterally), which an organisation based in the USA >> would probably want to comply with, even if not served via a law >> enforcement agency? > >I do not think so since .ORG is, de facto, an international TLD. Why >would an US court have more rights than the spanish courts which >decided twice that this site was legal in Spain? Every organisation has to be under the jurisdiction of one court or another. The obvious one to choose is where your corporate HQ is, although as time passes then the location of servers can become just as important. -- 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Feb 2 03:15:34 2011 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 09:15:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> Message-ID: <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 08:03:09PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote a message of 31 lines which said: > Every organisation has to be under the jurisdiction of one court or > another. It can be under an international treaty, precisely to avoid this danger. > The obvious one to choose is where your corporate HQ is, So, generic TLD are not really international, they are limited to US corporations? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 2 03:30:50 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:30:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> Message-ID: >On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 08:03:09PM +0000, > Roland Perry wrote > a message of 31 lines which said: > >> Every organisation has to be under the jurisdiction of one court or >> another. > >It can be under an international treaty, precisely to avoid this danger. > >> The obvious one to choose is where your corporate HQ is, > >So, generic TLD are not really international, they are limited to US >corporations? No, it is the location of the registrar. In Rojadirecta's case seems it was GoDaddy a U.S. company. Rojadirecta should have transferred their name away from a US company as soon as they had trouble. Adam >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 2 03:54:30 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:24:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> Message-ID: <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> Adam Peake wrote: >> >> So, generic TLD are not really international, they are limited to US >> corporations? > > > No, it is the location of the registrar. In Rojadirecta's case seems > it was GoDaddy a U.S. company. Rojadirecta should have transferred > their name away from a US company as soon as they had trouble. > > Adam Are you sure? Similar seizures earlier were done from the registry operator level who runs the generic tld, verisign in that case see quote from http://domainincite.com/icann-had-no-role-in-seizing-torrent-domains/ Ben Butler, Go Daddy's director of network abuse, has just provided me with the following statement, via a spokesperson: It appears the domain names were locked directly by VeriSign. Go Daddy has not received any law enforcement inquiries or court orders concerning the suspension of the domains in question. Go Daddy has not been contacted by ICE or DHS on the domain names in question. The point is ICANN, tld operators and many top registrars all are subject to US jurisdiction and will HAVE to to what US Laws seeks of them.... So the question of an international treaty raised by Stephane. parminder > > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- PK -------------- 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 Wed Feb 2 03:59:55 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:29:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> Further to below, Verisign admitted that the seizure action was done through them (this is about the old case mentioned in my email). quoting from below referred item. So, Adam, changing the registrar in the present case under discussion would simply not have helped. So lets focus on the real problem, and a possible solution to it. VeriSign sent this statement: VeriSign received sealed court orders directing certain actions to be taken with respect to specific domain names, and took appropriate actions. Because the orders are sealed, further questions should be directed to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. parminder wrote: > > > Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> So, generic TLD are not really international, they are limited to US >>> corporations? >> >> >> No, it is the location of the registrar. In Rojadirecta's case seems >> it was GoDaddy a U.S. company. Rojadirecta should have transferred >> their name away from a US company as soon as they had trouble. >> >> Adam > > Are you sure? Similar seizures earlier were done from the registry > operator level who runs the generic tld, verisign in that case > > see quote from > http://domainincite.com/icann-had-no-role-in-seizing-torrent-domains/ > > Ben Butler, Go Daddy’s director of network abuse, has just > provided me with the following statement, via a spokesperson: > > It appears the domain names were locked directly by VeriSign. > Go Daddy has not received any law enforcement inquiries or > court orders concerning the suspension of the domains in question. > > Go Daddy has not been contacted by ICE or DHS on the domain > names in question. > > > The point is ICANN, tld operators and many top registrars all are > subject to US jurisdiction and will HAVE to to what US Laws seeks of > them.... So the question of an international treaty raised by > Stephane. parminder > > > >> >> >> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -- > PK -- PK -------------- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Feb 2 05:01:20 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:01:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> At 11:20 01/02/2011, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I'm not inclined to modify the statement on which the consensus call > > has been made Jeremy, Then, we have a problem. As Norbert mentions it, what you describe in the "consensual document" sounds to be 35 years old. I mean, this was what I wrote in 1980 while introducing the new network (international packet switch services - IPSS) among monopolies. By then, the concept of openness, as being able to directly support non-proprietary network applications over the transport layer, was not even conceived. Today, the equivalent top concern would be network neutrality, which only openness can ensure (and this is required), but not guarantee. In addition, the Internet is not a "new" network. You cannot even qualify the mobiles as a new network. Nobody will understand what you are talking about. What is really "new" today is the "new Internet technology reading" as implied by RFC 5890-5895 with our Vint Cerf, IAB, consensus attained under our IUsers pressure. We still confirmed it yesterday against the Unicode monopoly. The Unicode consortium is today's market monopoly (cf. already old RFC 3869 from IAB). For marketing reasons, it calls for a technical priority given to machines over people. These machines are the machines of the Unicode consortium members, and eventually their leader: Google. This is because the Internet does not support, promote, resist, etc. it only works or not (like in Egypt). As such, it is operated (short-term operance), governed (mid-term governance), or planned (long-term adminance). The Unicode consortium progressively infiltrates them far more intelligently than the messy ICANN. The "new Internet technology reading" consists in keeping in mind a third fundamental principle (there are only two RFCs addressing the Internet architecture), in which after: - the "principle of perpetual change", which is the basis for the manufacturer and operators strategy (as per RFC 1958). - the "principle of simplicity", which is the basis for the IAB driven standardization effort of the IETF as per RFC 3439. - this is the newly introduced "principle of subsidiarity" (permitted by architectural uncoupling): it was eventually identified as necessary to address linguistic diversity. The issue was not the language at this level, but rather to address diversity as such. This includes the diversity in and of people, applications, network perspectives, and technologies. This is the basis for the emergence of the multitechnology Intelligent Use (IUse) community that is to be, in essence, totally open and public domain, as I explained before. What is dramatically "new" is whatever corporations such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft want to keep private will have to be located in an open place. Today, Sony was denied access to iPods because Apple seems to want to impose its ebook reader and library. Now we know how to oppose these market monopoloies in technically obsoleting their technically suppoted strategy, through technical additions based on simplicity, openness and subsidiarity . Market monopolies try to play on a direct client/server coupling of their applications. We have made them accept at IETF and want to explore a user centric IUI (Intelligent Use Interface) that uncouples servers and subsidiary services mastered by the users. This means big and small marketers are just providers that the users can choose, not market dictators. If civil society wants to support users, it now has an architectural capability to use the internet that is capable of answering the requirements of the WSIS resolution for a people centric Information Society. Now, the common target should be to commonly master an open, simple, people mastered architecture and at least to consider, build, and comfort its societal environment. It is certainly too early to commit to something that is just emerging (the IGF role is only to foster such an emergence), and that has to be experimented and built upon. However, it is not the best strategy to only call for what its merchant opponents are trying to secure and not for what it strives to provide. Unicode consortium Members (Google, Microsoft, IBM, Yahoo!, Oracle, etc.) "support development, promote Access to Knowledge, and resist perpetuating the power of old media and telecommunications empires", but by stealing our own networks and liberties from us. Now we have forced them to give up their architectural monopoly, so we can get our network and liberties back. This is based upon openness, what Norbert emphasizes; this is based upon subsidiarity obtained by our clique: we now have to explore, validate through testing, document, and deploy it. Today, the priority is to develop Wi-Fi, WiMAX, radio, satellite, etc. oriented alternatives to ISPs (Usenet as an image) to protect the surety of the bandwidth as well as the communication security. The French HADOPI law, Mubarak, and today Obama (by the Rojadirecta.org/.com case) are showing that opposed powers now shut access, sites, and the Internet, as a worldwide impact defense against local opposing forces (or competition, even foreign and legal, as in the US case). To protect bandwidth access, this calls for emergency, robust, sure, and secure alternatives or, at least guarantees, that the civil society should require in priority. Would you be Egyptian, this would be your priority, a consensus call being passed or not. Openness is the only guarantee against the Internet being shut-down because it permits interoperability during tough situations (of any kind, including natural catastrophes). I agree that it is a really new vision: the world digital ecosystem, wherein the internet is just an element and the people are the center of every concern and capacity. Otherwise, it will not work. Let us take the example of terrestrial transportation. Today, there are only Internet highways that we pay a toll to use. We need to progressively take control of the roads, paths, streets, etc. so that if there is an earthquake, and if the highways are blocked, we can still freely move around and this way collectively contain toll rises. Sorry. jfc >Hm... I think this means that as far as I'm concerned, we fail to have >consensus. > >In my view, the need for open standards which must be adequate not >only to prevent perpetuate of past monopolies but also prevent the >formation of new monopolies is an absolutely essential aspect >of what the term "open Internet" should be understood to mean. > >I apologize, I mean I'm really sorry, that I did not participate >as immediately actively in the drafting of this statement as I >now wish I had. But please note that I first made the request >for the inclusion of a mention of the aspect of open standards >several days before the consensus call was issued, and that the >whole point of a consensus call is to give everyone the opportunity >to review a draft statement and speak out if, from any one the >verious perspectives represented here, there's something seriously >wrong with the draft statement. From my perspective, this is the >case. The statement "An open Internet is one that supports >development, promotes Access to Knowledge, and resists perpetuating >the power of old media and telecommunications empires on the new >network." is in my opinion so one-sided that it is actually seriously >wrong, unless it is complemented with an additional sentence like >the one that I'm proposing. > >When new media and telecommunication empires (think e.g. of facebook >and twitter) become monopolies through lack of adequate standardization, >that is in no way better than the perpetuation of the power of old >media and telecommunication empires. > >Greetings, >Norbert > > > On 30/01/2011, at 4:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > >> 1. Open Internet - Network Neutrality on Wired and Mobile Networks > > >> Open Internet (or Network Neutrality) describes an ideal in which > > >> the openness of the Internet to the broadest possible range of > > >> commercial and non-commercial content, applications and services is > > >> maintained. An open Internet is one that supports development, > > >> promotes Access to Knowledge, and resists perpetuating the power of > > >> old media and telecommunications empires on the new network. > > > > > > Please add something like > > > > > > "An open internet is based on open standards in such a way that it > > > also resists the creation of any new monopolies in the area of > > > information and communication technologies." > > > > Once the consensus call is in progress, I can normally only accept > > minor and uncontroversial changes to the text. Although I agree > > with this addition as a normative statement, it is not usually part > > of the definition of open Internet or network neutrality. If the > > theme is accepted for Nairobi then we should be sure to make open > > standards a part of it, but at this stage I'm not inclined to modify > > the statement on which the consensus call has been made. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 Wed Feb 2 05:02:36 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 22:02:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: hmmm....interesting and am musing on Norbert's additional phrase, it makes sense to me. On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I'm not inclined to modify the statement on which the consensus call > > has been made > > Hm... I think this means that as far as I'm concerned, we fail to have > consensus. > > In my view, the need for open standards which must be adequate not > only to prevent perpetuate of past monopolies but also prevent the > formation of new monopolies is an absolutely essential aspect > of what the term "open Internet" should be understood to mean. > > I apologize, I mean I'm really sorry, that I did not participate > as immediately actively in the drafting of this statement as I > now wish I had. But please note that I first made the request > for the inclusion of a mention of the aspect of open standards > several days before the consensus call was issued, and that the > whole point of a consensus call is to give everyone the opportunity > to review a draft statement and speak out if, from any one the > verious perspectives represented here, there's something seriously > wrong with the draft statement. From my perspective, this is the > case. The statement "An open Internet is one that supports > development, promotes Access to Knowledge, and resists perpetuating > the power of old media and telecommunications empires on the new > network." is in my opinion so one-sided that it is actually seriously > wrong, unless it is complemented with an additional sentence like > the one that I'm proposing. > > When new media and telecommunication empires (think e.g. of facebook > and twitter) become monopolies through lack of adequate standardization, > that is in no way better than the perpetuation of the power of old > media and telecommunication empires. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > On 30/01/2011, at 4:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > >> 1. Open Internet - Network Neutrality on Wired and Mobile Networks > > >> Open Internet (or Network Neutrality) describes an ideal in which > > >> the openness of the Internet to the broadest possible range of > > >> commercial and non-commercial content, applications and services is > > >> maintained. An open Internet is one that supports development, > > >> promotes Access to Knowledge, and resists perpetuating the power of > > >> old media and telecommunications empires on the new network. > > > > > > Please add something like > > > > > > "An open internet is based on open standards in such a way that it > > > also resists the creation of any new monopolies in the area of > > > information and communication technologies." > > > > Once the consensus call is in progress, I can normally only accept > > minor and uncontroversial changes to the text. Although I agree > > with this addition as a normative statement, it is not usually part > > of the definition of open Internet or network neutrality. If the > > theme is accepted for Nairobi then we should be sure to make open > > standards a part of it, but at this stage I'm not inclined to modify > > the statement on which the consensus call has been made. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Feb 2 05:13:42 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 22:13:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Check out the second paragraph of the article in this link: http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2011/02/01/us-seizes-domain-spainbased-sports-linking-site-rojadirecta "*Similar to the dozens of sites seized by the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit last November, Rojadirecta.org now features a notice from ICE that the site was seized for copyright-related violations*. " PS. I got this article from googling Rojadirecta, from JFC's email exchange. On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:59 PM, parminder wrote: > Further to below, Verisign admitted that the seizure action was done > through them (this is about the old case mentioned in my email). quoting > from below referred item. > > So, Adam, changing the registrar in the present case under discussion would > simply not have helped. So lets focus on the real problem, and a possible > solution to it. > > VeriSign sent this statement: > > VeriSign received sealed court orders directing certain actions to be taken > with respect to specific domain names, and took appropriate actions. Because > the orders are sealed, further questions should be directed to the U.S. > Department of Homeland Security. > > > > parminder wrote: > > > > Adam Peake wrote: > > > So, generic TLD are not really international, they are limited to US > corporations? > > > > No, it is the location of the registrar. In Rojadirecta's case seems it > was GoDaddy a U.S. company. Rojadirecta should have transferred their name > away from a US company as soon as they had trouble. > > Adam > > > Are you sure? Similar seizures earlier were done from the registry operator > level who runs the generic tld, verisign in that case > > see quote from > http://domainincite.com/icann-had-no-role-in-seizing-torrent-domains/ > > Ben Butler, Go Daddy’s director of network abuse, has just provided me with > the following statement, via a spokesperson: > > It appears the domain names were locked directly by VeriSign. Go Daddy has > not received any law enforcement inquiries or court orders concerning the > suspension of the domains in question. > > Go Daddy has not been contacted by ICE or DHS on the domain names in > question. > > > The point is ICANN, tld operators and many top registrars all are subject > to US jurisdiction and will HAVE to to what US Laws seeks of them.... So the > question of an international treaty raised by Stephane. parminder > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > PK > > > -- > PK > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Feb 2 05:20:42 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 22:20:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: my apologies did'nt read the initial emails On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Check out the second paragraph of the article in this link: > http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2011/02/01/us-seizes-domain-spainbased-sports-linking-site-rojadirecta > > "*Similar to the dozens of sites seized by the U.S. Dept. of Homeland > Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit last November, > Rojadirecta.org now features a notice from ICE that the site was seized for > copyright-related violations*. " > > PS. I got this article from googling Rojadirecta, from JFC's email > exchange. > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:59 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Further to below, Verisign admitted that the seizure action was done >> through them (this is about the old case mentioned in my email). quoting >> from below referred item. >> >> So, Adam, changing the registrar in the present case under discussion >> would simply not have helped. So lets focus on the real problem, and a >> possible solution to it. >> >> VeriSign sent this statement: >> >> VeriSign received sealed court orders directing certain actions to be >> taken with respect to specific domain names, and took appropriate actions. >> Because the orders are sealed, further questions should be directed to the >> U.S. Department of Homeland Security. >> >> >> >> parminder wrote: >> >> >> >> Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> So, generic TLD are not really international, they are limited to US >> corporations? >> >> >> >> No, it is the location of the registrar. In Rojadirecta's case seems it >> was GoDaddy a U.S. company. Rojadirecta should have transferred their name >> away from a US company as soon as they had trouble. >> >> Adam >> >> >> Are you sure? Similar seizures earlier were done from the registry >> operator level who runs the generic tld, verisign in that case >> >> see quote from >> http://domainincite.com/icann-had-no-role-in-seizing-torrent-domains/ >> >> Ben Butler, Go Daddy’s director of network abuse, has just provided me >> with the following statement, via a spokesperson: >> >> It appears the domain names were locked directly by VeriSign. Go Daddy has >> not received any law enforcement inquiries or court orders concerning the >> suspension of the domains in question. >> >> Go Daddy has not been contacted by ICE or DHS on the domain names in >> question. >> >> >> The point is ICANN, tld operators and many top registrars all are subject >> to US jurisdiction and will HAVE to to what US Laws seeks of them.... So the >> question of an international treaty raised by Stephane. parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> PK >> >> >> -- >> PK >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 2 05:27:09 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:27:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Check out the second paragraph of the article in this link: > http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2011/02/01/us-seizes-domain-spainbased-sports-linking-site-rojadirecta I am surprised that PIR caved in so quickly...Baptism by fire for Brian Cute. If, as it seems regitries/registrars are going to abide by these seizure orders, it seems they would abide by them if they had HQ in any country. What is the solution then? A treaty is not going to fly, no country is going to give up their sovereignty over ccTLDs or com0panies (registries/registrars) that run in their country. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Feb 2 05:36:12 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 22:36:12 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: This is Rojadirecta's new URL: http://209.44.113.146/ and www.rojadirecta.com www.rojadirecta.me www.rojadirecta.es www.rojadirecta.in show more show less On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:27 PM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Check out the second paragraph of the article in this link: > > > http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2011/02/01/us-seizes-domain-spainbased-sports-linking-site-rojadirecta > > I am surprised that PIR caved in so quickly...Baptism by fire for > Brian Cute. If, as it seems regitries/registrars are going to abide by > these seizure orders, it seems they would abide by them if they had HQ > in any country. > > What is the solution then? A treaty is not going to fly, no country is > going to give up their sovereignty over ccTLDs or com0panies > (registries/registrars) that run in their country. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Feb 2 06:32:24 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 20:32:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: My bad memory -- I thought the earlier seizures had been made via the registrars, not registries. Were a number of Cuban businesses caught via their registrars, not the more recent ICE cases, doesn't matter this is bad. And I was wrong. Makes the process Avri and others are involved with find ways to support developing country applicants for new gTLDs even more important: diversity in location of administration is clearly essential. Would be helpful if members of PIR's Advisory Council active in the IGC (Khaled, Milton) could find out what's going on. Suggest the Advisory Council recommend to PIR that it move its registered office to Geneva, with ISOC. And it would be good to get a reaction from ISOC. When is the re-bid for the .NET and .ORG contract coming up, let's make it an issue. Perhaps Bill would like to see what the GNSO Council thinks and what amendments necessary the new TLD process to try and protect against similar actions by governments in the future. And we all have GAC representatives, write to them. There's a meeting of GAC and Board coming up on new TLDs, this is an issue very relevant to that process. Ask our GAC representatives to raise it. Who can contact Spain? Adam (BTW - as we're all subscribed to the list could we not cc everyone on every reply, just the list will do.) >On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Check out the second paragraph of the article in this link: >> >>http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2011/02/01/us-seizes-domain-spainbased-sports-linking-site-rojadirecta > >I am surprised that PIR caved in so quickly...Baptism by fire for >Brian Cute. If, as it seems regitries/registrars are going to abide by >these seizure orders, it seems they would abide by them if they had HQ >in any country. > >What is the solution then? A treaty is not going to fly, no country is >going to give up their sovereignty over ccTLDs or com0panies >(registries/registrars) that run in their country. > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 2 06:54:15 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:24:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D4945E7.4030602@itforchange.net> Adam Peake wrote: > My bad memory -- I thought the earlier seizures had been made via the > registrars, not registries. Were a number of Cuban businesses caught > via their registrars, not the more recent ICE cases, doesn't matter > this is bad. And I was wrong. > > Makes the process Avri and others are involved with find ways to > support developing country applicants for new gTLDs even more > important: diversity in location of administration is clearly essential. > > Would be helpful if members of PIR's Advisory Council > active in the IGC (Khaled, Milton) > could find out what's going on. Suggest the Advisory Council recommend > to PIR that it move its registered office to Geneva, with ISOC. And it > would be good to get a reaction from ISOC. When is the re-bid for the > .NET and .ORG contract coming up, let's make it an issue. > > Perhaps Bill would like to see what the GNSO Council thinks and what > amendments necessary the new TLD process to try and protect against > similar actions by governments in the future. And we all have GAC > representatives, write to them. There's a meeting of GAC and Board > coming up on new TLDs, this is an issue very relevant to that process. > Ask our GAC representatives to raise it. Who can contact Spain? And by all logic, a pressing and important IGF plenary topic. IGC is already proposing a plenary on such cross border issues. I hope all constituencies agree that an IGF plenary must discuss this issue. Parminder > > Adam > > (BTW - as we're all subscribed to the list could we not cc everyone on > every reply, just the list will do.) > > > >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> Check out the second paragraph of the article in this link: >>> >>> http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2011/02/01/us-seizes-domain-spainbased-sports-linking-site-rojadirecta >>> >> >> I am surprised that PIR caved in so quickly...Baptism by fire for >> Brian Cute. If, as it seems regitries/registrars are going to abide by >> these seizure orders, it seems they would abide by them if they had HQ >> in any country. >> >> What is the solution then? A treaty is not going to fly, no country is >> going to give up their sovereignty over ccTLDs or com0panies >> (registries/registrars) that run in their country. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Feb 2 07:07:29 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 07:07:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, I think Parminder is right, the location of the Registry and the contract it has with ICANN affect where the case will be heard. In some cases it may end up being registrar, but mostly the Registry is the issue. Though I don't think we would an International Treaty which implies that governments are the ones who have come to agreement on the modalities, but rather a Host Country Agreement that allows the organization to be run under its own By-Laws with its own defined methods of multistakeholder oversight. I expect that Parminder and I, at least, may disagree on this point. Although it seems that for now, this is a moot point - I see no evidence that ICANN is considering becoming an International organization operating under a host country agreement. a. On 2 Feb 2011, at 03:54, parminder wrote: > > > Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> So, generic TLD are not really international, they are limited to US >>> corporations? >> >> >> No, it is the location of the registrar. In Rojadirecta's case seems it was GoDaddy a U.S. company. Rojadirecta should have transferred their name away from a US company as soon as they had trouble. >> >> Adam > > Are you sure? Similar seizures earlier were done from the registry operator level who runs the generic tld, verisign in that case > > see quote from http://domainincite.com/icann-had-no-role-in-seizing-torrent-domains/ > > Ben Butler, Go Daddy’s director of network abuse, has just provided me with the following statement, via a spokesperson: > It appears the domain names were locked directly by VeriSign. Go Daddy has not received any law enforcement inquiries or court orders concerning the suspension of the domains in question. > > Go Daddy has not been contacted by ICE or DHS on the domain names in question. > > > The point is ICANN, tld operators and many top registrars all are subject to US jurisdiction and will HAVE to to what US Laws seeks of them.... So the question of an international treaty raised by Stephane. parminder > > > >> >> >> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -- > PK > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 2 07:14:08 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:44:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D494A90.7040101@itforchange.net> McTim wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > >> Check out the second paragraph of the article in this link: >> http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2011/02/01/us-seizes-domain-spainbased-sports-linking-site-rojadirecta >> > > I am surprised that PIR caved in so quickly...Baptism by fire for > Brian Cute. If, as it seems regitries/registrars are going to abide by > these seizure orders, it seems they would abide by them if they had HQ > in any country. > > What is the solution then? A treaty is not going to fly, no country is > going to give up their sovereignty over ccTLDs or com0panies > (registries/registrars) that run in their country. > If we start from that baseline there cannot be any real global governance. However if we all recognise that a global Internet cannot be run without considerable amount of global governance it may help to note how much sovereignty have country governments given up and keep giving up in the area of global trade and IP agreements, and also under climate change etc treaties. They will have to give it up to some good extent in IG as well, but the route to it has to be explored and planned well. That is what is needed to be primarily tried through various global IG processes. This is an imperative we must all understand and the global IG civil society has to be on the forefront of this exploration without resorting to knee jerk we-cant-live-with-govs-in-global IG space reactions. 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Feb 2 07:26:07 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:26:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> Message-ID: In message <20110202081534.GA4330 at nic.fr>, at 09:15:34 on Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes >On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 08:03:09PM +0000, > Roland Perry wrote > a message of 31 lines which said: > >> Every organisation has to be under the jurisdiction of one court or >> another. > >It can be under an international treaty, precisely to avoid this danger. With an international court in the Hague (for example)? I thought that's what a lot of people were trying to avoid (the capture of cyberspace by one intergovernmental body). >> The obvious one to choose is where your corporate HQ is, > >So, generic TLD are not really international, they are limited to US >corporations? The place of business of registrants is usually quite independent from that of the registry (unless it has a specific limitation in its charter). -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Feb 2 07:51:19 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 21:51:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: >Hi, > >I think Parminder is right, the location of the >Registry and the contract it has with ICANN >affect where the case will be heard. In some >cases it may end up being registrar, but mostly >the Registry is the issue. > >Though I don't think we would an International >Treaty which implies that governments are the >ones who have come to agreement on the >modalities, but rather a Host Country Agreement >that allows the organization to be run under its >own By-Laws with its own defined methods of >multistakeholder oversight. This is something we argued necessary during the Tunis phase of WSIS. I think it would be the right thing to happen, would solve a few other issues... but I don't see it happening. Didn't ICANN agree not to do this as part of the AoC? Better, lobby our governments, they are our representatives, if they want to get involved and be legitimate in the GAC they should listen. And make it an issue when current TLD contracts come up for renewal, we have a voice in the policy development processes. And make it an issue in the applicant guide book and in advice we give to applicants. Adam >I expect that Parminder and I, at least, may >disagree on this point. Although it seems that >for now, this is a moot point - I see no >evidence that ICANN is considering becoming an >International organization operating under a >host country agreement. > >a. > >On 2 Feb 2011, at 03:54, parminder wrote: > >> >> >> Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> So, generic TLD are not really international, they are limited to US >>>> corporations? >>> >>> >>> No, it is the location of the registrar. In >>>Rojadirecta's case seems it was GoDaddy a U.S. >>>company. Rojadirecta should have transferred >>>their name away from a US company as soon as >>>they had trouble. >>> >>> Adam >> >> Are you sure? Similar seizures earlier were >>done from the registry operator level who runs >>the generic tld, verisign in that case >> >> see quote from >>http://domainincite.com/icann-had-no-role-in-seizing-torrent-domains/ >> >> Ben Butler, Go Daddy¹s director of network >>abuse, has just provided me with the following >>statement, via a spokesperson: >> It appears the domain names were locked >>directly by VeriSign. Go Daddy has not received >>any law enforcement inquiries or court orders >>concerning the suspension of the domains in >>question. >> >> Go Daddy has not been contacted by ICE or DHS >>on the domain names in question. >> >> >> The point is ICANN, tld operators and many top >>registrars all are subject to US jurisdiction >>and will HAVE to to what US Laws seeks of >>them.... So the question of an international >>treaty raised by Stephane. parminder >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> -- >> PK >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Feb 2 11:12:11 2011 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:12:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20110202161211.GA9858@nic.fr> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 12:26:07PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote a message of 38 lines which said: > I thought that's what a lot of people were trying to avoid (the > capture of cyberspace by one intergovernmental body). While at this time it is captured by one monogovernmental body. > The place of business of registrants is usually quite independent > from that of the registry So what? The fact that the registrant was hosted in Spain did not change anything here. Afilias/PIR yielded because they are US corporations, whatever the place of business of the registrant 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Feb 2 11:14:02 2011 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:14:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110202161402.GB9858@nic.fr> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 01:27:09PM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 33 lines which said: > What is the solution then? A treaty is not going to fly, no country > is going to give up their sovereignty over ccTLDs or com0panies > (registries/registrars) that run in their country. Correct analysis in the short term (in the long term, as Parminder said, if we believe there is no international governance possible for the Internet, we could disband this mailing list immediately). A possible improvment would be to have big generic TLD in several countries (today, they are all managed by US-based corporations). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Wed Feb 2 11:40:05 2011 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:40:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <4D491BC6.9020302@itforchange.net> <4D491D0B.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F8715166C678D@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Adam says: "Makes the process Avri and others are involved with find ways to support developing country applicants for new gTLDs even more important: diversity in location of administration is clearly essential." Apropos, see https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/SO-AC++New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+Working+Group We are seeking inputs for developing a criteria to qualify applicants for support, to define a mechanism to deliver that support as well as consideration for funding and fund-raising. Inputs from interested parties of this list would be welcome. Carlton Samuels Co-Chair of the WG From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 6:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous My bad memory -- I thought the earlier seizures had been made via the registrars, not registries. Were a number of Cuban businesses caught via their registrars, not the more recent ICE cases, doesn't matter this is bad. And I was wrong. Makes the process Avri and others are involved with find ways to support developing country applicants for new gTLDs even more important: diversity in location of administration is clearly essential. Would be helpful if members of PIR's Advisory Council active in the IGC (Khaled, Milton) could find out what's going on. Suggest the Advisory Council recommend to PIR that it move its registered office to Geneva, with ISOC. And it would be good to get a reaction from ISOC. When is the re-bid for the .NET and .ORG contract coming up, let's make it an issue. Perhaps Bill would like to see what the GNSO Council thinks and what amendments necessary the new TLD process to try and protect against similar actions by governments in the future. And we all have GAC representatives, write to them. There's a meeting of GAC and Board coming up on new TLDs, this is an issue very relevant to that process. Ask our GAC representatives to raise it. Who can contact Spain? Adam (BTW - as we're all subscribed to the list could we not cc everyone on every reply, just the list will do.) >On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Check out the second paragraph of the article in this link: >> >>http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2011/02/01/us-seizes-domain-spainbased-sports-linking-site-rojadirecta > >I am surprised that PIR caved in so quickly...Baptism by fire for >Brian Cute. If, as it seems regitries/registrars are going to abide by >these seizure orders, it seems they would abide by them if they had HQ >in any country. > >What is the solution then? A treaty is not going to fly, no country is >going to give up their sovereignty over ccTLDs or com0panies >(registries/registrars) that run in their country. > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3418 - Release Date: 02/02/11 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Feb 2 12:21:48 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:21:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Why the unilateral US control over generic TLD is dangerous In-Reply-To: <20110202161211.GA9858@nic.fr> References: <20110201160824.GA726@nic.fr> <20110201193319.GA17670@sources.org> <20110202081534.GA4330@nic.fr> <20110202161211.GA9858@nic.fr> Message-ID: In message <20110202161211.GA9858 at nic.fr>, at 17:12:11 on Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes >On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 12:26:07PM +0000, > Roland Perry wrote > a message of 38 lines which said: > >> I thought that's what a lot of people were trying to avoid (the >> capture of cyberspace by one intergovernmental body). > >While at this time it is captured by one monogovernmental body. There's more to the Internet than gTLDs - even if the word "capture" is appropriate here, which I doubt. It's a historical accident. >> The place of business of registrants is usually quite independent >> from that of the registry > >So what? The fact that the registrant was hosted in Spain did not >change anything here. Afilias/PIR yielded because they are US >corporations, whatever the place of business of the registrant is. I was responding to a suggestion that generic TLDs were "limited to" US Corporations. Which I interpreted as "US registrants". -- 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 valeriab at apc.org Wed Feb 2 12:46:15 2011 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:46:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] APC's inputs for the programme of the IGF 2011 Message-ID: Hi all, We have compiled APC's suggestions for the programme of the IGF 2011 in the document attached. We would like to share them with you all, as our contribution to the discussions and the work the IGC is doing in that regard. Best, Valeria ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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: APC_contributions_2011 IGF programme.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 101371 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 2 16:39:50 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:39:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> References: ,<48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> As McTim reported already: IPv4 is history... Lee ________________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:06 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial Begin forwarded message: From: "Livingood, Jason" > Date: February 1, 2011 9:43:53 AM EST To: Dave Farber > Subject: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial Dave – For IP if you wish. A major milestone in the draw down of IPv4 addresses has occurred. APNIC's recent allocations mean that the final five address block now go to each RIR, one to each. See: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207498/Address_allocation_kicks_off_IPv4_endgame http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/world-ipv4-stocks-finally-run-out-19674 Also, yesterday we at Comcast announced that we've started native dual stack production trials on our DOCSIS network (native IPv4 and IPv6), the first DOCSIS network in North America to do so. The trial will soon expand beyond Colorado and each user receives a /64 allocation of roughly 18 quintillion IPv6 addresses. (A bit of an improvement over one IPv4 address I dare say!) See http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-native-dual-stack-over-docsis.html Regards Jason Livingood Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Feb 2 17:33:34 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:33:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> Hi, Unless of course the powers that be decide to allow a open market for aIPv4 addresses instead of forcing people to use a grey or black market. I find this forced ending of IPv4 to get a protocol that could not succeed on its own to be used, a sad phenomenon. I participated in the IETF all the way from its selection, through the many scare tactics and failures up until this campaign and I still see this as a sad story. I think the purveyors of IPv6 may eventually succeed at getting us all to use it (though I still would not bet on it), but the history of IPv6 to date, beginning to end, is just pathtetic. a. On 2 Feb 2011, at 16:39, Lee W McKnight wrote: > As McTim reported already: > > IPv4 is history... > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:06 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Livingood, Jason" > > Date: February 1, 2011 9:43:53 AM EST > To: Dave Farber > > Subject: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial > > Dave – For IP if you wish. > > A major milestone in the draw down of IPv4 addresses has occurred. APNIC's recent allocations mean that the final five address block now go to each RIR, one to each. > See: > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207498/Address_allocation_kicks_off_IPv4_endgame > http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/world-ipv4-stocks-finally-run-out-19674 > > Also, yesterday we at Comcast announced that we've started native dual stack production trials on our DOCSIS network (native IPv4 and IPv6), the first DOCSIS network in North America to do so. The trial will soon expand beyond Colorado and each user receives a /64 allocation of roughly 18 quintillion IPv6 addresses. (A bit of an improvement over one IPv4 address I dare say!) > > See http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-native-dual-stack-over-docsis.html > > Regards > Jason Livingood > > Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 2 18:18:48 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:18:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> References: ,<48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091EC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> OK Avri, I should have said IPv4 open allocations are history. As some may recall we/IGP/Milton suggested market methods for allocation vs grey or black markets, but funnily enough those with IPv4 addresses to spare...seem to prefer artificial scarcity. Or to be charitable maybe they prefer to nudge world belatedly to IPv6...only a couple decades after it -might - have been seen as a worthwhile innovation. Personally, I will bet on a world of Internet thingies with IPv6 addresses, since that's already here/coming at us fast. But as to how fast gold standard IPv4 is laid to rest...well if only I live that long. Lee PS: Avri, I know someone who knows someone...maybe we can make you a special IPv4 offer since you like it so much - get'em while they're hot ; ) ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:33 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial Hi, Unless of course the powers that be decide to allow a open market for aIPv4 addresses instead of forcing people to use a grey or black market. I find this forced ending of IPv4 to get a protocol that could not succeed on its own to be used, a sad phenomenon. I participated in the IETF all the way from its selection, through the many scare tactics and failures up until this campaign and I still see this as a sad story. I think the purveyors of IPv6 may eventually succeed at getting us all to use it (though I still would not bet on it), but the history of IPv6 to date, beginning to end, is just pathtetic. a. On 2 Feb 2011, at 16:39, Lee W McKnight wrote: > As McTim reported already: > > IPv4 is history... > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:06 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Livingood, Jason" > > Date: February 1, 2011 9:43:53 AM EST > To: Dave Farber > > Subject: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial > > Dave – For IP if you wish. > > A major milestone in the draw down of IPv4 addresses has occurred. APNIC's recent allocations mean that the final five address block now go to each RIR, one to each. > See: > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207498/Address_allocation_kicks_off_IPv4_endgame > http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/world-ipv4-stocks-finally-run-out-19674 > > Also, yesterday we at Comcast announced that we've started native dual stack production trials on our DOCSIS network (native IPv4 and IPv6), the first DOCSIS network in North America to do so. The trial will soon expand beyond Colorado and each user receives a /64 allocation of roughly 18 quintillion IPv6 addresses. (A bit of an improvement over one IPv4 address I dare say!) > > See http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-native-dual-stack-over-docsis.html > > Regards > Jason Livingood > > Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Wed Feb 2 20:06:50 2011 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:06:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D49FFAA.2060205@cavebear.com> On 02/02/2011 01:39 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > IPv4 is history... That, like the 1897 report of Mark Twain's death, might be an exaggeration. My company does testing of internet protocols. Our customers include many, perhaps most, of the the "big names". We *do* offer IPv6 products and we do run IPv6 inside our offices. But demand from our customers for IPv6 is very light. (Some of 'em are still trying to get IPv4 to work right. ;-) We ask our customers whether they perceive IPv6 demand. The answer is usually "no". Between NATs letting a lot of air out of the need for addresses at the consumer end, and the fact that IPv6 doesn't solve the bigger (and harder) internet problem of routing, not to mention the klunky compatibility/conversion issues I'm perceiving IPv6 as the Little Engine that Could - we hear a lot of "I think I can, I think I can" - but we don't yet know whether it will actually make it to the top of the hill. By-the-way, and definitely less seriously, there are "stories" about some of the predictions of IPv4 exhaustion - mine, from 1990, is here: http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000210.html --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Feb 2 21:21:21 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:21:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <4D49FFAA.2060205@cavebear.com> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D49FFAA.2060205@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Can anyone recommend a few consultancy companies in Asia - Pacific who can do migration of IPv4 to IPv6? Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 02/02/2011 01:39 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > IPv4 is history... >> > > That, like the 1897 report of Mark Twain's death, might be an exaggeration. > > My company does testing of internet protocols. Our customers include many, > perhaps most, of the the "big names". > > We *do* offer IPv6 products and we do run IPv6 inside our offices. > > But demand from our customers for IPv6 is very light. (Some of 'em are > still trying to get IPv4 to work right. ;-) > > We ask our customers whether they perceive IPv6 demand. > > The answer is usually "no". > > Between NATs letting a lot of air out of the need for addresses at the > consumer end, and the fact that IPv6 doesn't solve the bigger (and harder) > internet problem of routing, not to mention the klunky > compatibility/conversion issues I'm perceiving IPv6 as the Little Engine > that Could - we hear a lot of "I think I can, I think I can" - but we don't > yet know whether it will actually make it to the top of the hill. > > By-the-way, and definitely less seriously, there are "stories" about some > of the predictions of IPv4 exhaustion - mine, from 1990, is here: > http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000210.html > > --karl-- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Wed Feb 2 22:25:36 2011 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:25:36 +0600 Subject: [governance] APC's inputs for the programme of the IGF 2011 References: Message-ID: <527D25EF7E554A8A9FF8878A2E4A5DE6@BNNRCLAPTOP1> Dear Valeria Betancourt, Greetings form Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) Thank you very much for your nice mail regarding APC's inputs for the programme of the IGF 2011 with best wishes, Bazlu _________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Valeria Betancourt" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:46 PM Subject: [governance] APC's inputs for the programme of the IGF 2011 > Hi all, > > We have compiled APC's suggestions for the programme of the IGF 2011 > in the document attached. We would like to share them with you all, as > our contribution to the discussions and the work the IGC is doing in > that regard. > > Best, > > Valeria > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Feb 3 03:13:29 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:13:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] US/GAC vs. ICANN References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A077D5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.circleid.com/posts/us_scorecard_for_brussels_draconian_trademark_rules_end_of_privates_sector/ Question: How the IGF can help to get individual users interests reflected in the new gTLD process? What ALAC is doing? 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Feb 3 04:38:31 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:38:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] US/GAC vs. ICANN References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110203101424.0b292420@jefsey.com> At 09:13 03/02/2011, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >FYI >http://www.circleid.com/posts/us_scorecard_for_brussels_draconian_trademark_rules_end_of_privates_sector/ > >Question: How the IGF can help to get individual users interests >reflected in the new gTLD process? What ALAC is doing? I think I fully answered that already. What is interesting is that the US agony over TMs might mean that at the end of the day ICANN will side with us. Let have IAB think over it, IETF digest the stability and surety that architectural subsidiarity implies, and the IUse (Intelligent Use of digital multiple technologies) community emerge from considering technical/practical responses to the mubarakobama Internet operance, testing them, and IGF. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 05:48:58 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:48:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> I'm not inclined to modify the statement on which the consensus call >> has been made > > Hm... I think this means that as far as I'm concerned, we fail to have > consensus. > > In my view, the need for open standards which must be adequate not > only to prevent perpetuate of past monopolies but also prevent the > formation of new monopolies is an absolutely essential aspect > of what the term "open Internet" should be understood to mean. Very true. > > I apologize, I mean I'm really sorry, that I did not participate > as immediately actively in the drafting of this statement as I > now wish I had. But please note that I first made the request > for the inclusion of a mention of the aspect of open standards > several days before the consensus call was issued, and that the > whole point of a consensus call is to give everyone the opportunity > to review a draft statement and speak out true again. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Feb 3 09:21:57 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:21:57 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <650502F2-8CD6-42D3-A52C-7E19E541725F@gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<650502F2-8CD6-42D3-A52C-7E19E541725F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377E4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Belatedly responding to this thread re what is and what is not possible within IGF context: - At IGF workshop level there is nothing preventing participants from seeking to get to point of rough consensus, and sending a message of that consensus - wherever - In fact, we have already been there and done that* - Therefore, it can be done again at next IGF - It would be nice if every workshop CSers agree to participate in - has an objective accomplishing something. Wouldn't it? * As some may recall at IGF in Hyderabad, I chaired workshop on the JPA. After a lively 'full and frank' discussion, I asked for a show of hands - an informal, obviously non-binding 'vote' of workshop participants - on whether the JPA should end. The majority supported the end of the JPA. (which is of course what happened about a half year later) I did this all in a very light-hearted way, but also with a serious, ok intentionally provocative purpose: to send a message not just to USG but also to IGF participants - that workshops can indeed send a message, and that - gasp - if a workshop chair asks for a show of hands, people are free to raise their hands, or not. I have not repeated my 'stunt' at subsequent IGF's; as I have for various reasons been unable to attend. But I think some folks got my - message; and yeah I know I was criticized by some for my actions. I kind of expected that, so no problem. I believe other IGF workshop chairs have similarly asked for workshop participants to indicate their views, on perhaps not quite as politically charged topics as JPA vs end of JPA was at the time, but still. Anyway, just as some folks said we could not discuss 'Critical Internet Resources' at IGF in early days - like we were only supposed to talk about things that were not of critical importance? - some, ok many people, may still think that it is not possible or practical for IGF to send messages - as if participants in a Forum can never draw conclusions. As I said, we have been there, done that, and folks can - oops - do it again. Ideally it would become a more accepted and established aspect of IGF workshops, though of course if we are part of an open discussion debate, we can't know in advance what the - rough consensus - might be, or whether there will be any at all. So what; as Nike advises, just do it. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:33 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Yrjö Länsipuro Subject: Re: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations "If you start negotiations, you close mind and mouth of decision makers and participants will only try to get "their position" reflected in the final document." That very much depends on where (which political space) this discussion would take place. I believe the role of the MAG needs to be changed and strengthened on this process. The MAG could be able to analyze the summaries that will come from the IGF and, whenever possible, take messages (policy recommendations) from it. The negotiations would not be so hardcore, as we are only talking about Messages to other decision-making bodies, but these messages would have the legitimacy of coming from a multistakeholder elected group. Of course, that would entail that IGF sessions are much better documented, with two or three most important messages from workshops (even if they show dissensus) being identified by a rapporteur (as proposed by wolf gang) and maybe presented in the main session. It is really not impossible to preserve the spirit of open dialogue of the IGF, and produce more meaningful outcomes. We just have to open our minds for it and be courageous to try something new. Now is the time! Best, Marilia Sent from my iPad On Jan 29, 2011, at 4:03 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"> wrote: If you start negotiations, you close mind and mouth of decision makers and participants will only try to get "their position" reflected in the final document. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 09:38:58 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:38:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] Significant event on now, watch it live! Message-ID: http://www.nro.net/news/icann-nro-live-stream -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Feb 3 10:05:05 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:05:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________________ From: lmcknigh at syr.edu [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:04 AM To: Lee W McKnight Subject: I just saw it on CNN.com: Could the U.S. shut down the internet? Just as I predicted, the Senators proposing the Presidential Internet 'kill-switch' bill are pretending they did not actually mean to give the President a 'kill-switch.' Right. *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser. http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/03/internet.shut.down/index.html?hpt=T2 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Feb 3 11:03:15 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:03:15 -0200 Subject: [governance] Significant event on now, watch it live! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D4AD1C3.1010005@cafonso.ca> Hi Mc, Too late for me... did they record it, can I get it somehow? --c.a. On 02/03/2011 12:38 PM, McTim wrote: > http://www.nro.net/news/icann-nro-live-stream > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Feb 3 11:09:23 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:09:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D4AD333.3030408@cafonso.ca> Well, in the meantime they are doing it homeopatically -- by killing domain names. --c.a. On 02/03/2011 01:05 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > ________________________________________ > From: lmcknigh at syr.edu [lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:04 AM > To: Lee W McKnight > Subject: I just saw it on CNN.com: Could the U.S. shut down the internet? > > Just as I predicted, the Senators proposing the Presidential Internet 'kill-switch' bill are pretending they did not actually mean to give the President a 'kill-switch.' Right. > > *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser. > > http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/03/internet.shut.down/index.html?hpt=T2 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Thu Feb 3 17:51:38 2011 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:51:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> On 02/03/2011 07:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > To: Lee W McKnight > Subject: I just saw it on CNN.com: Could the U.S. shut down the internet? > > Just as I predicted, the Senators proposing the Presidential Internet 'kill-switch' bill Uh, when we were building the proto-internet (the ARPAnet) we built it to keep running despite the best efforts of a full fledged nuclear attack from the old USSR. (Perhaps the reason for the stories that say that security against attack was not a goal arise because the technical community was severely partitioned back then into a public-research side, which we hear about, and a military side, which was very much out of the public eye, and even subject to military classification rules - even open work we did for the old US National Bureau of Standards [now NIST] has never seen the digital light of day - at best it is part of what Vernor Vinge called digital "prehistory" in his book "Rainbows End".) DNS *does* represent a residual single point of failure/attack/killswitch. But the dogma of the singular, catholic (lower case 'c') DNS root is just a dogma. (The real issue is not singularity of a DNS root but, rather, consistency of DNS query results.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Feb 3 18:06:44 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 18:06:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377FE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hey Karl, Yeah I always knew there were 'secure' folks doing work for 40 years while civilian side folks either didn't or pretended not to know why exactly DOD thought packet-switched architectures were worth billions back when the b stood for - a lot of money. So I'm not suggesting any of these bills could really make it all that easy just like that to truly shut things down. Which definitely is a feature and not a bug, and a tip of the cap again to you and the other veterans for doing a great job back in the day. Still it's a positive of the Egyptian uprising that US senators - and President Obama, and even DHS - now won't want to be publicly associated with..Mubarak, and/or 'kill/switch' bills. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach [karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 5:51 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? On 02/03/2011 07:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > To: Lee W McKnight > Subject: I just saw it on CNN.com: Could the U.S. shut down the internet? > > Just as I predicted, the Senators proposing the Presidential Internet 'kill-switch' bill Uh, when we were building the proto-internet (the ARPAnet) we built it to keep running despite the best efforts of a full fledged nuclear attack from the old USSR. (Perhaps the reason for the stories that say that security against attack was not a goal arise because the technical community was severely partitioned back then into a public-research side, which we hear about, and a military side, which was very much out of the public eye, and even subject to military classification rules - even open work we did for the old US National Bureau of Standards [now NIST] has never seen the digital light of day - at best it is part of what Vernor Vinge called digital "prehistory" in his book "Rainbows End".) DNS *does* represent a residual single point of failure/attack/killswitch. But the dogma of the singular, catholic (lower case 'c') DNS root is just a dogma. (The real issue is not singularity of a DNS root but, rather, consistency of DNS query results.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 18:57:30 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:57:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet address warehouse empty Message-ID: <7DA6ED604D234D8796CF27915092D82F@userPC> IPv4 goes mainstream. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110203/ts_alt_afp/usitinternetsoftwareicann M ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 19:47:49 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 01:47:49 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377E4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <650502F2-8CD6-42D3-A52C-7E19E541725F@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377E4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, I am also late to participate in this thread again. This might be one of my last active contributions to this mailing list because in a short period of time, I will start working for an entity where it is not possible to fit as civil society. Once the formalities are done, I will post those details in this list. Dear colleagues: Keep the great work, not only around the IGF and the UN, but all around the IG ecosystem. I read all emails, highlighted some ideas and used them to prepare the following comments as a draft summary (with some twisting sometimes but hopefully without hurting the original idea) of this thread so far. I expect, we will be in a position to submit something based on this to the Secretariat as soon as possible. *There is no suggestions yet on remote participation or national and regional IGFs. Are they in another email thread?* ***Here is the start of the draft summary*** 1) IGF mandate is defined in the Tunis Agenda, as well as the recent UN General Assembly's directions to improve the IGF towards some specific purposes. *2) IGF* 2.1) People support having 2 days of workshops (workshop phase) and consecutively 2 days of main sessions at IGF meetings. There is awareness of the risks of high ranking participants chossing only to be in the main session days. For that risk, there was a suggestion to schedule something to attrack this people to assist from the beginning but not in parallel with workshops. To my knowledge there were no specifics on this suggestion. 2.2) The need for a positive output from IGF is widely shared. The word "messages" is the best among other possible choices. They should be non negotiated text from a recognized (and respected) source as the chair, a rapporteur the secretariat or something else. (This idea is taken to another level in the MAG section) 2.3) To be innovative and creative, 7 new roles for IGF were propossed: i) observatory, ii) clearinghouse, iii) laboratory, iv) school, v) scout, vi) early warning system and vii) wachtdog. Of those iii and iv received support while on the others there is a need for further discussion to clarified them. *3) Workshops.* There are two kinds of workshops. The first type should work in harmony with the respective main session. 3.1) The bar should be higher to accept propossals. 3.2) The quality and the assurance of quality need to be improved. 3.3) Should have A declared purpose or goal as part of the evaluation process was suggested. 3.4) Could also identify messages that should be passed to the respective main sessions. 3.5) Organizers should be efficient and held accountable. 3.6) There was even a suggestion to work backwards between the respective main session and the workshops. This is to identify the different parts a topic may have and guide the workshops in this sense (This is exactly how the subrgroup mailing list made for the IG4D session for the last IGF and my best guess is that the same approach was followed by the subgroup on cloud computing). 3,7) The merge of different workshops, apparently similar, has not worked out well in general (it does not work electronically and in a "short" period of time). 3.8) Workshops atracting the same audience should not happen at the same time. 3.9) Need to keep a truly multi stakeholder nature for the workshops. 3.10) As a result of the preceding suggestions, there might be an increase in negative responses to propossals. * 4) MAG* 4.1) It was suggested that links should be established between the MAG and other bodies wit actual decision making power, including to feed into the EC mechanism, if it exists in the future. 4.2) As usually there is no time to transform rough material into material that is fit for policy making during wrap up at workshops or main sessions and therefore there is a need for more time and more careful discussion to transform these summaries into something that can serve as input for policy, MAG sould be charged with proposing action lines regarding policies and regulation, based on the input received from the IGF. 4.3) Should also be responsible to foster coordination with other organizations on the IG ecosystem. 4.4) Should communicate the aforementioned action lines regarding policies and regulation to the spaces/ forums/ bodies etc that should and would make actual policies, and 4.5) MAG should keep up an ongoing process of reviewing what has been happening to the outcomes of the IGF, and how well or not they have been followed up". * 5) Intergovernmental Machinery* 5.1) Amend ECOSOC res 2007/8 to require the IGF Secretariat to submit directly its respective report to the CSTD Secretariat, as it is the case already explicitly for GAID. This will be in addition of what DESA includes in its respective report, as GAID and IGF are part of DESA. 5.2) As CSTD is in charge of assisting ECOSOC with the system-wide follow-up of WSIS, including the IGF, the CSTD and its Secretariat should adopt - mutis mutandis - some of the effective practices of the IGF and its Secretariat, like keeping its multistakeholderism, remote participation and real time transcripts. *** end of the draft summary *** Best, Miguel -------------- 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 Thu Feb 3 23:05:46 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 09:35:46 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <650502F2-8CD6-42D3-A52C-7E19E541725F@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377E4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D4B7B1A.70403@itforchange.net> Enclosed is our first set of inputs to the draft structure of WGIGF report circulated by the WG chair. And thanks Miguel for your very good points. parminder Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear all, > > I am also late to participate in this thread again. > > This might be one of my last active contributions to this mailing list > because in a short period of time, I will start working for an entity > where it is not possible to fit as civil society. Once the formalities > are done, I will post those details in this list. Dear colleagues: > Keep the great work, not only around the IGF and the UN, but all > around the IG ecosystem. > > I read all emails, highlighted some ideas and used them to prepare the > following comments as a draft summary (with some twisting sometimes > but hopefully without hurting the original idea) of this thread so > far. I expect, we will be in a position to submit something based on > this to the Secretariat as soon as possible. > > *There is no suggestions yet on remote participation or national and > regional IGFs. Are they in another email thread?* > > ***Here is the start of the draft summary*** > > 1) IGF mandate is defined in the Tunis Agenda, as well as the recent > UN General Assembly's directions to improve the IGF towards some > specific purposes. > > *2) IGF* > > 2.1) People support having 2 days of workshops (workshop phase) > and consecutively 2 days of main sessions at IGF meetings. There > is awareness of the risks of high ranking participants chossing > only to be in the main session days. For that risk, there was a > suggestion to schedule something to attrack this people to assist > from the beginning but not in parallel with workshops. To my > knowledge there were no specifics on this suggestion. > 2.2) The need for a positive output from IGF is widely shared. The > word "messages" is the best among other possible choices. They > should be non negotiated text from a recognized (and respected) > source as the chair, a rapporteur the secretariat or something > else. (This idea is taken to another level in the MAG section) > 2.3) To be innovative and creative, 7 new roles for IGF were > propossed: i) observatory, ii) clearinghouse, iii) laboratory, iv) > school, v) scout, vi) early warning system and vii) wachtdog. Of > those iii and iv received support while on the others there is a > need for further discussion to clarified them. > > > *3) Workshops.* There are two kinds of workshops. The first type > should work in harmony with the respective main session. > > 3.1) The bar should be higher to accept propossals. > 3.2) The quality and the assurance of quality need to be improved. > 3.3) Should have A declared purpose or goal as part of the > evaluation process was suggested. > 3.4) Could also identify messages that should be passed to the > respective main sessions. > 3.5) Organizers should be efficient and held accountable. > 3.6) There was even a suggestion to work backwards between the > respective main session and the workshops. This is to identify the > different parts a topic may have and guide the workshops in this > sense (This is exactly how the subrgroup mailing list made for > the IG4D session for the last IGF and my best guess is that the > same approach was followed by the subgroup on cloud computing). > 3,7) The merge of different workshops, apparently similar, has not > worked out well in general (it does not work electronically and in > a "short" period of time). > 3.8) Workshops atracting the same audience should not happen at > the same time. > 3.9) Need to keep a truly multi stakeholder nature for the workshops. > 3.10) As a result of the preceding suggestions, there might be an > increase in negative responses to propossals. > > > * 4) MAG* > > 4.1) It was suggested that links should be established between the > MAG and other bodies wit actual decision making power, including > to feed into the EC mechanism, if it exists in the future. > 4.2) As usually there is no time to transform rough material into > material that is fit for policy making during wrap up at workshops > or main sessions and therefore there is a need for more time and > more careful discussion to transform these summaries into > something that can serve as input for policy, MAG sould be charged > with proposing action lines regarding policies and regulation, > based on the input received from the IGF. > 4.3) Should also be responsible to foster coordination with other > organizations on the IG ecosystem. > 4.4) Should communicate the aforementioned action lines regarding > policies and regulation to the spaces/ forums/ bodies etc that > should and would make actual policies, and > 4.5) MAG should keep up an ongoing process of reviewing what has > been happening to the outcomes of the IGF, and how well or not > they have been followed up". > > > * 5) Intergovernmental Machinery* > > 5.1) Amend ECOSOC res 2007/8 to require the IGF Secretariat to > submit directly its respective report to the CSTD Secretariat, as > it is the case already explicitly for GAID. This will be in > addition of what DESA includes in its respective report, as GAID > and IGF are part of DESA. > 5.2) As CSTD is in charge of assisting ECOSOC with the system-wide > follow-up of WSIS, including the IGF, the CSTD and its Secretariat > should adopt - mutis mutandis - some of the effective practices of > the IGF and its Secretariat, like keeping its multistakeholderism, > remote participation and real time transcripts. > > > *** end of the draft summary *** > > Best, > > Miguel -- PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITfC - First set of comments to the WGIGF.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 111818 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Feb 4 02:06:35 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:06:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> At 23:51 03/02/2011, Karl Auerbach wrote: >The real issue is not singularity of a DNS root but, rather, >consistency of DNS query results. Actually, it is the singularity of the DNS log that represents a key intelligence and power source. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 4 03:05:57 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:05:57 +0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> Message-ID: The question remains, in case of any country or website not complying to what the US approves, will face a shutdown? What happens in the event that: 1. A torrent domain is shutdown by the US under ACTA but other countries have no issue with it? Where and how does this consultation between these countries occur? ICANN? IGF? another international body for internet governance? enhanced cooperation? How? 2. Wikileaks remains a prime example..........did all other countries also authorize shut down of that domain? 3. Country level enforcements are possible and thats what happened in the case of Egypt but the article is a good discussion to what may happen the other way around and as the case with the followers of the Wikileaks Twitter that are being subpoenaed by the US investigators http://mashable.com/2011/01/08/twitter-subpoenaed-by-u-s-government-for-wikileaks-accounts/. The question is who and what is needed to kill the Internet and what do we actually mean by killing the Internet, as a whole or in parts? --- Foo On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 23:51 03/02/2011, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> >> The real issue is not singularity of a DNS root but, rather, consistency >> of DNS query results. > > Actually, it is the singularity of the DNS log that represents a key > intelligence and power source. > jfc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Feb 4 06:33:19 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 19:33:19 +0800 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> Message-ID: On 02/02/2011, at 6:01 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Then, we have a problem. As Norbert mentions it, what you describe in the "consensual document" sounds to be 35 years old. The earlier you speak up with contributions to a document, before it goes to a consensus call, the easier it is to incorporate your thoughts. Having said that, Izumi and I have a discretion to make amendments even after the final text has been posted. So if anyone has strong views for or against adding to the network neutrality statement, please speak up now and we can take this into consideration: "An open internet is based on open standards in such a way that it also resists the creation of any new monopolies in the area of information and communication technologies." Otherwise, although it may not become part of the written contribution, it can still be raised at the February open consultation meeting orally. In fairness we have also had another request to add text to the statement, which came off-list, from Yuliya Morenets stating that we should "make reference to marginalised people with regard to all aspects of the ICT (maybe at the last statement)". I responded that at this stage such an addition could probably also only come orally, but if others think we should amend the text of our contribution to include such a reference, please say so within the next 48 hours. We have to submit the statement by 7 February 2011. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 4 06:46:55 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:16:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <4D4BE72F.5050203@itforchange.net> I dont think there would be any opposition to the text on open standards to be added. It speaks of something which is an essential part of an open internet. parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/02/2011, at 6:01 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > > >> Then, we have a problem. As Norbert mentions it, what you describe in the "consensual document" sounds to be 35 years old. >> > > The earlier you speak up with contributions to a document, before it goes to a consensus call, the easier it is to incorporate your thoughts. Having said that, Izumi and I have a discretion to make amendments even after the final text has been posted. So if anyone has strong views for or against adding to the network neutrality statement, please speak up now and we can take this into consideration: > > "An open internet is based on open standards in such a way that it also resists the creation of any new monopolies in the area of information and communication technologies." > > Otherwise, although it may not become part of the written contribution, it can still be raised at the February open consultation meeting orally. > > In fairness we have also had another request to add text to the statement, which came off-list, from Yuliya Morenets stating that we should "make reference to marginalised people with regard to all aspects of the ICT (maybe at the last statement)". I responded that at this stage such an addition could probably also only come orally, but if others think we should amend the text of our contribution to include such a reference, please say so within the next 48 hours. > > We have to submit the statement by 7 February 2011. > > -- PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Feb 4 08:22:08 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:22:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <4D4BE72F.5050203@itforchange.net> References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> ,<4D4BE72F.5050203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37806@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I would agree with Parminder that the non-mention of open standards as part of open Internet is in the accidental oversight category. We could fix it later when massaging text assuming theme is accepted, or fix it now, but I do understand that might not work for procedural reasons... ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 6:46 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi I dont think there would be any opposition to the text on open standards to be added. It speaks of something which is an essential part of an open internet. parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 02/02/2011, at 6:01 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: Then, we have a problem. As Norbert mentions it, what you describe in the "consensual document" sounds to be 35 years old. The earlier you speak up with contributions to a document, before it goes to a consensus call, the easier it is to incorporate your thoughts. Having said that, Izumi and I have a discretion to make amendments even after the final text has been posted. So if anyone has strong views for or against adding to the network neutrality statement, please speak up now and we can take this into consideration: "An open internet is based on open standards in such a way that it also resists the creation of any new monopolies in the area of information and communication technologies." Otherwise, although it may not become part of the written contribution, it can still be raised at the February open consultation meeting orally. In fairness we have also had another request to add text to the statement, which came off-list, from Yuliya Morenets stating that we should "make reference to marginalised people with regard to all aspects of the ICT (maybe at the last statement)". I responded that at this stage such an addition could probably also only come orally, but if others think we should amend the text of our contribution to include such a reference, please say so within the next 48 hours. We have to submit the statement by 7 February 2011. -- PK ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Fri Feb 4 08:35:03 2011 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:35:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <4D4BE72F.5050203@itforchange.net> References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> <4D4BE72F.5050203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree with Parminder. Valeria 2011/2/4 parminder > I dont think there would be any opposition to the text on open standards > to be added. It speaks of something which is an essential part of an open > internet. parminder > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 02/02/2011, at 6:01 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > > > > Then, we have a problem. As Norbert mentions it, what you describe in the "consensual document" sounds to be 35 years old. > > > The earlier you speak up with contributions to a document, before it goes to a consensus call, the easier it is to incorporate your thoughts. Having said that, Izumi and I have a discretion to make amendments even after the final text has been posted. So if anyone has strong views for or against adding to the network neutrality statement, please speak up now and we can take this into consideration: > > "An open internet is based on open standards in such a way that it also resists the creation of any new monopolies in the area of information and communication technologies." > > Otherwise, although it may not become part of the written contribution, it can still be raised at the February open consultation meeting orally. > > In fairness we have also had another request to add text to the statement, which came off-list, from Yuliya Morenets stating that we should "make reference to marginalised people with regard to all aspects of the ICT (maybe at the last statement)". I responded that at this stage such an addition could probably also only come orally, but if others think we should amend the text of our contribution to include such a reference, please say so within the next 48 hours. > > We have to submit the statement by 7 February 2011. > > > > > -- > PK > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Feb 4 08:56:51 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:56:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Procedural issue Re: Revised version of statement... In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37806@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> (message from Lee W McKnight on Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:22:08 -0500) References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> ,<4D4BE72F.5050203@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37806@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20110204135651.B85B315C254@quill.bollow.ch> Lee W McKnight wrote: > I would agree with Parminder that the non-mention of open standards > as part of open Internet is in the accidental oversight category. > > We could fix it later when massaging text assuming theme is > accepted, or fix it now, but I do understand that might not work for > procedural reasons... If the procedural concern is that adding a sentence about the importance of open standards may be too big a change to make within the context of the current Consensus Call, it would seem to me that the reasonable way to address this point is to declare that the Consensus Call has shown lack of consensus for the version of the statement that addresses only the issue of "old media and telecommunications empires" but not also the importance of minimizing, through open standards, further ICT monopolization. This step could be immediately followed by publishing a new Consensus Call for a revised text. 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 y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Fri Feb 4 08:56:39 2011 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:56:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9ly3o9JD.1296827799.2112980.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu> Dear Jeremy, Thank you for the open call and the proposition. We do believe that there is a strong need to raise this question and to make reference (the Tunis Agenda and Geneva declaration mention this) to marginalised people with regard to the use of internet. I hope other members will share our opinion. Many thanks and best regards, Yuliya Le 4/2/2011, "Jeremy Malcolm" a écrit: >On 02/02/2011, at 6:01 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > >> Then, we have a problem. As Norbert mentions it, what you describe in the "consensual document" sounds to be 35 years old. > >The earlier you speak up with contributions to a document, before it goes to a consensus call, the easier it is to incorporate your thoughts. Having said that, Izumi and I have a discretion to make amendments even after the final text has been posted. So if anyone has strong views for or against adding to the network neutrality statement, please speak up now and we can take this into consideration: > >"An open internet is based on open standards in such a way that it also resists the creation of any new monopolies in the area of information and communication technologies." > >Otherwise, although it may not become part of the written contribution, it can still be raised at the February open consultation meeting orally. > >In fairness we have also had another request to add text to the statement, which came off-list, from Yuliya Morenets stating that we should "make reference to marginalised people with regard to all aspects of the ICT (maybe at the last statement)". I responded that at this stage such an addition could probably also only come orally, but if others think we should amend the text of our contribution to include such a reference, please say so within the next 48 hours. > >We have to submit the statement by 7 February 2011. > >-- >Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers >CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world >for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! >http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >Twitter #CICongress > >Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Feb 4 08:59:26 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:59:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] Significant event on now, watch it live! In-Reply-To: <4D4AD1C3.1010005@cafonso.ca> References: <4D4AD1C3.1010005@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi Mc, > Too late for me... did they record it, can I get it somehow? http://www.afrinic.net/ seems to have it -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Feb 4 09:08:01 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:08:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <9ly3o9JD.1296827799.2112980.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu> References: ,<9ly3o9JD.1296827799.2112980.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B3780B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I agree and would consider this a 2nd accidental oversight as this was discussed previously ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Yuliya Morenets [y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 8:56 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; JFC Morfin Subject: Re: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi Dear Jeremy, Thank you for the open call and the proposition. We do believe that there is a strong need to raise this question and to make reference (the Tunis Agenda and Geneva declaration mention this) to marginalised people with regard to the use of internet. I hope other members will share our opinion. Many thanks and best regards, Yuliya Le 4/2/2011, "Jeremy Malcolm" a écrit: >On 02/02/2011, at 6:01 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > >> Then, we have a problem. As Norbert mentions it, what you describe in the "consensual document" sounds to be 35 years old. > >The earlier you speak up with contributions to a document, before it goes to a consensus call, the easier it is to incorporate your thoughts. Having said that, Izumi and I have a discretion to make amendments even after the final text has been posted. So if anyone has strong views for or against adding to the network neutrality statement, please speak up now and we can take this into consideration: > >"An open internet is based on open standards in such a way that it also resists the creation of any new monopolies in the area of information and communication technologies." > >Otherwise, although it may not become part of the written contribution, it can still be raised at the February open consultation meeting orally. > >In fairness we have also had another request to add text to the statement, which came off-list, from Yuliya Morenets stating that we should "make reference to marginalised people with regard to all aspects of the ICT (maybe at the last statement)". I responded that at this stage such an addition could probably also only come orally, but if others think we should amend the text of our contribution to include such a reference, please say so within the next 48 hours. > >We have to submit the statement by 7 February 2011. > >-- >Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers >CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world >for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! >http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >Twitter #CICongress > >Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 4 09:09:43 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:09:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Significant event on now, watch it live! In-Reply-To: References: <4D4AD1C3.1010005@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message , at 16:59:26 on Fri, 4 Feb 2011, McTim writes >> Too late for me... did they record it, can I get it somehow? > >http://www.afrinic.net/ seems to have it They've got the press conf (which is all over Twitter), I haven't see the ceremony yet. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 4 09:15:17 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 23:15:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <9ly3o9JD.1296827799.2112980.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu> References: <9ly3o9JD.1296827799.2112980.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu> Message-ID: Don't see a problem with including the change. I'm sure Jeremy can work it in so it flows with the rest of the text. Need to give the coordinators some slack in these matters, if the two of them think a short statement of this kind reflects consensus (and it's hardly a new view expressed by the caucus) then fine. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Feb 4 09:19:54 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:19:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Significant event on now, watch it live! In-Reply-To: References: <4D4AD1C3.1010005@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5j6HqvqKsATNFAiW@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 14:09:43 on Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Roland Perry writes >In message >, at >16:59:26 on Fri, 4 Feb 2011, McTim writes > >>> Too late for me... did they record it, can I get it somehow? >> >>http://www.afrinic.net/ seems to have it > >They've got the press conf (which is all over Twitter), I haven't see >the ceremony yet. Update... ceremony here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj3aQKkleng -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Feb 4 09:22:54 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:22:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] Significant event on now, watch it live! In-Reply-To: References: <4D4AD1C3.1010005@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4D4C0BBE.7030802@cafonso.ca> Grande AfriNIC! --c.a. On 02/04/2011 11:59 AM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Hi Mc, >> Too late for me... did they record it, can I get it somehow? > > > http://www.afrinic.net/ seems to have it > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Feb 4 09:45:51 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:15:51 -0430 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> <4D4BE72F.5050203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D4C111F.6030700@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Feb 4 09:49:27 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:49:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Fri, 4 Feb 2011 19:33:19 +0800) References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <20110204144927.76DB715C254@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/02/2011, at 6:01 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > > Then, we have a problem. As Norbert mentions it, what you describe > in the "consensual document" sounds to be 35 years old. > > The earlier you speak up with contributions to a document, before it > goes to a consensus call, the easier it is to incorporate your > thoughts. (I spoke up with my request on Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:52 PM, but I was very busy in the following days leading up to the Consensus Call and not easily able to read all of the list's mails in detail during the days when the text was developed that then went into Consensus Call. Nobody opposed my request.) > So if anyone has strong views for or against adding to the network > neutrality statement, please speak up now and we can take this into > consideration: > > "An open internet is based on open standards in such a way that it > also resists the creation of any new monopolies in the area of > information and communication technologies." It's probably redundant for me to say so again, but I still feel very strongly that it's important to add something to this effect, because otherwise our statement would convey a wrong perspective regarding what the phrase "an open internet" should be understood to mean. > Otherwise, although it may not become part of the written > contribution, it can still be raised at the February open > consultation meeting orally. In my opinion, if a very one-sided perspective or wrong meaning is attached to a phrase through a written statement, it is very unlikely to be effective when the attempt is made to add the missing aspect orally. > In fairness we have also had another request to add text to the > statement, which came off-list, from Yuliya Morenets stating that we > should "make reference to marginalised people with regard to all > aspects of the ICT (maybe at the last statement)". In my view, this request is also very worthy of support. Let me try to suggest some specific words, and a place where they could be added: The first sentence under "4. Access to knowledge" reads as follows: "Access to knowledge is part of the great promise of the Internet in aiding development, education and culture both within and between countries." This could be followed by the following additional text: "It is particularly important that all people who struggle with poverty or are otherwise marginalised in society must be empowered to fully benefit from today's information and communication technologies." 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 fm at st-kilda.org Fri Feb 4 09:57:24 2011 From: fm at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:57:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <20110204144927.76DB715C254@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> <20110204144927.76DB715C254@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <73C7C985-2059-49C8-BD3F-372D62D1126A@st-kilda.org> On 4 Feb 2011, at 14:49, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Let me try to suggest some specific words, and a place where they > could be added: +1 for the addition and proposed inserted text & location. f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Feb 4 09:59:52 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:59:52 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <20110204144927.76DB715C254@quill.bollow.ch> (message from Norbert Bollow on Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:49:27 +0100 (CET)) References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> <20110204144927.76DB715C254@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20110204145952.8F30515C254@quill.bollow.ch> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Let me try to suggest some specific words, and a place where they > could be added: > > The first sentence under "4. Access to knowledge" reads as follows: > "Access to knowledge is part of the great promise of the Internet in > aiding development, education and culture both within and between > countries." > > This could be followed by the following additional text: > > "It is particularly important that all people who struggle with > poverty or are otherwise marginalised in society must be empowered > to fully benefit from today's information and communication > technologies." Or, alternatively, the following wording could be used: "Empowerment to fully benefit from today's information and communication technologies is particularly important for people who struggle with poverty or are otherwise marginalised in society." 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Feb 4 10:37:01 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:37:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> Dear Fouad, The Internet offers resilience and reliability but not surety or security. - resilience means that the system can survive even if some parts of it do not. - reliability means that one can trust the architecture and protocols, even more than expected in introducing subsidiarity as in IDNA2008. - surety depends on bandwidth availability. - security depends on external interferences. This means that it was not designed to be used by people who are not supported and not sharing the intent of its dominance (now the majority of them). To understand the risks and what to do, we need to understand the target, what we want, and how to get there. To understand this, we have to forget the Internet for a time and realize that we want the world digital ecosystem (WDE) that we live in to provide us network facilities that are simple, resilient, reliable, sure, secure, ubiquitous, neutral, available (it works 24/366), independent, etc. plus a back-up. Then, we are to compare our target with the existent Internet and its possible extended offerings. This means that we need an independent back-up to the Internet. Like Google offering a voice based back-up to twitter. When considering this, we immediately see that there are three uncoupled interoperable technical areas : - the internet - the newtechnet - the user system to best interface both of them, so that we can really use the internet/newtechnet in mutual backup, even if some services become degraded. Then, today we should list our requirements for an international network newtechnet technology. Features that we can think of are: - grassroots deployment, independent from infrastructure that governments, catastrophes, economy, terrorism, etc. can meddle with. I would propose a syllostructure concept, as an intrication of people's connection capacities (resilience, surety). - people centric, and hence neutrality and privacy protected by general encryption. - intelligent - supporting passive yet also ambient and active content (extended services) and intercomprehension facilitation. - semiotically (enhanced information feeding) and semantically (meanings) protected. - architectural security, which may result more easily from the uncoupling of the user environment and of the network environment by middleware. - reasonable economy and architecturally enforced best practices to manage overload, kill spam, and protect usage privacy (that no one may know what we do on the network). - respect of the three network fundamental architectural principles, to stay fully compatible with the Internet which has shown that it can support them and is actually built along them(constant change, simplicity, subsidiarity) - neutrality on a per class of service basis (to be able to restrict availability to available resources). - full support of functional diversities, including linguistic diversity and multilingualism (all languages and cultures treated equal). - fair protection and support of relational spaces (i.e. group privacy and capacities). - etc. etc. We understand that such requirements do not interest the communications industry, because it is low financial investment (but a high thinking one), it is free to set-up and use, and it is a viable alternative to a part of their business. It means allowing to freely (freedom and at no cost) relate over the world without having to use their "commercial TV" like internet, hence leading the Internet to become cheaper and more efficient. IAB has explained that problem (RFC 3869) saying: "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet." This was in August 2004. In February 2011, we have no more IPv4 addresses and the Internet infrastructure is in trouble. IAB explained: "[This] brings out a key issue in funding for Internet research, which is that because no single organization (e.g., no single government, software company, equipment vendor, or network operator) has a sense of ownership of the global Internet infrastructure, research on the general issues of the Internet infrastructure are often not adequately funded. In our current challenging economic climate, it is not surprising that commercial funding sources are more likely to fund that research that leads to a direct competitive [and strategic] advantage." This is true. This is because the people failed (and this is the role of the CS to let them grasp it and move) to understand that the Internet's owner is them, the people. And that we must collectively fund the "syllostructure" and research. We have been told, some understood it as the warning that it was, and a few of us have worked on it. They need help; our collective help. We have to wake up now and work. We are the Internet owners and there is no other digital ecosystem, just as there is no other earth ecosystem. There is a real global warming; there is a definitive digital global warning. The decision is ours. jfc At 09:05 04/02/2011, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >The question remains, in case of any country or website not complying >to what the US approves, will face a shutdown? > >What happens in the event that: > >1. A torrent domain is shutdown by the US under ACTA but other >countries have no issue with it? Where and how does this consultation >between these countries occur? ICANN? IGF? another international body >for internet governance? enhanced cooperation? How? > >2. Wikileaks remains a prime example..........did all other countries >also authorize shut down of that domain? > >3. Country level enforcements are possible and thats what happened in >the case of Egypt but the article is a good discussion to what may >happen the other way around and as the case with the followers of the >Wikileaks Twitter that are being subpoenaed by the US investigators >http://mashable.com/2011/01/08/twitter-subpoenaed-by-u-s-government-for-wikileaks-accounts/. > >The question is who and what is needed to kill the Internet and what >do we actually mean by killing the Internet, as a whole or in parts? > >--- Foo > >On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > > At 23:51 03/02/2011, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> > >> The real issue is not singularity of a DNS root but, rather, consistency > >> of DNS query results. > > > > Actually, it is the singularity of the DNS log that represents a key > > intelligence and power source. > > jfc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Feb 4 12:09:36 2011 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 18:09:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Lee I would not be surprised by such a move. The US has shown us so many its faces these days. The whole world is still to catch its breath since they watch Barack Obama declared that a candidate for an African country's (Côte d'Ivoire) presidential election has won the election when the constitutional council (Supreme court) of that country has not yet validated the results as it happens in the US. The said results were read in a Hotel room through the instigation of US Ambassador to Côte d"Ivoire, Phillip Carter 111 and that of France. Does the West consider the ramification of such acts? Obama and Hilary CLINTON then threatened to get international troops impose their so called victor named Allasane Dramane Ouattara. It is a shame that journalists shamelessly accompanied them (bama and Sarkozy) in such brazen political banditry. I am a Cameroonian who followed closedly the said elections. By that act alone, Obama has help mudden the image that the US has in Africa the more and no body listen's to him any. I am one of those rare African Journalists to keep a copy of all his speeches. I did not even bother to listen to his State of the Union address this time around. I will ne be surprised if he decides to shut down the Internet that appears to be a great tool against Western Imperialism.n Thanks to the Internet, mainstream western media cannot more intoxicate us any more. Any way, Tim Lee still alive and will concoct another device to skip that shut down. Aaron On 2/3/11, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > ________________________________________ > From: lmcknigh at syr.edu [lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:04 AM > To: Lee W McKnight > Subject: I just saw it on CNN.com: Could the U.S. shut down the internet? > > Just as I predicted, the Senators proposing the Presidential Internet > 'kill-switch' bill are pretending they did not actually mean to give the > President a 'kill-switch.' Right. > > *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire > address below into your web browser. > > http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/03/internet.shut.down/index.html?hpt=T2 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper C/o P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 70 56 00 28 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Feb 4 12:35:44 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:35:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <20110204145952.8F30515C254@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> <20110204144927.76DB715C254@quill.bollow.ch> <20110204145952.8F30515C254@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I support Norbert's suggested inclusion - the second proposal: "Empowerment to fully benefit from today's information and communication > technologies is particularly important for people who struggle with > poverty or are otherwise marginalised in society." rather than the first, only because "must be empowered" offers a handle to hang opposing arguments from. Deirdre On 4 February 2011 10:59, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Let me try to suggest some specific words, and a place where they >> could be added: >> >> The first sentence under "4. Access to knowledge" reads as follows: >> "Access to knowledge is part of the great promise of the Internet in >> aiding development, education and culture both within and between >> countries." >> >> This could be followed by the following additional text: >> >> "It is particularly important that all people who struggle with >> poverty or are otherwise marginalised in society must be empowered >> to fully benefit from today's information and communication >> technologies." > > Or, alternatively, the following wording could be used: > > > > 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 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Feb 4 14:19:45 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:19:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Is-facebook-a-human-right? Egypt-and-Tunisia-transform-social-media. Message-ID: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/is-facebook-a-human-right-egypt-and -tunisia-transform-social-media/ Something a bit provocative from my blog. Comments/critique sincerely welcomed... Best, M ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 4 16:13:26 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:13:26 +0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> Message-ID: Dear Jean, The text you provide is true. My question remains, within the current state of affairs and what has happened to the Wikileaks website and the numerous other being taken down under ACTA, where do things stand? What is the point of action now? Things will not just cool down on their own, its a process under implementation..........what now? -- Foo On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:37 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Dear Fouad, > > The Internet offers resilience and reliability but not surety or security. > - resilience means that the system can survive even if some parts of it do > not. > - reliability means that one can trust the architecture and protocols, even > more than expected in introducing subsidiarity as in IDNA2008. > - surety depends on bandwidth availability. > - security depends on external interferences. > > This means that it was not designed to be used by people who are not > supported and not sharing the intent of its dominance (now the majority of > them). To understand the risks and what to do, we need to understand the > target, what we want, and how to get there. To understand this, we have to > forget the Internet for a time and realize that we want the world digital > ecosystem (WDE) that we live in to provide us network facilities that are > simple, resilient, reliable, sure, secure, ubiquitous, neutral, available > (it works 24/366), independent, etc. plus a back-up. Then, we are to compare > our target with the existent Internet and its possible extended offerings. > > This means that we need an independent back-up to the Internet. Like Google > offering a voice based back-up to twitter. > > When considering this, we immediately see that there are three uncoupled > interoperable technical areas : > > - the internet > - the newtechnet > - the user system to best interface both of them, so that we can really use > the internet/newtechnet in mutual backup, even if some services become > degraded. > > Then, today we should list our requirements for an international network > newtechnet technology. Features that we can think of are: > > - grassroots deployment, independent from infrastructure that governments, > catastrophes, economy, terrorism, etc. can meddle with. I would propose a > syllostructure concept, as an intrication of people's connection capacities > (resilience, surety). > - people centric, and hence neutrality and privacy protected by general > encryption. > - intelligent - supporting passive yet also ambient and active content > (extended services) and intercomprehension facilitation. > - semiotically (enhanced information feeding) and semantically (meanings) > protected. > - architectural security, which may result more easily from the uncoupling > of the user environment and of the network environment by middleware. > - reasonable economy and architecturally enforced best practices to manage > overload, kill spam, and protect usage privacy (that no one may know what we > do on the network). > - respect of the three network fundamental architectural principles, to stay > fully compatible with the Internet which has shown that it can support them >  and is actually built along them(constant change, simplicity, subsidiarity) > - neutrality on a per class of service basis (to be able to restrict > availability to available resources). > - full support of functional diversities, including linguistic diversity and > multilingualism (all languages and cultures treated equal). > - fair protection and support of relational spaces (i.e. group privacy and > capacities). > - etc. etc. > > We understand that such requirements do not interest the communications > industry, because it is low financial investment (but a high thinking one), > it is free to set-up and use, and it is a viable alternative to a part of > their business. It means allowing to freely (freedom and at no cost) relate > over the world without having to use their "commercial TV" like internet, > hence leading the Internet to become cheaper and more efficient. IAB has > explained that problem (RFC 3869) saying: > > "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the > main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the > Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about > which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of > the research, for example, towards or against the development of open > standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the > developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet." > > This was in August 2004. In February 2011, we have no more IPv4 addresses > and the Internet infrastructure is in trouble. > > IAB explained: "[This] brings out a key issue in funding for Internet > research, which is that because no single organization (e.g., no single > government, software company, equipment vendor, or network operator) has a > sense of ownership of the global Internet infrastructure, research on the > general issues of the Internet infrastructure are often not adequately > funded. In our current challenging economic climate, it is not surprising > that commercial funding sources are more likely to fund that research that > leads to a direct competitive [and strategic] advantage." > > This is true. This is because the people failed (and this is the role of the > CS to let them grasp it and move) to understand that the Internet's owner is > them, the people. And that we must collectively fund the "syllostructure" > and research. We have been told, some understood it as the warning that it > was, and a few of us have worked on it. They need help; our collective help. > We have to wake up now and work. We are the Internet owners and there is no > other digital ecosystem, just as there is no other earth ecosystem. There is > a real global warming; there is a definitive digital global warning. > > The decision is ours. > > jfc > > > > > At 09:05 04/02/2011, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> The question remains, in case of any country or website not complying >> to what the US approves, will face a shutdown? >> >> What happens in the event that: >> >> 1. A torrent domain is shutdown by the US under ACTA but other >> countries have no issue with it? Where and how does this consultation >> between these countries occur? ICANN? IGF? another international body >> for internet governance? enhanced cooperation? How? >> >> 2. Wikileaks remains a prime example..........did all other countries >> also authorize shut down of that domain? >> >> 3. Country level enforcements are possible and thats what happened in >> the case of Egypt but the article is a good discussion to what may >> happen the other way around and as the case with the followers of the >> Wikileaks Twitter that are being subpoenaed by the US investigators >> >> http://mashable.com/2011/01/08/twitter-subpoenaed-by-u-s-government-for-wikileaks-accounts/. >> >> The question is who and what is needed to kill the Internet and what >> do we actually mean by killing the Internet, as a whole or in parts? >> >> --- Foo >> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: >> > At 23:51 03/02/2011, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> >> >> >> The real issue is not singularity of a DNS root but, rather, >> >> consistency >> >> of DNS query results. >> > >> > Actually, it is the singularity of the DNS log that represents a key >> > intelligence and power source. >> > jfc >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > To 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Feb 4 17:08:12 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 17:08:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Campaign to challenge US govt's attempt to take over ICANN policy making and censor new TLDs Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF217B0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> You may already be discussing this, but I have been unable to keep up with the list: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20030583-501465.html Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Fri Feb 4 18:16:52 2011 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:16:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <4D4C88E4.9000003@cavebear.com> On 02/04/2011 12:05 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The question remains, in case of any country or website not complying > to what the US approves, will face a shutdown? If one objects strongly enough to US (or any other country) hegemony over the DNS root then there is a clear technical answer: - Start your your root, populate it with pointers to your favorite TLDs (including TLDs not recognized by ICANN) That does *not* deal with the current issue, which is US (or any other country) sitting on top of a registry to get that registry to alter a record within a TLD. In that case there are a couple of options: - Utilize the legal and political systems within that country to ask whether it is adhering to things like is constitutional requirements of due process and its rules of jurisdiction. Also ask a question that is rarely asked: does the government body that is doing the sitting on the registry have the authority to do that? Here in the US things like ICE are administrative agencies that have only those powers given to them by legislation enacted by Congress or via treaty or via an Executive order; and all of those must meet constitutional limitations. Does ICE have the power via legistlation to sit on a registry to answer a trademark complaint that is cast in terms of in import that violates a US trademark? In this case the answer is probably "yes". But does the US Dep't of Commerce or NTIA have the legislative or other source of authority to ask for a trademark based "kill switch" or even to charter an ICANN? With regard to the latter question the US Congress' own GAO has *twice* said "we can't find any." - With a bit of technical juggling one could use either DNS proxies or packet inspection/alteration to patch-back any data that was altered by the registry. I would recommend against this, however, as it is probably going to end up a very deep swamp populated with very hungry techno-crocodiles. - Ask whether you can legally clone the TLD. If you can, or if you are willing to pay $$ for the right to make a clone, then you can set up your own version of the TLD. Again, I do not like that approach as it tends to violate my own rule that says that if a TLD exists then the data in that TLD ought to be consistent and that users should shun any TLDs that are in dispute and give different answers to the same query. There is another answer to all of this - which is to consider new name systems for the internet. I personally find this approach attractive, particularly given that DNS fails terribly with regard to persistence and does readily handle the kind of replication and proximity that obtain with application entities living in "the cloud". But unlike others, I advocate retention of DNS names and the DNS system as the tokens and machinery upon which such new naming systems (plural) would be based. I'd also strongly urge that one consider in those yet-to-be-invented systems that one clearly face the question whether the names should carry human semantic meaning - we all know the dangers that arise when human semantics are introduced. --karl-- --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Fri Feb 4 18:25:39 2011 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:25:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> On 02/04/2011 01:13 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The text you provide is true. My question remains, within the current > state of affairs and what has happened to the Wikileaks website and > the numerous other being taken down under ACTA... The discussion requires greater precision. The machinery and web server still runs, packets still can flow to/from the web server(s). The thing that was "taken down" was DNS resource record for which the master source exists in a database run by a US company. (I don't know whether the database is on a machine in the US, but the authority to control that database definitely is vested in a company subject to US jurisdiction.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Feb 4 19:32:50 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 08:32:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> <20110204144927.76DB715C254@quill.bollow.ch> <20110204145952.8F30515C254@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <14A9A05E-5706-444C-BBC0-9C278A5BAD17@ciroap.org> On 05/02/2011, at 1:35 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > I support Norbert's suggested inclusion - the second proposal: OK thanks all, there seems to be support for both additions and none speaking against, so I have become convinced that we should add them. I haven't discussed this with Izumi yet but suspect he will agree (we have divided up the labour by way of the CSTD for him and the IGF for me). Although I'm not changing the poll in progress, those who haven't voted yet should take this into account and relate any objections to the additional wording on the list. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Feb 5 00:33:45 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 08:33:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 02/04/2011 01:13 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> The text you provide is true. My question remains, within the current >> state of affairs and what has happened to the Wikileaks website and >> the numerous other being taken down under ACTA... IIUC, ACTA has not been adopted or ratified by States. > > The discussion requires greater precision. precisely :-) -- 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 ecrire at catherine-roy.net Sat Feb 5 01:16:36 2011 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (catherine) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 01:16:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Article on Mashable on the Web and developing countries In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: FYI: Why the Web Is Useless in Developing Countries – And How to Fix It Like many who study the struggles of developing countries, Steve Bratt has done the math on the potential of mobile phones. The United Nation’s International Telecommunication Union estimated that at the end of 2010 there were 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide and that a full 90% of the world population now has access to a mobile network. In contrast, only about 2 billion people have Internet access. The high prevalence of mobile phones (even in developing countries, penetration rates were expected to reach 68% by the end of 2010) has led many non-profits to choose mobile networks as tools for positive change. Mobile banking in Kenya has helped farmers increase their incomes, 300,000 people in Bangladesh signed up to learn English through their phones, and many consider mobile phones the key to developing nations. But Bratt, now the CEO of The World Wide Web Foundation, came up with a different hypothesis when he looked at the 3.3 billion-person gap between mobile phone users and Internet users. Theoretically, he thinks that the two numbers could one day even out as people use their phones to log onto the Internet. Read more: http://mashable.com/2011/02/04/web-developing-world -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 5 01:56:11 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 18:56:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] Article on Mashable on the Web and developing countries In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: This is an interesting piece. *A Pacific Perspective* Universal Service and Access is still a challenge in the Pacific region as its islands are spread out across the sea, and volcanic islands have vastly different terrain. Mobile phones have increased the regional penetration rates in the Pacific, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc. One of the challenges with the deployment of communication services is the availability of reliable energy grids. Sadly, alternative and renewable energy alternatives are quite expensive in the Pacific and many Pacific Islands telecommunications providers and ISPs rely on infrastructure that is powered either by their national energy grids or petroleum (diesel). In terms of voice, yes, mobiles have accelerated communication and penetration in remote areas but there is quite a long way to go to enable the availability of internet access outside cities and towns. Sadly, in the Pacific, internet is not readily available on the internet except in suburban areas. One of the increasing challenges for governments is in having proper national strategies in place that will enable greater cohesion that is critical for the state, regulators, licensed operators and civil society that will ensure that universal service is reached. Whilst internet on mobile phones is not readily available yet in villages, sms banking is a popular feature that has really taken off in Fiji recently. So, I suppose yes mobiles are the way to go but I would not write off Telecenters in every village, at least. Different countries in the Pacific define Universal Service/Access mediums differently, some say Fixed Lines and Mobile Phones whilst some have both including the Internet, which is why Facebook can never be a human right in developing worlds until they have basic access to communication, priority being voice over internet, at the very least. The Pacific still has alot to do to bring up countries' respective national penetration rates in all mediums of communication. Kind Regards Sala On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 7:16 PM, catherine wrote: > FYI: > > Why the Web Is Useless in Developing Countries – And How to Fix It > > Like many who study the struggles of developing countries, Steve Bratt has > done the math on the potential of mobile phones. The United Nation’s > International Telecommunication Union estimated that at the end of 2010 > there were 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide and that a > full 90% of the world population now has access to a mobile network. In > contrast, only about 2 billion people have Internet access. > > The high prevalence of mobile phones (even in developing countries, > penetration rates were expected to reach 68% by the end of 2010) has led > many non-profits to choose mobile networks as tools for positive change. > Mobile banking in Kenya has helped farmers increase their incomes, 300,000 > people in Bangladesh signed up to learn English through their phones, and > many consider mobile phones the key to developing nations. > > But Bratt, now the CEO of The World Wide Web Foundation, came up with a > different hypothesis when he looked at the 3.3 billion-person gap between > mobile phone users and Internet users. Theoretically, he thinks that the > two numbers could one day even out as people use their phones to log onto > the Internet. > > Read more: > > http://mashable.com/2011/02/04/web-developing-world > > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Feb 5 03:49:59 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 09:49:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> At 00:25 05/02/2011, Karl Auerbach wrote: >On 02/04/2011 01:13 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >>The text you provide is true. My question remains, within the current >>state of affairs and what has happened to the Wikileaks website and >>the numerous other being taken down under ACTA... > >The discussion requires greater precision. I come back to this at the end of this mail. >The machinery and web server still runs, packets still can flow >to/from the web server(s). This is the current US case. This was not the Egyptian case. When the net is controlled in China it is another way to shut-up the net. >The thing that was "taken down" was DNS resource record for which >the master source exists in a database run by a US company. (I >don't know whether the database is on a machine in the US, but the >authority to control that database definitely is vested in a company >subject to US jurisdiction.) ICANN has definitely killed the ICANN root concept (unless the USG has it say) in introducing the obligation for gTLDs to respect the USG international policy, and in not introducing classes. This makes the root an US root, calling for other national roots, and made ICANN subject to endless actions by gTLDs as everyone can legitimately operate any gTLD with a different zone in a different class. >On 02/04/2011 12:05 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>The question remains, in case of any country or website not complying >>to what the US approves, will face a shutdown? > >There is another answer to all of this - which is to consider new >name systems for the internet. I personally find this approach >attractive, particularly given that DNS fails terribly with regard >to persistence and does readily handle the kind of replication and >proximity that obtain with application entities living in "the >cloud". But unlike others, I advocate retention of DNS names and >the DNS system as the tokens and machinery upon which such new >naming systems (plural) would be based. This is documented by RFC 5890 to 5895 authored by John Klensin, Patrik Falström, Harald Alvestrand and Paul Hoffman under the Chairmanship of Vint Cerf under my pressure which eventually led to a full consensus. My initial position that was eventually encouraged by Vint, IESG and IAB (through appeals) was exactly that : to protect the ASCII DNS as the Internal Internet naming system, and build atop an ML-DNS (i.e. multi-layer DNS, able to support as many user and user-application oriented naming systems). I have documented enough on this list the implications, the first one being to illustrate through the ML-DNS and the RFC 5895 two examples of the introduction of the principles of subsidiarity as one of the three basic principle of the Internet architecture with the principle of constant change (RFC 1958) and the principle of simplicity (RFC 3934). I have spent last year in making clear if this falls in the IETF scope or not. The answer as I understood it from IESG and IAB is "no because it goes beyond the Internet and is multi-technology, but the outcome yes". Hence my present strategy: these RFCs permitted to identify the need for an uncoupled Internet Use Interface at the Internet fringe where to locate the ML-DNS and many other smart extended network services, presenting the users with an intelligent network experience, this "IUse" (where I stands for Internet, Intelligent, IETF) area and community to get emerging. There will probably be several IUI architectures, but the first need was to illustrate and validate the concept with one of them. This is the Internet PLUS (where PLUS means Plugged Layers on the User Side) adding two non-ISO intelligent network layers on the user machine for an extended better use of the networks (Internet or other technologies). Unfortunately putting such a framework and project together, considering an ML-DNS prototype (as a fork of an existing solution). and getting it moving takes time, help, etc. >I'd also strongly urge that one consider in those yet-to-be-invented >systems that one clearly face the question whether the names should >carry human semantic meaning - we all know the dangers that arise >when human semantics are introduced. Human semantic is not to be introduced by supported. Not only as registered semantic, but as real meaning of the thought, towards facilitation to the intercomprehension. This may also turn out as an extraordinary way to compress information being exchanged (cf. Chaitin). However, this is the next communication stratum (semantic internet of thoughts). Now, I want to come back to Fouad question. The problem can be documented very simply. Communication has three main strata. - physical - bandwidth - logical - protocols, software, - semantical - thoughts TMs, politics, merchants try to use the logical layer to impose their commercial thinking on us, being protected by politicians who control the bandwidth. As explained above, what we (people) control is our IUI, the part of the extended Internet that manage (and will manage better and better) our use of the networks. At this time there is an enormous pressure to deny this IUI which uncouples us from the server (as in client/server) in having a server/IUI/our-application triad - us controlling our IUI. This is the whole iPhone, Android, M$, Majors, etc. strategy to impose a proprietary client on your mobile and your machine. So, at this stratum we have the answer and can work on it. Recent events enlighten the need for us to also control our bandwidth. This means to deploy a free Internet back-up. To be free and to be active it has to be an Internet complement (offering Internet back-up in tough situation or in developing countries) by the people. This is why I quickly started two sites to work on this I will try to activate before the end of next week with a wiki and to open it to who will want to share : - http://newtechnet.org : for us to specify the technology requirements and find a free and robust solution able to use telephone land lines, radio and meshed wifi network. - http://theppl.net : for the organization of this free smart network system It is understood that using such a network will be an option of the IUI systems, permitting an immediate and transparent (probable degraded mode) use by users. Even in case of mubarackobamania. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Feb 5 04:38:58 2011 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 09:38:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Norbert, Thank you for the suggestions, I agree with Deirdre and the second proposal. My best regards, Yuliya Le 4/2/2011, "Deirdre Williams" a écrit: >I support Norbert's suggested inclusion - the second proposal: > >"Empowerment to fully benefit from today's information and communication >> technologies is particularly important for people who struggle with >> poverty or are otherwise marginalised in society." > >rather than the first, only because "must be empowered" offers a >handle to hang opposing arguments from. > >Deirdre > >On 4 February 2011 10:59, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Let me try to suggest some specific words, and a place where they >>> could be added: >>> >>> The first sentence under "4. Access to knowledge" reads as follows: >>> "Access to knowledge is part of the great promise of the Internet in >>> aiding development, education and culture both within and between >>> countries." >>> >>> This could be followed by the following additional text: >>> >>> "It is particularly important that all people who struggle with >>> poverty or are otherwise marginalised in society must be empowered >>> to fully benefit from today's information and communication >>> technologies." >> >> Or, alternatively, the following wording could be used: >> >> > >> >> 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 >> >> > > > >-- >“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Feb 5 06:51:02 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:51:02 +0500 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <14A9A05E-5706-444C-BBC0-9C278A5BAD17@ciroap.org> References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> <20110201102000.9AFD315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> <7.0.1.0.2.20110201170202.05321b78@jefsey.com> <20110204144927.76DB715C254@quill.bollow.ch> <20110204145952.8F30515C254@quill.bollow.ch> <14A9A05E-5706-444C-BBC0-9C278A5BAD17@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I have already voted and have no objections to the statement but I too feel that we should have the open standards text added as Nobert shared and supported by IGC members.............so I support the addition in the statement.... -- Foo On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 05/02/2011, at 1:35 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> I support Norbert's suggested inclusion - the second proposal: > > OK thanks all, there seems to be support for both additions and none speaking against, so I have become convinced that we should add them.  I haven't discussed this with Izumi yet but suspect he will agree (we have divided up the labour by way of the CSTD for him and the IGF for me).  Although I'm not changing the poll in progress, those who haven't voted yet should take this into account and relate any objections to the additional wording on the list. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > Twitter #CICongress > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Feb 5 08:50:13 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 18:50:13 +0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Well then there is some other policy activity taking down these websites????? On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> On 02/04/2011 01:13 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>> The text you provide is true. My question remains, within the current >>> state of affairs and what has happened to the Wikileaks website and >>> the numerous other being taken down under ACTA... > > > IIUC, ACTA has not been adopted or ratified by States. > >> >> The discussion requires greater precision. > > > precisely :-) > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat Feb 5 10:00:50 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:00:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> Message-ID: Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt have dispelled a tenacious myth, that it is impossible to block communications in internet. Practically it doesn't take long for a clever technical staff to turn off part or all of a national internet. Indeed, due to a very small number of popular applications provided by USA based quasi-monopolies, the net is no longer enjoying the characteristics of its initial design. Instead of peer to peer traffic exchanged between a large number of users, the net has regressed to a primitive client server model of proprietary services typical of the 70's. While dominant providers may be credited of a brilliant money making ability, their architecture vision has been definitely mediocre. If this is taken as a notable achievement of the private sector, we'd better look elsewhere for innovative concepts. A second myth has also been badly hit, that of the USA being a guardian of the freedom of expression. Like in China, Egypt, Iran, Myanmar, Tunisia, and more, the US govt makes every effort to eradicate from the internet information it doesn't like, e.g. Wikileaks, but not only. The seizure of domain names, by administrative rather judiciary process, is a clear symptom of a dangerous drift towards denial of justice and witch hunt. Remember McCarthyism. Sadly, in the western world this present trend is not limited to the USA. The case of rojadirecta, a Spanish site, is an interesting example of messy seizure by DHS. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5b403119ad7fc612b5b915ef0fe0c041&t=420566&page=1 Actually, rojadirecta remained on the net through other links, which was the most expedient alternative. As argued by some postings, DHS seizure of domain names seems to be a blatant violation of the US Constitution. Suing DHS in a US court is not a practical solution. DHS would be a sure winner, either by a biased judgment or by dilatory tactics. However, publicity on the process would call world attention on the risks involved in dealing with US controlled registries. A major lesson to be drawn from those recent events, and not to be forgotten, is that no country and no application is a safe haven. Putting all corporate information systems under some .com, .net, .org or similar TLD's is not just naive but irresponsible. Domain names should be hosted in a diversity of countries and registries. Check which organization is operating the DNS and where it is physically located. Have a private DNS, or at least keep track of IP addresses of essential sites. Maintain dialup telephone access to servers on voice grade modems. What else in extreme conditions ? Ham radio, satellite telephone, mail pigeons. At the same time frustrated citizens in authoritarian countries rush to Facebook for setting up demonstrations and keeping the world informed. Do they realize that security flaws give the police clues to identify them and their friends, collect their profiles, and impersonate them ? http://www.europe1.fr/Medias-Tele/Il-s-est-glisse-dans-une-faille-de-Facebook-398657/ http://www.john-jean.com/blog/advisories/facebook-vulnerabilites-csrf-et-xss-ver-destructeurs-sur-un-reseau-social-372 Btw, 500 millions of Fakebook profiles are a gold mine for all kinds of data collectors. -------------- 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 Feb 5 10:17:23 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:17:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <0noELLiDoWTNFADg@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 18:50:13 on Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes >Well then there is some other policy activity taking down these websites????? ACTA is a proposed international legal framework. Any website takedowns I'm aware of at the moment will be under much older, local laws. >On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM, McTim wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: >>> On 02/04/2011 01:13 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>>> The text you provide is true. My question remains, within the current >>>> state of affairs and what has happened to the Wikileaks website and >>>> the numerous other being taken down under ACTA... >> >> >> IIUC, ACTA has not been adopted or ratified by States. >> >>> >>> The discussion requires greater precision. >> >> >> precisely :-) >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel >> > > > -- 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 ecrire at catherine-roy.net Sat Feb 5 10:30:09 2011 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (catherine) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:30:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Article on Mashable on the Web and developing countries In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Hello Sala, Thank you for offering your particular perspective; I think it adds important information to the whole issue. A few comments inline. On Sat, February 5, 2011 1:56 am, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Mobile phones have increased the regional penetration rates in the > Pacific, > Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc. One of the challenges with the deployment of > communication services is the availability of reliable energy grids. > Sadly, > alternative and renewable energy alternatives are quite expensive in the > Pacific and many Pacific Islands telecommunications providers and ISPs > rely > on infrastructure that is powered either by their national energy grids or > petroleum (diesel). You bring up an interesting point that many discussions and writings on the Internet in developing countries often leave out: energy sources and alternatives to power all this. I think we need to hear about this issue more. > One of the increasing challenges for governments is in having proper > national strategies in place that will enable greater cohesion that is > critical for the state, regulators, licensed operators and civil society > that will ensure that universal service is reached. I agree. We have been working hard in Canada and in my province of Quebec to incite the government to adopt and implement an inclusive digital strategy. But we are not there yet. > Whilst internet on mobile phones is not readily available yet in villages, > sms banking is a popular feature that has really taken off in Fiji > recently. > So, I suppose yes mobiles are the way to go but I would not write off > Telecenters in every village, at least. Agreed. People are focusing mainly on the potential of mobiles and this is understandable but telecentres should remain an important part of the solution. I think that telecentres are ideal in providing opportunities for community building, peer support, training, etc. > Different countries in the Pacific define Universal Service/Access > mediums differently, some say Fixed Lines and Mobile Phones whilst some > have > both including the Internet, which is why Facebook can never be a human > right in developing worlds until they have basic access to communication, > priority being voice over internet, at the very least. I have heard this repeated quite a lot in recent weeks, about this notion of Facebook being a human right. I must say I find the whole thing disturbing. I think we need to frame it as a "Communication, whatever its form or forum, is a human right" issue or something in that vein. But I guess that is a whole other discussion ;) Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Feb 5 11:13:43 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:13:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> Hi, I pretty much agree with this analysis. The only additional thing I would say, and I think the email gets to a similar place by the the last paragraph, is that even though the Internet can be easily taken down by governments, there is a resilience in the Internet that by using old techniques and communications technologies, and new technology the communications links can be reestablished in time. But I think there is a good warning that we should heed in this note and that we should start preparing now for the next regime that decides to take the network down, that we need to support those who are being prosecuted now for their content and we should work on the diversification and distribution of control and governance. a. On 5 Feb 2011, at 10:00, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt have dispelled a tenacious myth, that it is impossible to block communications in internet. Practically it doesn't take long for a clever technical staff to turn off part or all of a national internet. Indeed, due to a very small number of popular applications provided by USA based quasi-monopolies, the net is no longer enjoying the characteristics of its initial design. Instead of peer to peer traffic exchanged between a large number of users, the net has regressed to a primitive client server model of proprietary services typical of the 70's. While dominant providers may be credited of a brilliant money making ability, their architecture vision has been definitely mediocre. If this is taken as a notable achievement of the private sector, we'd better look elsewhere for innovative concepts. > > A second myth has also been badly hit, that of the USA being a guardian of the freedom of expression. Like in China, Egypt, Iran, Myanmar, Tunisia, and more, the US govt makes every effort to eradicate from the internet information it doesn't like, e.g. Wikileaks, but not only. The seizure of domain names, by administrative rather judiciary process, is a clear symptom of a dangerous drift towards denial of justice and witch hunt. Remember McCarthyism. Sadly, in the western world this present trend is not limited to the USA. > > The case of rojadirecta, a Spanish site, is an interesting example of messy seizure by DHS. > http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5b403119ad7fc612b5b915ef0fe0c041&t=420566&page=1 > Actually, rojadirecta remained on the net through other links, which was the most expedient alternative. > > As argued by some postings, DHS seizure of domain names seems to be a blatant violation of the US Constitution. Suing DHS in a US court is not a practical solution. DHS would be a sure winner, either by a biased judgment or by dilatory tactics. However, publicity on the process would call world attention on the risks involved in dealing with US controlled registries. > > A major lesson to be drawn from those recent events, and not to be forgotten, is that no country and no application is a safe haven. Putting all corporate information systems under some .com, .net, .org or similar TLD's is not just naive but irresponsible. Domain names should be hosted in a diversity of countries and registries. Check which organization is operating the DNS and where it is physically located. Have a private DNS, or at least keep track of IP addresses of essential sites. Maintain dialup telephone access to servers on voice grade modems. What else in extreme conditions ? Ham radio, satellite telephone, mail pigeons. > > At the same time frustrated citizens in authoritarian countries rush to Facebook for setting up demonstrations and keeping the world informed. Do they realize that security flaws give the police clues to identify them and their friends, collect their profiles, and impersonate them ? > http://www.europe1.fr/Medias-Tele/Il-s-est-glisse-dans-une-faille-de-Facebook-398657/ > http://www.john-jean.com/blog/advisories/facebook-vulnerabilites-csrf-et-xss-ver-destructeurs-sur-un-reseau-social-372 > > Btw, 500 millions of Fakebook profiles are a gold mine for all kinds of data collectors. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Sat Feb 5 14:56:52 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 06:56:52 +1100 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Good article Louis ­ similar thoughts expressed by Douglas Rushkoff below http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/05/rushkoff.egypt.internet/index.html ?hpt=C1 As I see it, our most common communication channels currently can be closed at the whim of corporations and governments, and often governments foreign to our own, if servers or registrars or registries or a host of other incidental arrangements exist within the blocking parties sovereignty. (or pass through their sovereignty in some instances). And often this is happening with no judicial checks and balances. Ths is a huge issue for the Internet as we know it and it is a governance issue. Avri mentioned some of the new technical workarounds ­ and some of the old ones. These will help the more literate but don¹t solve the underlying problem, which is a fundamental lack of sensible agreements to ensure that the actions of individual governments and/or corporations are subject to a number of checks and balances before any takedowns occur. Things that will assist could include * international agreements and/or treaties on the right to communicate (yes I know we went there in the 1980s) * codes of conduct with corporations * policy statements by companies as part of user agreements * an agreement by nations to require judicial action before any takedowns within their area of sovereignty * education on the threats to human rights inherent in the current situation * activism And I am sure there is more that can be done. Thanks Louis for putting the basic situation before us so well. Ian Peter From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" Reply-To: , "Louis Pouzin (well)" Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:00:50 +0100 To: Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt have dispelled a tenacious myth, that it is impossible to block communications in internet. Practically it doesn't take long for a clever technical staff to turn off part or all of a national internet. Indeed, due to a very small number of popular applications provided by USA based quasi-monopolies, the net is no longer enjoying the characteristics of its initial design. Instead of peer to peer traffic exchanged between a large number of users, the net has regressed to a primitive client server model of proprietary services typical of the 70's. While dominant providers may be credited of a brilliant money making ability, their architecture vision has been definitely mediocre. If this is taken as a notable achievement of the private sector, we'd better look elsewhere for innovative concepts. A second myth has also been badly hit, that of the USA being a guardian of the freedom of expression. Like in China, Egypt, Iran, Myanmar, Tunisia, and more, the US govt makes every effort to eradicate from the internet information it doesn't like, e.g. Wikileaks, but not only. The seizure of domain names, by administrative rather judiciary process, is a clear symptom of a dangerous drift towards denial of justice and witch hunt. Remember McCarthyism. Sadly, in the western world this present trend is not limited to the USA. The case of rojadirecta, a Spanish site, is an interesting example of messy seizure by DHS. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5b403119ad7fc612b5b915ef0fe0c04 1&t=420566&page=1 Actually, rojadirecta remained on the net through other links, which was the most expedient alternative. As argued by some postings, DHS seizure of domain names seems to be a blatant violation of the US Constitution. Suing DHS in a US court is not a practical solution. DHS would be a sure winner, either by a biased judgment or by dilatory tactics. However, publicity on the process would call world attention on the risks involved in dealing with US controlled registries. A major lesson to be drawn from those recent events, and not to be forgotten, is that no country and no application is a safe haven. Putting all corporate information systems under some .com, .net, .org or similar TLD's is not just naive but irresponsible. Domain names should be hosted in a diversity of countries and registries. Check which organization is operating the DNS and where it is physically located. Have a private DNS, or at least keep track of IP addresses of essential sites. Maintain dialup telephone access to servers on voice grade modems. What else in extreme conditions ? Ham radio, satellite telephone, mail pigeons. At the same time frustrated citizens in authoritarian countries rush to Facebook for setting up demonstrations and keeping the world informed. Do they realize that security flaws give the police clues to identify them and their friends, collect their profiles, and impersonate them ? http://www.europe1.fr/Medias-Tele/Il-s-est-glisse-dans-une-faille-de-Faceboo k-398657/ http://www.john-jean.com/blog/advisories/facebook-vulnerabilites-csrf-et-xss -ver-destructeurs-sur-un-reseau-social-372 Btw, 500 millions of Fakebook profiles are a gold mine for all kinds of data collectors. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Sat Feb 5 15:06:02 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 01:06:02 +0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have sometimes felt that the point of a treaty may be precisely to create the monopoly in a single way of handling things..........an example as shared by a friend can be that if we take the case of movie DVDs carrying region codes appears as a form of censorship upheld by treaties. My colleague suggests that the possible solution around this is to work on the interfaces between participants in the Internet space and Domain names are such interfaces and inspite of the domain names, there are many languages are interfaces and computer protocols and social networks... .......................whats the way in your perceptions? On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Good article Louis – similar thoughts expressed by Douglas Rushkoff below > > > http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/05/rushkoff.egypt.internet/index.html?hpt=C1 > > > As I see it, our most common communication channels currently can be closed > at the whim of corporations and governments, and often governments foreign > to our own, if servers or registrars or registries or a host of other > incidental arrangements exist within the blocking parties sovereignty. (or > pass through their sovereignty in some instances). And often this is > happening with no judicial checks and balances. > > Ths is a huge issue for the Internet as we know it and it is a governance > issue. > > Avri mentioned some of the new technical workarounds – and some of the old > ones. These will help the more literate but don’t solve the underlying > problem, which is a fundamental lack of  sensible agreements to ensure that > the actions of individual governments and/or corporations are subject to a > number of checks and balances before any takedowns occur. > > Things that will assist could include > > international agreements and/or treaties on the right to communicate (yes I > know we went there in the 1980s) > codes of conduct with corporations > policy statements by companies as part of user agreements > an agreement by nations to require judicial action before any takedowns > within their area of sovereignty > education on the threats to human rights inherent in the current situation > activism > > And I am sure there is more that can be done. Thanks Louis for putting the > basic situation before us so well. > > Ian Peter > > ________________________________ > From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" > Reply-To: , "Louis Pouzin (well)" > > Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:00:50 +0100 > To: > Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? > > Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt have dispelled a tenacious myth, that it > is impossible to block communications in internet. Practically it doesn't > take long for a clever technical staff to turn off part or all of a national > internet. Indeed, due to a very small number of popular applications > provided by USA based quasi-monopolies, the net is no longer enjoying the > characteristics of its initial design. Instead of peer to peer traffic > exchanged between a large number of users, the net has regressed to a > primitive client server model of proprietary services typical of the 70's. > While dominant providers may be credited of a brilliant money making > ability, their architecture vision has been definitely mediocre. If this is > taken as a notable achievement of the private sector, we'd better look > elsewhere for innovative concepts. > > A second myth has also been badly hit, that of the USA being a guardian of > the freedom of expression. Like in China, Egypt, Iran, Myanmar, Tunisia, and > more, the US govt makes every effort to eradicate from the internet > information it doesn't like, e.g. Wikileaks, but not only. The seizure of > domain names, by administrative rather judiciary process, is a clear symptom > of a dangerous drift towards denial of justice and witch hunt. Remember > McCarthyism. Sadly, in the western world this present trend is not limited > to the USA. > > The case of rojadirecta, a Spanish site, is an interesting example of messy > seizure by DHS. > http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5b403119ad7fc612b5b915ef0fe0c041&t=420566&page=1 > Actually, rojadirecta remained on the net through other links, which was the > most expedient alternative. > > As argued by some postings, DHS seizure of domain names seems to be a > blatant violation of the US Constitution. Suing DHS in a US court is not a > practical solution. DHS would be a sure winner, either by a biased judgment > or by dilatory tactics. However, publicity on the process would call world > attention on the risks involved in dealing with US controlled registries. > > A major lesson to be drawn from those recent events, and not to be > forgotten, is that no country and no application is a safe haven. Putting > all corporate information systems under some .com, .net, .org or similar > TLD's is not just naive but irresponsible. Domain names should be hosted in > a diversity of countries and registries. Check which organization is > operating the DNS and where it is physically located. Have a private DNS, or > at least keep track of IP addresses of essential sites. Maintain dialup > telephone access to servers on voice grade modems. What else in extreme > conditions ? Ham radio, satellite telephone, mail pigeons. > > At the same time frustrated citizens in authoritarian countries rush to > Facebook for setting up demonstrations and keeping the world informed. Do > they realize that security flaws give the police clues to identify them and > their friends, collect their profiles, and impersonate them ? > http://www.europe1.fr/Medias-Tele/Il-s-est-glisse-dans-une-faille-de-Facebook-398657/ > http://www.john-jean.com/blog/advisories/facebook-vulnerabilites-csrf-et-xss-ver-destructeurs-sur-un-reseau-social-372 > > Btw, 500 millions of Fakebook profiles are a gold mine for all kinds of data > collectors. > > > > ________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Feb 5 15:13:41 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 01:13:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> Message-ID: > But I think there is a good warning that we should heed in this note and that we should start preparing now for the next regime that decides to take the network down, that we need to support those who are being prosecuted now for their content and we should work on the diversification and distribution of control and governance. -- is this regime something that may be in development in the form of what happened during the December consultations in New York and CSTD in Geneva? Something that may evolve through enhanced cooperation banner? -- Foo On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I pretty much agree with this analysis. > > The only additional thing I would say, and I think the email gets to a similar place by the the last paragraph,  is that even though the Internet can be easily taken down by governments, there is a resilience in the Internet that by using old techniques and communications technologies, and new technology the communications links can be reestablished in time. > > But I think there is a good warning that we should heed in this note and that we should start preparing now for the next regime that decides to take the network down, that we need to support those who are being prosecuted now for their content and we should work on the diversification and distribution of control and governance. > > a. > > > > On 5 Feb 2011, at 10:00, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt have dispelled a tenacious myth, that it is impossible to block communications in internet. Practically it doesn't take long for a clever technical staff to turn off part or all of a national internet. Indeed, due to a very small number of popular applications provided by USA based quasi-monopolies, the net is no longer enjoying the characteristics of its initial design. Instead of peer to peer traffic exchanged between a large number of users, the net has regressed to a primitive client server model of proprietary services typical of the 70's. While dominant providers may be credited of a brilliant money making ability, their architecture vision has been definitely mediocre. If this is taken as a notable achievement of the private sector, we'd better look elsewhere for innovative concepts. >> >> A second myth has also been badly hit, that of the USA being a guardian of the freedom of expression. Like in China, Egypt, Iran, Myanmar, Tunisia, and more, the US govt makes every effort to eradicate from the internet information it doesn't like, e.g. Wikileaks, but not only. The seizure of domain names, by administrative rather judiciary process, is a clear symptom of a dangerous drift towards denial of justice and witch hunt. Remember McCarthyism. Sadly, in the western world this present trend is not limited to the USA. >> >> The case of rojadirecta, a Spanish site, is an interesting example of messy seizure by DHS. >> http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5b403119ad7fc612b5b915ef0fe0c041&t=420566&page=1 >> Actually, rojadirecta remained on the net through other links, which was the most expedient alternative. >> >> As argued by some postings, DHS seizure of domain names seems to be a blatant violation of the US Constitution. Suing DHS in a US court is not a practical solution. DHS would be a sure winner, either by a biased judgment or by dilatory tactics. However, publicity on the process would call world attention on the risks involved in dealing with US controlled registries. >> >> A major lesson to be drawn from those recent events, and not to be forgotten, is that no country and no application is a safe haven. Putting all corporate information systems under some .com, .net, .org or similar TLD's is not just naive but irresponsible. Domain names should be hosted in a diversity of countries and registries. Check which organization is operating the DNS and where it is physically located. Have a private DNS, or at least keep track of IP addresses of essential sites. Maintain dialup telephone access to servers on voice grade modems. What else in extreme conditions ? Ham radio, satellite telephone, mail pigeons. >> >> At the same time frustrated citizens in authoritarian countries rush to Facebook for setting up demonstrations and keeping the world informed. Do they realize that security flaws give the police clues to identify them and their friends, collect their profiles, and impersonate them ? >> http://www.europe1.fr/Medias-Tele/Il-s-est-glisse-dans-une-faille-de-Facebook-398657/ >> http://www.john-jean.com/blog/advisories/facebook-vulnerabilites-csrf-et-xss-ver-destructeurs-sur-un-reseau-social-372 >> >> Btw, 500 millions of Fakebook profiles are a gold mine for all kinds of data collectors. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Feb 5 15:20:03 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 01:20:03 +0500 Subject: [governance] Article on Mashable on the Web and developing countries In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: As I raised this question as a panelist in the WSIS Forum 2009 and the CSTD 2009......what are the ways to measure actual national benefit and human development? For example, how many calls were made from cell phones to the emergency service, crime reporting, terrorism threat reporting, natural disaster notifications, relief operations, business calls out of the country, inwards business calls, government to citizen calls and vice versa etc..........there are a lot of undefined indicators and benefit analysis that need to be carried out to determine what has really happened...........in my country, mobile telephony had caused a lot of chaos and loss of hundreds of human lives...............we have to really determine this carefully and ITU's claims usually come from a very surface level view.......not much in depth grassroots level experiences...........and the research samples cannot qualify for national populations.!!! --- Fouad On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:16 AM, catherine wrote: > FYI: > > Why the Web Is Useless in Developing Countries – And How to Fix It > > Like many who study the struggles of developing countries, Steve Bratt has > done the math on the potential of mobile phones. The United Nation’s > International Telecommunication Union estimated that at the end of 2010 > there were 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide and that a > full 90% of the world population now has access to a mobile network. In > contrast, only about 2 billion people have Internet access. > > The high prevalence of mobile phones (even in developing countries, > penetration rates were expected to reach 68% by the end of 2010) has led > many non-profits to choose mobile networks as tools for positive change. > Mobile banking in Kenya has helped farmers increase their incomes, 300,000 > people in Bangladesh signed up to learn English through their phones, and > many consider mobile phones the key to developing nations. > > But Bratt, now the CEO of The World Wide Web Foundation, came up with a > different hypothesis when he looked at the 3.3 billion-person gap between > mobile phone users and Internet users. Theoretically, he thinks that the > two numbers could one day even out as people use their phones to log onto > the Internet. > > Read more: > > http://mashable.com/2011/02/04/web-developing-world > > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Sat Feb 5 15:21:44 2011 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:21:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87151676D312@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> +1 Carlton From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 11:14 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? Hi, I pretty much agree with this analysis. The only additional thing I would say, and I think the email gets to a similar place by the the last paragraph, is that even though the Internet can be easily taken down by governments, there is a resilience in the Internet that by using old techniques and communications technologies, and new technology the communications links can be reestablished in time. But I think there is a good warning that we should heed in this note and that we should start preparing now for the next regime that decides to take the network down, that we need to support those who are being prosecuted now for their content and we should work on the diversification and distribution of control and governance. a. On 5 Feb 2011, at 10:00, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt have dispelled a tenacious myth, that it is impossible to block communications in internet. Practically it doesn't take long for a clever technical staff to turn off part or all of a national internet. Indeed, due to a very small number of popular applications provided by USA based quasi-monopolies, the net is no longer enjoying the characteristics of its initial design. Instead of peer to peer traffic exchanged between a large number of users, the net has regressed to a primitive client server model of proprietary services typical of the 70's. While dominant providers may be credited of a brilliant money making ability, their architecture vision has been definitely mediocre. If this is taken as a notable achievement of the private sector, we'd better look elsewhere for innovative concepts. > > A second myth has also been badly hit, that of the USA being a guardian of the freedom of expression. Like in China, Egypt, Iran, Myanmar, Tunisia, and more, the US govt makes every effort to eradicate from the internet information it doesn't like, e.g. Wikileaks, but not only. The seizure of domain names, by administrative rather judiciary process, is a clear symptom of a dangerous drift towards denial of justice and witch hunt. Remember McCarthyism. Sadly, in the western world this present trend is not limited to the USA. > > The case of rojadirecta, a Spanish site, is an interesting example of messy seizure by DHS. > http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5b403119ad7fc612b5b915ef0fe0c041&t=420566&page=1 > Actually, rojadirecta remained on the net through other links, which was the most expedient alternative. > > As argued by some postings, DHS seizure of domain names seems to be a blatant violation of the US Constitution. Suing DHS in a US court is not a practical solution. DHS would be a sure winner, either by a biased judgment or by dilatory tactics. However, publicity on the process would call world attention on the risks involved in dealing with US controlled registries. > > A major lesson to be drawn from those recent events, and not to be forgotten, is that no country and no application is a safe haven. Putting all corporate information systems under some .com, .net, .org or similar TLD's is not just naive but irresponsible. Domain names should be hosted in a diversity of countries and registries. Check which organization is operating the DNS and where it is physically located. Have a private DNS, or at least keep track of IP addresses of essential sites. Maintain dialup telephone access to servers on voice grade modems. What else in extreme conditions ? Ham radio, satellite telephone, mail pigeons. > > At the same time frustrated citizens in authoritarian countries rush to Facebook for setting up demonstrations and keeping the world informed. Do they realize that security flaws give the police clues to identify them and their friends, collect their profiles, and impersonate them ? > http://www.europe1.fr/Medias-Tele/Il-s-est-glisse-dans-une-faille-de-Facebook-398657/ > http://www.john-jean.com/blog/advisories/facebook-vulnerabilites-csrf-et-xss-ver-destructeurs-sur-un-reseau-social-372 > > Btw, 500 millions of Fakebook profiles are a gold mine for all kinds of data collectors. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3423 - Release Date: 02/04/11 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Feb 5 15:12:07 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 01:12:07 +0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <4D4C88E4.9000003@cavebear.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <4D4C88E4.9000003@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Dear Karl, You have provided me a lot of food for thought but at the same time, my confusion is not finding a starting point to think a possible solution....the questions that are running through my mind at the moment do touch new name systems for the internet but that may not really be practical because it has a major risk of isolation on the network....it may be otherwise but I cannot determine this isolation on the network at this point. What I need to understand now is (and this is truly an ideal dream situation) whether this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?_r=1 can reach some kind of form where all governments sit together with Private Sector and CS, Technical Community, Academic reps etc and reach a possible consensus before carrying out such an abrupt decision at a single country level on a global DNS/Root? > - Start your your root, populate it with pointers to your favorite TLDs (including TLDs not recognized by ICANN) I see network isolation a possible threat here? > - Utilize the legal and political systems within that country to ask whether it is adhering to things like is constitutional requirements of due process and its rules of jurisdiction. Right now the crack down is happening at the end of the creator of the Internet..............is it a legal owner's hegemony and will it remain that way that even after 9 years since the WSIS, the world is where it was on Internet Governance? > - With a bit of technical juggling one could use either DNS proxies or packet inspection/alteration to patch-back any data that was altered by the registry. I would recommend against this, however, as it is probably going to end up a very deep swamp populated with very hungry techno-crocodiles. How would the above be done in reality and what would be the short/longterm risks? - Ask whether you can legally clone the TLD. If you can, or if you are willing to pay $$ for the right to make a clone, then you can set up your own version of the TLD. Again, I do not like that approach as it tends to violate my own rule that says that if a TLD exists then the data in that TLD ought to be consistent and that users should shun any TLDs that are in dispute and give different answers to the same query. Legally? Who defines the law? One country or a need for the formulation of an international body to do so with which stakeholders and what interfaces? This space is empty and legal hegemony exercised by one country continues to be practiced at the cost of the global network? > I'd also strongly urge that one consider in those yet-to-be-invented systems that one clearly face the question whether the names should carry human semantic meaning - we all know the dangers that arise when human semantics are introduced. Can you share an example because my experience has not encouraged me to think in this direction? Human interfaces over the Internet for domain names and addressing? -- Fooo On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 02/04/2011 12:05 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> The question remains, in case of any country or website not complying >> to what the US approves, will face a shutdown? > > If one objects strongly enough to US (or any other country) hegemony over > the DNS root then there is a clear technical answer: > >  - Start your your root, populate it with pointers to your favorite TLDs > (including TLDs not recognized by ICANN) > > That does *not* deal with the current issue, which is US (or any other > country) sitting on top of a registry to get that registry to alter a record > within a TLD. > > In that case there are a couple of options: > >  - Utilize the legal and political systems within that country to ask > whether it is adhering to things like is constitutional requirements of due > process and its rules of jurisdiction. > >   Also ask a question that is rarely asked: does the government body that is > doing the sitting on the registry have the authority to do that?  Here in > the US things like ICE are administrative agencies that have only those > powers given to them by legislation enacted by Congress or via treaty or via > an Executive order; and all of those must meet constitutional limitations. >  Does ICE have the power via legistlation to sit on a registry to answer a > trademark complaint that is cast in terms of in import that violates a US > trademark?  In this case the answer is probably "yes".  But does the US > Dep't of Commerce or NTIA have the legislative or other source of authority > to ask for a trademark based "kill switch" or even to charter an ICANN? >  With regard to the latter question the US Congress' own GAO has *twice* > said "we can't find any." > >  - With a bit of technical juggling one could use either DNS proxies or > packet inspection/alteration to patch-back any data that was altered by the > registry.  I would recommend against this, however, as it is probably going > to end up a very deep swamp populated with very hungry techno-crocodiles. > >  - Ask whether you can legally clone the TLD.  If you can, or if you are > willing to pay $$ for the right to make a clone, then you can set up your > own version of the TLD.  Again, I do not like that approach as it tends to > violate my own rule that says that if a TLD exists then the data in that TLD > ought to be consistent and that users should shun any TLDs that are in > dispute and give different answers to the same query. > > There is another answer to all of this - which is to consider new name > systems for the internet.  I personally find this approach attractive, > particularly given that DNS fails terribly with regard to persistence and > does readily handle the kind of replication and proximity that obtain with > application entities living in "the cloud".  But unlike others, I advocate > retention of DNS names and the DNS system as the tokens and machinery upon > which such new naming systems (plural) would be based. > > I'd also strongly urge that one consider in those yet-to-be-invented systems > that one clearly face the question whether the names should carry human > semantic meaning - we all know the dangers that arise when human semantics > are introduced. > >                --karl-- > > >                --karl-- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Sat Feb 5 17:22:53 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 17:22:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> References: ,<48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> Avri, Could you please point me to the "sad phenomenon" / "sad story" you refer to below. I have not seen anything that presents the existence of controversy about IPv6. If there's nothing currently out there, some type of de-teching would seem to be in order, perhaps by some on this list. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 2/2/2011 5:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Unless of course the powers that be decide to allow a open market for aIPv4 addresses instead of forcing people to use a grey or black market. > > I find this forced ending of IPv4 to get a protocol that could not succeed on its own to be used, a sad phenomenon. I participated in the IETF all the way from its selection, through the many scare tactics and failures up until this campaign and I still see this as a sad story. > > I think the purveyors of IPv6 may eventually succeed at getting us all to use it (though I still would not bet on it), but the history of IPv6 to date, beginning to end, is just pathtetic. > > a. > > On 2 Feb 2011, at 16:39, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> As McTim reported already: >> >> IPv4 is history... >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:06 AM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone& Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: "Livingood, Jason"> >> Date: February 1, 2011 9:43:53 AM EST >> To: Dave Farber> >> Subject: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone& Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial >> >> Dave – For IP if you wish. >> >> A major milestone in the draw down of IPv4 addresses has occurred. APNIC's recent allocations mean that the final five address block now go to each RIR, one to each. >> See: >> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207498/Address_allocation_kicks_off_IPv4_endgame >> http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/world-ipv4-stocks-finally-run-out-19674 >> >> Also, yesterday we at Comcast announced that we've started native dual stack production trials on our DOCSIS network (native IPv4 and IPv6), the first DOCSIS network in North America to do so. The trial will soon expand beyond Colorado and each user receives a /64 allocation of roughly 18 quintillion IPv6 addresses. (A bit of an improvement over one IPv4 address I dare say!) >> >> See http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-native-dual-stack-over-docsis.html >> >> Regards >> Jason Livingood >> >> Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 nb at bollow.ch Sat Feb 5 18:12:14 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 00:12:14 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: (message from Fouad Bajwa on Sun, 6 Feb 2011 01:13:41 +0500) References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> Message-ID: <20110205231214.2FF3415C263@quill.bollow.ch> > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > But I think there is a good warning that we should heed in this > > note and that we should start preparing now for the next regime > > that decides to take the network down, that we need to support > > those who are being prosecuted now for their content and we should > > work on the diversification and distribution of control and > > governance. Are you sure that it's wise to support *all* "who are being prosecuted now for their content"? I'd suggest that some content is so bad that it's clearly only appropriate to persecute those who would put such content online, provided that due process is followed etc. Commercial child pornography is a famous (and much-abused) example. I'd suggest that beyond that there's a gray area of types of content concerning which different views are legitimately possible. And then there are also categories of content which are clearly legitimate from a human rights perspective, even if powerful or otherwise influential people might seek to suppress some information. In recent discussions the primary concern was about oppressive government authorities, but we need to keep in mind that sometimes also private sector entities wish to suppress information by any (more or less) legal means available. And I think that given humanity's sad history with regard to religion-related violence, the potential possibility of some kind of terrorist group seeking to suppress specific types of religious content (that they disagree with) should be taken into consideration in the list of dangers to defend against. I think that we should develop a comprehensive strategy for addressing specifically the suppression of kinds of content which are clearly legitimate. I agree that one element of such a strategy must be to support people who are persecuted for having published such (clearly legitimate) content. Further key elements should IMO be to work on the technical level to make the suppression of legitimate content more difficult, and at the legislative level for the correction of laws that can be abused too easily. Fouad Bajwa wrote: > -- is this regime something that may be in development in the form of > what happened during the December consultations in New York and CSTD > in Geneva? Something that may evolve through enhanced cooperation > banner? I wouldn't expect anything that could potentially reduce the power of governments to be an outcome from activities that are carried out under such a banner. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Feb 5 18:26:50 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 04:26:50 +0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <20110205231214.2FF3415C263@quill.bollow.ch> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> <20110205231214.2FF3415C263@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I guess many countries are already conducting Deep Packet Inspection including my country through NarusInsight, the same surveillance system used to shutdown the Internet in Egypt as well as control the Internet that monitors Twitter, Facebook and Cell Phone caller account activity. The company is Boeing owned and based in California.............I rest my case! The issue may also be for future consideration for the free and open source software community to develop counter Traffic Intelligence and DPI software............. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/one-us-corporations-role-_b_815281.html http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/01/narus_boeing-owned_company_is.php --- Foo On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> > But I think there is a good warning that we should heed in this >> > note and that we should start preparing now for the next regime >> > that decides to take the network down, that we need to support >> > those who are being prosecuted now for their content and we should >> > work on the diversification and distribution of control and >> > governance. > > Are you sure that it's wise to support *all* "who are being prosecuted > now for their content"? > > I'd suggest that some content is so bad that it's clearly only > appropriate to persecute those who would put such content online, > provided that due process is followed etc. Commercial child > pornography is a famous (and much-abused) example. > > I'd suggest that beyond that there's a gray area of types of content > concerning which different views are legitimately possible. > > And then there are also categories of content which are clearly > legitimate from a human rights perspective, even if powerful or > otherwise influential people might seek to suppress some > information. In recent discussions the primary concern was about > oppressive government authorities, but we need to keep in mind that > sometimes also private sector entities wish to suppress information > by any (more or less) legal means available. And I think that given > humanity's sad history with regard to religion-related violence, > the potential possibility of some kind of terrorist group seeking > to suppress specific types of religious content (that they disagree > with) should be taken into consideration in the list of dangers to > defend against. > > I think that we should develop a comprehensive strategy for addressing > specifically the suppression of kinds of content which are clearly > legitimate. I agree that one element of such a strategy must be to > support people who are persecuted for having published such (clearly > legitimate) content. Further key elements should IMO be to work on the > technical level to make the suppression of legitimate content more > difficult, and at the legislative level for the correction of laws > that can be abused too easily. > > Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> -- is this regime something that may be in development in the form of >> what happened during the December consultations in New York and CSTD >> in Geneva? Something that may evolve through enhanced cooperation >> banner? > > I wouldn't expect anything that could potentially reduce the power > of governments to be an outcome from activities that are carried out > under such a banner. > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Feb 5 19:09:26 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 05:09:26 +0500 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> <20110205231214.2FF3415C263@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Egypt Crisis - Egypt is burning and the Internet is burning with Surveillance, Spying and Tracking citizens and Internet users. http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2011/02/egypt-crisis-egypt-is-burning-and.html Also separate from the above article, I would suggest that we take a position on Emerging Issues session for the IGF 2011 be: "Internet Shutdown, Tracking and Spying Technology" -- Foo ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sat Feb 5 20:06:55 2011 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 17:06:55 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> References: ,<48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> On 02/05/2011 02:22 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > Could you please point me to the "sad phenomenon" / "sad story" you > refer to below. I have not seen anything that presents the existence of > controversy about IPv6. If there's nothing currently out there, some > type of de-teching would seem to be in order, perhaps by some on this list. A lot of the things you might be thinking of existing in the pre-history before things got digitized and findable via google. IPv6 got started around 1990 (in fact much of it came from a few steps from my office at Sun.) There were multiple concerns back then. Only one of those concerns of those was about IPv4 address space exhaustion. Another concern was about the difficulty of processing and propagating routing information. The OSI network layer used a 20 byte address versus the 4 byte IPv4 address - so it seemed reasonable to go to the 16 byte IPv6 address. (In the original IPv6 one half of that address space was reserved for Novell Netware!) Other things were thrown into IPv6 - like a restructuring of the options and moving fields around so that routers could begin processing a packet before it fully arrived. All of that was OK but largely was gilding the lily of 64-bit addresses. And a flow identifier field was also thrown in to pacify those of us who saw some value in labeled flows and also in the possibility of using a form of source-based routing (a proposal called "nimrod") and of doing flow-based reservations of network resources (another proposal called "RSVP".) But the issue of routing was never squarely faced. Which means that IPv6 is no better than IPv4 when it comes to propagating and processing routing information faster than the occurrence of routing topology changes. (In fact, arguably IPv6 might be a bit worse because the size of the addresses means that often more bits need to be slogged around and processed.) To my mind routing remains the big Godzilla - a monster that IPv6 does not stop. (There were other annoying things - like the fact that UDP and TCP pull-up parts of the IP header into a TCP and UDP pseudo header.) There were lots of dances around the question of interoperation of IPv4 and IPv6 stacks - many of us had lived through the flag day when the net went from NCP to TCP. We knew that that could never be done again because of the size and the fact that the net no longer had a network techie at every node. We have never really found an IPv4-talks-to-IPv6 dance that works completely transparently. I tend to think of IPv6 as being a separate internet that happens to share physical wiring. So, one can make an argument that the cost of moving to IPv6, because it is a different network, is roughly proximate the cost of bridging between separate IPv4 networks. The potential benefit of a large single address space and full end-to-end connectivity will tend to be overlooked by the vast majority of network users who perceive the internet as a land of applications rather than of IP-to-IP packet connectivity. When viewed as a platform for applications, invisible application level gateways between separate IPv4 networks will be no more complained-about than the invisible SMS gateways between mobile providers are complained of by Twitter users. And explicit bridges between IPv4 networks are, unfortunately, becoming increasingly desirable by governments that want to build walls around their countries (or watch or filter traffic.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Feb 5 20:14:07 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 23:14:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D4DF5DF.4080306@cafonso.ca> Ditto. --c.a. On 02/05/2011 02:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I pretty much agree with this analysis. > > The only additional thing I would say, and I think the email gets to a similar place by the the last paragraph, is that even though the Internet can be easily taken down by governments, there is a resilience in the Internet that by using old techniques and communications technologies, and new technology the communications links can be reestablished in time. > > But I think there is a good warning that we should heed in this note and that we should start preparing now for the next regime that decides to take the network down, that we need to support those who are being prosecuted now for their content and we should work on the diversification and distribution of control and governance. > > a. > > > > On 5 Feb 2011, at 10:00, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt have dispelled a tenacious myth, that it is impossible to block communications in internet. Practically it doesn't take long for a clever technical staff to turn off part or all of a national internet. Indeed, due to a very small number of popular applications provided by USA based quasi-monopolies, the net is no longer enjoying the characteristics of its initial design. Instead of peer to peer traffic exchanged between a large number of users, the net has regressed to a primitive client server model of proprietary services typical of the 70's. While dominant providers may be credited of a brilliant money making ability, their architecture vision has been definitely mediocre. If this is taken as a notable achievement of the private sector, we'd better look elsewhere for innovative concepts. >> >> A second myth has also been badly hit, that of the USA being a guardian of the freedom of expression. Like in China, Egypt, Iran, Myanmar, Tunisia, and more, the US govt makes every effort to eradicate from the internet information it doesn't like, e.g. Wikileaks, but not only. The seizure of domain names, by administrative rather judiciary process, is a clear symptom of a dangerous drift towards denial of justice and witch hunt. Remember McCarthyism. Sadly, in the western world this present trend is not limited to the USA. >> >> The case of rojadirecta, a Spanish site, is an interesting example of messy seizure by DHS. >> http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?s=5b403119ad7fc612b5b915ef0fe0c041&t=420566&page=1 >> Actually, rojadirecta remained on the net through other links, which was the most expedient alternative. >> >> As argued by some postings, DHS seizure of domain names seems to be a blatant violation of the US Constitution. Suing DHS in a US court is not a practical solution. DHS would be a sure winner, either by a biased judgment or by dilatory tactics. However, publicity on the process would call world attention on the risks involved in dealing with US controlled registries. >> >> A major lesson to be drawn from those recent events, and not to be forgotten, is that no country and no application is a safe haven. Putting all corporate information systems under some .com, .net, .org or similar TLD's is not just naive but irresponsible. Domain names should be hosted in a diversity of countries and registries. Check which organization is operating the DNS and where it is physically located. Have a private DNS, or at least keep track of IP addresses of essential sites. Maintain dialup telephone access to servers on voice grade modems. What else in extreme conditions ? Ham radio, satellite telephone, mail pigeons. >> >> At the same time frustrated citizens in authoritarian countries rush to Facebook for setting up demonstrations and keeping the world informed. Do they realize that security flaws give the police clues to identify them and their friends, collect their profiles, and impersonate them ? >> http://www.europe1.fr/Medias-Tele/Il-s-est-glisse-dans-une-faille-de-Facebook-398657/ >> http://www.john-jean.com/blog/advisories/facebook-vulnerabilites-csrf-et-xss-ver-destructeurs-sur-un-reseau-social-372 >> >> Btw, 500 millions of Fakebook profiles are a gold mine for all kinds of data collectors. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Feb 5 23:15:29 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 16:15:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] Article on Mashable on the Web and developing countries In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: You are welcome. Happy to give feedback about the status of LDCs in Oceania at any time. On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 4:30 AM, catherine wrote: > Hello Sala, > > Thank you for offering your particular perspective; I think it adds > important information to the whole issue. > > A few comments inline. > > On Sat, February 5, 2011 1:56 am, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > Mobile phones have increased the regional penetration rates in the > > Pacific, > > Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc. One of the challenges with the deployment of > > communication services is the availability of reliable energy grids. > > Sadly, > > alternative and renewable energy alternatives are quite expensive in the > > Pacific and many Pacific Islands telecommunications providers and ISPs > > rely > > on infrastructure that is powered either by their national energy grids > or > > petroleum (diesel). > > You bring up an interesting point that many discussions and writings on > the Internet in developing countries often leave out: energy sources and > alternatives to power all this. I think we need to hear about this issue > more. > > > > One of the increasing challenges for governments is in having proper > > national strategies in place that will enable greater cohesion that is > > critical for the state, regulators, licensed operators and civil society > > that will ensure that universal service is reached. > > I agree. We have been working hard in Canada and in my province of Quebec > to incite the government to adopt and implement an inclusive digital > strategy. But we are not there yet. > > > > Whilst internet on mobile phones is not readily available yet in > villages, > > sms banking is a popular feature that has really taken off in Fiji > > recently. > > So, I suppose yes mobiles are the way to go but I would not write off > > Telecenters in every village, at least. > > Agreed. People are focusing mainly on the potential of mobiles and this is > understandable but telecentres should remain an important part of the > solution. I think that telecentres are ideal in providing opportunities > for community building, peer support, training, etc. > > > > Different countries in the Pacific define Universal Service/Access > > mediums differently, some say Fixed Lines and Mobile Phones whilst some > > have > > both including the Internet, which is why Facebook can never be a human > > right in developing worlds until they have basic access to communication, > > priority being voice over internet, at the very least. > > I have heard this repeated quite a lot in recent weeks, about this notion > of Facebook being a human right. I must say I find the whole thing > disturbing. I think we need to frame it as a "Communication, whatever its > form or forum, is a human right" issue or something in that vein. But I > guess that is a whole other discussion ;) > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Feb 6 00:51:07 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 00:51:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> References: ,<48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <25C5BF2D-60B4-4403-929C-A479900C6924@acm.org> Hi, I have not researched it, just lived through it, especially in the years of the IETF. I have been following, and participating at times, from the time the IPng issue got started. There may be various histories that could be glued together to tell the story. I have seen bits and pieces, and I know that Jeanette wrote some good stuff about the early period. In fact I met here when she was first researching it from a social science perspective and I was mouthing off about it. I have not written anything on it, though it may be an idea to do so someday, though there are so many things I would like to write someday when I not longer have to spend most of my time writing governance feuilletons for a living. Not likely, but a nice thought - I have so many things I never finished writing. Some of the chapters might include: - the story starts with requirement that were ignored when the beauty contest picked the winner. and the fact that the winner was picked before it was time and the work was complete on the candidates due to political pressure to have a solution now. After in 1994 all the best people already knew that all IPv4 was going to die in a year or so. - It includes the inability of anyone to get people to commit to fixing the routing architecutre while going through the pain of changing the address structure. This even though there were candidate solution that included routing architecture considerations. Many of us believe that architecture and addressing must always be worked on together. - it includes a very strange tale of the inability of some very smart people to persuade anyone to include the notion of variable size addresses, or at least fixed addresses that allowed for IPv4 encapsulation. - It goes through at least a decade of hubris where IPv6 was going to replace IPv4 any day now and the elite of IPv6 drank very expensive scotch to toast to the universal deployment of IPv6 (the fact that they drank Scotch instead of Irish was already a good clue that something was very wrong) - It includes years of miscalculation that IPv4 was the walking dead so there was no reason to think about coexistence. - it would include chapters of how CIDR and NAT saved IPv4. - it would discuss the economics of IP addresses and the fact that even though the need to have strict hierarchy is no longer that great, a free market in IP addresses is still prohibited. - it would discuss the sacred cow legacy IPv4 address blocks and the multicast blocks that have never really been exploited. - it would discuss the new reality where we need to support 2 protocol stacks and the routing infrastructure to support those 2 protocols. We no longer have one Internet, we have 2 Internets that exist side by side, but are separate universes. Good for router hardware sales, but not really an optimal solution. - It would include the stories of people who dedicated their lives to marketing a solution that nobody really wanted and made a fortune in the process. - it would discuss that in the future, while there will be IPv6 in the network, there will be IPv4 for most of our lifetimes. The routing architecture is still a disaster, and there will be many new solutions to keep IPv4 going, so that unless vendors switch over based on political pressure, many of us will continue to use IPv4 for a very long time to come. As I said, IPv6 has come far enough so it will probably survive - I used to believe that could/should never happen but I long ago gave up fighting it. But as we celebrate its alleged ascendancy, I just wanted to point out the sad path we took to get to this point and warn that we should not expect IPv6 to be the last address solution, nor should we expect that it will be an easy road ahead. Me, I am still trying to figure out how to route on names and to avoid bothering with psuedo-numbers (aka IP addresses) anyway - why translate from one name type to another? Given that routing is getting less hierarchical all the time, these numerical names may someday be an anachronism of the past. But this is a governance list and not technical research speculation list, so that was probably off topic. And I apologize for being an IPv6 heretic and a party pooper. cheers, a. On 5 Feb 2011, at 17:22, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > Avri, > > Could you please point me to the "sad phenomenon" / "sad story" you refer to below. I have not seen anything that presents the existence of controversy about IPv6. If there's nothing currently out there, some type of de-teching would seem to be in order, perhaps by some on this list. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 2/2/2011 5:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Unless of course the powers that be decide to allow a open market for aIPv4 addresses instead of forcing people to use a grey or black market. >> >> I find this forced ending of IPv4 to get a protocol that could not succeed on its own to be used, a sad phenomenon. I participated in the IETF all the way from its selection, through the many scare tactics and failures up until this campaign and I still see this as a sad story. >> >> I think the purveyors of IPv6 may eventually succeed at getting us all to use it (though I still would not bet on it), but the history of IPv6 to date, beginning to end, is just pathtetic. >> >> a. >> >> On 2 Feb 2011, at 16:39, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> >>> As McTim reported already: >>> >>> IPv4 is history... >>> >>> Lee >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Dave Farber [ >>> dave at farber.net >>> ] >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:06 AM >>> To: ip >>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: "Livingood, Jason" < >>> Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com >>> > >>> Date: February 1, 2011 9:43:53 AM EST >>> To: Dave Farber < >>> dave at farber.net >>> > >>> Subject: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial >>> >>> Dave – For IP if you wish. >>> >>> A major milestone in the draw down of IPv4 addresses has occurred. APNIC's recent allocations mean that the final five address block now go to each RIR, one to each. >>> See: >>> >>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207498/Address_allocation_kicks_off_IPv4_endgame >>> http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/world-ipv4-stocks-finally-run-out-19674 >>> >>> >>> Also, yesterday we at Comcast announced that we've started native dual stack production trials on our DOCSIS network (native IPv4 and IPv6), the first DOCSIS network in North America to do so. The trial will soon expand beyond Colorado and each user receives a /64 allocation of roughly 18 quintillion IPv6 addresses. (A bit of an improvement over one IPv4 address I dare say!) >>> >>> See >>> http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-native-dual-stack-over-docsis.html >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> Jason Livingood >>> >>> Archives >>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >> 5&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20110202030656:65DBF240-2EA3-11E0-9104-C7DD61D4D7E7> >>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> To 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 Sun Feb 6 03:26:46 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:26:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Article on Mashable on the Web and developing countries In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message , at 01:20:03 on Sun, 6 Feb 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes >in my country, mobile telephony had caused a lot of chaos and loss of >hundreds of human lives Can you give some examples of this? I could see how the absence of mobile phones might be a problem in some circumstances, but what is it about *having* mobile telephony which causes the chaos and loss of life? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Feb 6 03:52:26 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:52:26 +0500 Subject: [governance] Article on Mashable on the Web and developing countries In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: You will need to go through the news items on Pakistan and terrorism for the past 3 years..........read out how cell phones were used to coordinate various activities by perpetrators..............the Pak - India investigations on the Mumbai attack and the documentaries made on the issue all show mobile communications...........on television and records exchanged etc.........and the same would be for Iraq and Afghanistan and the IED explosions that occur through cell phone operated systems.... This approach to dispel both the positive and negative side comparisons of Mobile technology and Cell phone use should eliminated and a more rational approach should adopted taking into account even issues like terrorism, surveillance, freedom of expression violations, spying also account as indicators on the cellular medium..........after reading the cases of Egyptian Internet shutdown with Narus's traffic intelligence solution that provides DPI on both Internet and Cellular services, Narus's sales to various countries of the developing world is clear indicator of what is happening in reality and where these positive and negative outcomes are in effect...really one should read the news on a regular basis about these parts of the world.........with or without a revolution ;o) -- Foo On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , > at 01:20:03 on Sun, 6 Feb 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes >> >> in my country, mobile telephony had caused a lot of chaos and loss of >> hundreds of human lives > > Can you give some examples of this? > > I could see how the absence of mobile phones might be a problem in some > circumstances, but what is it about *having* mobile telephony which causes > the chaos and loss of life? > -- > 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Feb 6 04:02:14 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:02:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Article on Mashable on the Web and developing countries In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <+ONWR6EWOmTNFABy@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 13:52:26 on Sun, 6 Feb 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes >You will need to go through the news items on Pakistan and terrorism >for the past 3 years..........read out how cell phones were used to >coordinate various activities by perpetrators..............the Pak - >India investigations on the Mumbai attack and the documentaries made >on the issue all show mobile communications...........on television >and records exchanged etc.........and the same would be for Iraq and >Afghanistan and the IED explosions that occur through cell phone >operated systems.... I have a problem with laying the blame for problems like that on any particular aspect of the technology "food chain". You might just as well say that London Buses have caused loss of life because one was bombed on 7th July 2005, or even blame the deaths on the oil refinery (because without diesel fuel the bus would have stayed in the depot). R. >>> in my country, mobile telephony had caused a lot of chaos and loss of >>> hundreds of human lives >> >> Can you give some examples of this? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Feb 6 04:08:03 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:08:03 +0500 Subject: [governance] Article on Mashable on the Web and developing countries In-Reply-To: <+ONWR6EWOmTNFABy@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <+ONWR6EWOmTNFABy@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: I may smile right now...........I didn't give a conclusion at all. I said both negative and positive developments plus rational measurement indicator instruments should be in place................btw, I gave this presentation in front of all the ICT, Innovation, Science and Technology Ministries of the globe...........it was well perceived........thank you....one is free to quote any examples..........my point of view remains on reality. On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , > at 13:52:26 on Sun, 6 Feb 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes >> >> You will need to go through the news items on Pakistan and terrorism >> for the past 3 years..........read out how cell phones were used to >> coordinate various activities by perpetrators..............the Pak - >> India investigations on the Mumbai attack and the documentaries made >> on the issue all show mobile communications...........on television >> and records exchanged etc.........and the same would be for Iraq and >> Afghanistan and the IED explosions that occur through cell phone >> operated systems.... > > I have a problem with laying the blame for problems like that on any > particular aspect of the technology "food chain". > > You might just as well say that London Buses have caused loss of life > because one was bombed on 7th July 2005, or even blame the deaths on the oil > refinery (because without diesel fuel the bus would have stayed in the > depot). > > R. > >>>> in my country, mobile telephony had caused a lot of chaos and loss of >>>> hundreds of human lives >>> >>> Can you give some examples of this? > > -- > 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 > > -- Foo ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 6 06:47:37 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 11:47:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <2xOkuGCZpoTNFADp@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4D4DF42F.7070601 at cavebear.com>, at 17:06:55 on Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Karl Auerbach writes >The potential benefit of a large single address space and full >end-to-end connectivity will tend to be overlooked by the vast majority >of network users who perceive the internet as a land of applications >rather than of IP-to-IP packet connectivity. Perhaps that's because they instinctively recognise their Internet-based freedom of expression is facilitated largely by one-to-many communications, rather than one-to-one. And that the "many" aspect is facilitated by applications - whether that's Majordomo, Facebook or a blogging site. Of course, they still need that packet-by-packet connectivity to the application, and therein perhaps lies the success of Twitter, which is an excellent store-and-forward system for those with intermittent connectivity. >When viewed as a platform for applications, invisible application level >gateways between separate IPv4 networks will be no more >complained-about than the invisible SMS gateways between mobile >providers are complained of by Twitter users. And those (mainly) invisible NAT gateways between them and their connectivity provider. -- 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 Sun Feb 6 08:48:54 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 21:48:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement Message-ID: <77019E55-9E14-407A-BC7E-B87CF184408F@ciroap.org> Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our draft statement in the online poll. One person opposed, but that was Norbert Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed. After discussion with Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by consensus, with the two additions earlier discussed. The final statement is now linked from the front page of our Web site and will be submitted to the Secretariat. For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: Jeremy Malcolm Dave Kissoondoyal Ian Peter Rafik Dammak Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Parminder Jeet Singh Anupam Agrawal Gurumurthy Kasinathan Baudouin SCHOMBE Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA Omar Kaminski Janna Anderson Kwasi Opare Imran Ahmed Shah Fouad Bajwa Yuliya Morenets Charity Gamboa-Embley George Sadowsky michael gurstein anita gurumurthy krittika vishwanath Nnenna Nwakanma Norbert Bollow Jean-Yves Gatete Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Lorena Jaume-Palasi David Allen Pascal Bekono Hong Xue Marilia Maciel Fatimata SEYE SYLLA Anna Orlova Daniel Pimienta Roxana Goldstein Bernard Sadaka Hakikur Rahman Shahzad Ahmad Deirdre Williams Ben Wagner Siranush Vardanyan Solomon Gizaw Rudi Vansnick Tijani Ben Jemaa Tapani Tarvainen Monique Chartrand Adam Peake Jeremy Hunsinger Christian H. Roland Carlos A. Afonso Valeria Betancourt Ray Plzak Erick Iriarte Brenden Kuerbis Ginger Paque Hanane Boujemi Danny Butt Lyman Chapin Wolfgang Kleinwächter Fearghas McKay (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we have a membership database!) -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Feb 6 11:46:07 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:46:07 -0200 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <77019E55-9E14-407A-BC7E-B87CF184408F@ciroap.org> References: <77019E55-9E14-407A-BC7E-B87CF184408F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4D4ED04F.9020507@cafonso.ca> Great! --c.a. On 02/06/2011 11:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our draft statement in the online poll. One person opposed, but that was Norbert Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed. After discussion with Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by consensus, with the two additions earlier discussed. The final statement is now linked from the front page of our Web site and will be submitted to the Secretariat. > > For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: > Jeremy Malcolm > Dave Kissoondoyal > Ian Peter > Rafik Dammak > Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED > Parminder Jeet Singh > Anupam Agrawal > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Baudouin SCHOMBE > Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA > Omar Kaminski > Janna Anderson > Kwasi Opare > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > Yuliya Morenets > Charity Gamboa-Embley > George Sadowsky > michael gurstein > anita gurumurthy > krittika vishwanath > Nnenna Nwakanma > Norbert Bollow > Jean-Yves Gatete > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Lorena Jaume-Palasi > David Allen > Pascal Bekono > Hong Xue > Marilia Maciel > Fatimata SEYE SYLLA > Anna Orlova > Daniel Pimienta > Roxana Goldstein > Bernard Sadaka > Hakikur Rahman > Shahzad Ahmad > Deirdre Williams > Ben Wagner > Siranush Vardanyan > Solomon Gizaw > Rudi Vansnick > Tijani Ben Jemaa > Tapani Tarvainen > Monique Chartrand > Adam Peake > Jeremy Hunsinger > Christian H. Roland > Carlos A. Afonso > Valeria Betancourt > Ray Plzak > Erick Iriarte > Brenden Kuerbis > Ginger Paque > Hanane Boujemi > Danny Butt > Lyman Chapin > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Fearghas McKay > (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we have a membership database!) > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Feb 6 11:53:47 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 11:53:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <25C5BF2D-60B4-4403-929C-A479900C6924@acm.org> References: ,<48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com>,<25C5BF2D-60B4-4403-929C-A479900C6924@acm.org> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37810@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi Avri, Nice summary. Write your book! A couple addendums: first I am far from an IPv6 enthusiast/apologist, sorry if my 'ipv4 is history' comment gave wrong impression. What comes next I agree isn't a usual topic for this list, but falls into the 'next generation Internet' or 'future Internet architecture' discussions and research projects going on around the world. But civil society should weigh in early on its priorities; and help shape that future Now a quibble: 'all the best minds' were NOT convinced of IPv6, some just ignored it and focused on other items like extending IPv4's useful life and figuring out what might come after IPv6. I was working with original Internet architect David Clark at MIT in 94, who was always quite skeptical. So slow 'birth' of IPv6 was no surprise to me. In fact pre-2000 I was comparing it to y2k, since the costs of transition to the next addressing space had not been thought through...on that sidebar David could be a great IGF plenary speaker as he has remained active on both future technology and policy fronts. Next re NATs - I agree that was key in extending the life and utility of IPv4 beyond what early IPv6 enthusiasts imagined/wanted. A co-developer of Network Address Translators, Bob Frankston, also well known for co-inventing electronic spreadsheets, gave a keynote talk at our '7th WiGiT Meeting' a week ago. His talk on 'Ambient Intelligence and Wireless Grids' - can be viewed at http://wglab.net....in a couple days when my students have it uploaded. Lee PS: By 9th or 10th WiGiT meeting, fyi, we expect to have a skeletal framework for a new open specifications suite, which would enable an new class of software or -edgeware- to envelop any IP network, software, service, content and users in a secure and private 'grid.' Initial work is with National Science Foundation support, Prof. Tamal Bose at Virginia Tech and I co-lead the Virtual Organization..which includes Seneca Nation of Indians, a school for students with disabilities, and soon, South African university, as well as small businesses and others...It costs nothing to join, open specs will be modular and interoperable, and backward-compatible with both IP v4 & 6 nets....anyway, there will be other new approaches to these problems but after a decades work on wireless grids...we are about to start : ). Look for early draft versions of the open specs in about 6 months as well as early implementations, or better yet, webconference in or join us in person March 14th at 8th WiGiT...more info on http:/wglab.net in due course. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 12:51 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial Hi, I have not researched it, just lived through it, especially in the years of the IETF. I have been following, and participating at times, from the time the IPng issue got started. There may be various histories that could be glued together to tell the story. I have seen bits and pieces, and I know that Jeanette wrote some good stuff about the early period. In fact I met here when she was first researching it from a social science perspective and I was mouthing off about it. I have not written anything on it, though it may be an idea to do so someday, though there are so many things I would like to write someday when I not longer have to spend most of my time writing governance feuilletons for a living. Not likely, but a nice thought - I have so many things I never finished writing. Some of the chapters might include: - the story starts with requirement that were ignored when the beauty contest picked the winner. and the fact that the winner was picked before it was time and the work was complete on the candidates due to political pressure to have a solution now. After in 1994 all the best people already knew that all IPv4 was going to die in a year or so. - It includes the inability of anyone to get people to commit to fixing the routing architecutre while going through the pain of changing the address structure. This even though there were candidate solution that included routing architecture considerations. Many of us believe that architecture and addressing must always be worked on together. - it includes a very strange tale of the inability of some very smart people to persuade anyone to include the notion of variable size addresses, or at least fixed addresses that allowed for IPv4 encapsulation. - It goes through at least a decade of hubris where IPv6 was going to replace IPv4 any day now and the elite of IPv6 drank very expensive scotch to toast to the universal deployment of IPv6 (the fact that they drank Scotch instead of Irish was already a good clue that something was very wrong) - It includes years of miscalculation that IPv4 was the walking dead so there was no reason to think about coexistence. - it would include chapters of how CIDR and NAT saved IPv4. - it would discuss the economics of IP addresses and the fact that even though the need to have strict hierarchy is no longer that great, a free market in IP addresses is still prohibited. - it would discuss the sacred cow legacy IPv4 address blocks and the multicast blocks that have never really been exploited. - it would discuss the new reality where we need to support 2 protocol stacks and the routing infrastructure to support those 2 protocols. We no longer have one Internet, we have 2 Internets that exist side by side, but are separate universes. Good for router hardware sales, but not really an optimal solution. - It would include the stories of people who dedicated their lives to marketing a solution that nobody really wanted and made a fortune in the process. - it would discuss that in the future, while there will be IPv6 in the network, there will be IPv4 for most of our lifetimes. The routing architecture is still a disaster, and there will be many new solutions to keep IPv4 going, so that unless vendors switch over based on political pressure, many of us will continue to use IPv4 for a very long time to come. As I said, IPv6 has come far enough so it will probably survive - I used to believe that could/should never happen but I long ago gave up fighting it. But as we celebrate its alleged ascendancy, I just wanted to point out the sad path we took to get to this point and warn that we should not expect IPv6 to be the last address solution, nor should we expect that it will be an easy road ahead. Me, I am still trying to figure out how to route on names and to avoid bothering with psuedo-numbers (aka IP addresses) anyway - why translate from one name type to another? Given that routing is getting less hierarchical all the time, these numerical names may someday be an anachronism of the past. But this is a governance list and not technical research speculation list, so that was probably off topic. And I apologize for being an IPv6 heretic and a party pooper. cheers, a. On 5 Feb 2011, at 17:22, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > Avri, > > Could you please point me to the "sad phenomenon" / "sad story" you refer to below. I have not seen anything that presents the existence of controversy about IPv6. If there's nothing currently out there, some type of de-teching would seem to be in order, perhaps by some on this list. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 2/2/2011 5:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Unless of course the powers that be decide to allow a open market for aIPv4 addresses instead of forcing people to use a grey or black market. >> >> I find this forced ending of IPv4 to get a protocol that could not succeed on its own to be used, a sad phenomenon. I participated in the IETF all the way from its selection, through the many scare tactics and failures up until this campaign and I still see this as a sad story. >> >> I think the purveyors of IPv6 may eventually succeed at getting us all to use it (though I still would not bet on it), but the history of IPv6 to date, beginning to end, is just pathtetic. >> >> a. >> >> On 2 Feb 2011, at 16:39, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> >>> As McTim reported already: >>> >>> IPv4 is history... >>> >>> Lee >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Dave Farber [ >>> dave at farber.net >>> ] >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:06 AM >>> To: ip >>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: "Livingood, Jason" < >>> Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com >>> > >>> Date: February 1, 2011 9:43:53 AM EST >>> To: Dave Farber < >>> dave at farber.net >>> > >>> Subject: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial >>> >>> Dave – For IP if you wish. >>> >>> A major milestone in the draw down of IPv4 addresses has occurred. APNIC's recent allocations mean that the final five address block now go to each RIR, one to each. >>> See: >>> >>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207498/Address_allocation_kicks_off_IPv4_endgame >>> http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/world-ipv4-stocks-finally-run-out-19674 >>> >>> >>> Also, yesterday we at Comcast announced that we've started native dual stack production trials on our DOCSIS network (native IPv4 and IPv6), the first DOCSIS network in North America to do so. The trial will soon expand beyond Colorado and each user receives a /64 allocation of roughly 18 quintillion IPv6 addresses. (A bit of an improvement over one IPv4 address I dare say!) >>> >>> See >>> http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-native-dual-stack-over-docsis.html >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> Jason Livingood >>> >>> Archives >>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >> 5&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20110202030656:65DBF240-2EA3-11E0-9104-C7DD61D4D7E7> >>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Feb 6 12:06:44 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:06:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <77019E55-9E14-407A-BC7E-B87CF184408F@ciroap.org> References: <77019E55-9E14-407A-BC7E-B87CF184408F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <18BB541B-90BD-4B0C-BBAF-5015BA8D833B@acm.org> Hi, Just wanted to say that I did not vote and have not been participating in the discussions related to IGF and its future, because I have gone back on contract to DESA/IGF as of 20 Jan 2011 until 1 March 2011. To be honest, I had not expect this contract after Markus' departure and therefore had started commenting freely on IGF when I wasn't on contract - something I had avoided in the past when I had expected the contract to be renewed. But I do not want my lack of voting to be logged in the membership ledger as a disinterest in being a member in good standing. Also, I did look to see if there was an 'abstain option' and did not see it. I would suggest that in the future, an 'abstain option' with optional opportunity to log the reason, be included in ballots. On the keeping of the membership list, I have no problem with such a list existing - that was never my point. My only concern is how that list is created, added to, deleted from, and used. a. On 6 Feb 2011, at 08:48, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our draft statement in the online poll. One person opposed, but that was Norbert Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed. After discussion with Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by consensus, with the two additions earlier discussed. The final statement is now linked from the front page of our Web site and will be submitted to the Secretariat. > > For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: > Jeremy Malcolm > Dave Kissoondoyal > Ian Peter > Rafik Dammak > Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED > Parminder Jeet Singh > Anupam Agrawal > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Baudouin SCHOMBE > Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA > Omar Kaminski > Janna Anderson > Kwasi Opare > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > Yuliya Morenets > Charity Gamboa-Embley > George Sadowsky > michael gurstein > anita gurumurthy > krittika vishwanath > Nnenna Nwakanma > Norbert Bollow > Jean-Yves Gatete > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Lorena Jaume-Palasi > David Allen > Pascal Bekono > Hong Xue > Marilia Maciel > Fatimata SEYE SYLLA > Anna Orlova > Daniel Pimienta > Roxana Goldstein > Bernard Sadaka > Hakikur Rahman > Shahzad Ahmad > Deirdre Williams > Ben Wagner > Siranush Vardanyan > Solomon Gizaw > Rudi Vansnick > Tijani Ben Jemaa > Tapani Tarvainen > Monique Chartrand > Adam Peake > Jeremy Hunsinger > Christian H. Roland > Carlos A. Afonso > Valeria Betancourt > Ray Plzak > Erick Iriarte > Brenden Kuerbis > Ginger Paque > Hanane Boujemi > Danny Butt > Lyman Chapin > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Fearghas McKay > (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we have a membership database!) > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > Twitter #CICongress > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Feb 6 12:52:39 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:52:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <18BB541B-90BD-4B0C-BBAF-5015BA8D833B@acm.org> References: <77019E55-9E14-407A-BC7E-B87CF184408F@ciroap.org> <18BB541B-90BD-4B0C-BBAF-5015BA8D833B@acm.org> Message-ID: Agree with this. Rgds, Tracy On Feb 6, 2011 1:09 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > Hi, > > Just wanted to say that I did not vote and have not been participating in the discussions related to IGF and its future, because I have gone back on contract to DESA/IGF as of 20 Jan 2011 until 1 March 2011. To be honest, I had not expect this contract after Markus' departure and therefore had started commenting freely on IGF when I wasn't on contract - something I had avoided in the past when I had expected the contract to be renewed. > > But I do not want my lack of voting to be logged in the membership ledger as a disinterest in being a member in good standing. > > Also, I did look to see if there was an 'abstain option' and did not see it. I would suggest that in the future, an 'abstain option' with optional opportunity to log the reason, be included in ballots. > > On the keeping of the membership list, I have no problem with such a list existing - that was never my point. My only concern is how that list is created, added to, deleted from, and used. > > > a. > > > > > On 6 Feb 2011, at 08:48, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our draft statement in the online poll. One person opposed, but that was Norbert Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed. After discussion with Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by consensus, with the two additions earlier discussed. The final statement is now linked from the front page of our Web site and will be submitted to the Secretariat. >> >> For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Dave Kissoondoyal >> Ian Peter >> Rafik Dammak >> Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> Anupam Agrawal >> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >> Baudouin SCHOMBE >> Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA >> Omar Kaminski >> Janna Anderson >> Kwasi Opare >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> Fouad Bajwa >> Yuliya Morenets >> Charity Gamboa-Embley >> George Sadowsky >> michael gurstein >> anita gurumurthy >> krittika vishwanath >> Nnenna Nwakanma >> Norbert Bollow >> Jean-Yves Gatete >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Lorena Jaume-Palasi >> David Allen >> Pascal Bekono >> Hong Xue >> Marilia Maciel >> Fatimata SEYE SYLLA >> Anna Orlova >> Daniel Pimienta >> Roxana Goldstein >> Bernard Sadaka >> Hakikur Rahman >> Shahzad Ahmad >> Deirdre Williams >> Ben Wagner >> Siranush Vardanyan >> Solomon Gizaw >> Rudi Vansnick >> Tijani Ben Jemaa >> Tapani Tarvainen >> Monique Chartrand >> Adam Peake >> Jeremy Hunsinger >> Christian H. Roland >> Carlos A. Afonso >> Valeria Betancourt >> Ray Plzak >> Erick Iriarte >> Brenden Kuerbis >> Ginger Paque >> Hanane Boujemi >> Danny Butt >> Lyman Chapin >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> Fearghas McKay >> (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we have a membership database!) >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers >> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world >> for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >> Twitter #CICongress >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Feb 6 13:31:38 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 19:31:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <25C5BF2D-60B4-4403-929C-A479900C6924@acm.org> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <25C5BF2D-60B4-4403-929C-A479900C6924@acm.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110206184858.061cab08@jefsey.com> Avri, for too long techies have preached IPv6 as an ISP moral duty instead of making it a user advantage. Now IPv4 is going to be a matter of business, IPv4 is the future. Anyway, adressing/routing is to be reviewed and rethought. But we probably may manage a soft transition : in 82-86 we introduced the X.121 digital addressing in using numeric names. What really interests users is IDv6, i.e. global scope sub-addresses related to a local IP/domain name. NAT66 can support that (a different animal from NATs). jfc At 06:51 06/02/2011, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, >Me, I am still trying to figure out how to route on names and to >avoid bothering with psuedo-numbers (aka IP addresses) anyway - why >translate from one name type to another? Given that routing is >getting less hierarchical all the time, these numerical names may >someday be an anachronism of the past. But this is a governance >list and not technical research speculation list, so that was >probably off topic. And I apologize for being an IPv6 heretic and a >party pooper. > >cheers, > >a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 14:54:18 2011 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 11:54:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <77019E55-9E14-407A-BC7E-B87CF184408F@ciroap.org> References: <77019E55-9E14-407A-BC7E-B87CF184408F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <669989.63998.qm@web161902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi Jeremy and Izumi and everyone I did not vote on this , because I was out traveling . However I do support the draft statement . I too do not wish my absence to be read as lack of interest nor do I wish to lose my status as a member in good standing. Thank you for all you good work! Shaila Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, February 6, 2011 5:48:54 AM Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our draft statement in the online poll. One person opposed, but that was Norbert Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed. After discussion with Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by consensus, with the two additions earlier discussed. The final statement is now linked from the front page of our Web site and will be submitted to the Secretariat. For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: Jeremy Malcolm Dave Kissoondoyal Ian Peter RafikDammak Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED ParminderJeetSingh AnupamAgrawal GurumurthyKasinathan Baudouin SCHOMBE Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA Omar Kaminski Janna Anderson KwasiOpare Imran Ahmed Shah FouadBajwa YuliyaMorenets Charity Gamboa-Embley George Sadowsky michaelgurstein anitagurumurthy krittikavishwanath NnennaNwakanma Norbert Bollow Jean-Yves Gatete SivasubramanianMuthusamy Lorena Jaume-Palasi David Allen Pascal Bekono HongXue MariliaMaciel FatimataSEYESYLLA Anna Orlova Daniel Pimienta Roxana Goldstein Bernard Sadaka HakikurRahman Shahzad Ahmad Deirdre Williams Ben Wagner SiranushVardanyan Solomon Gizaw RudiVansnick Tijani Ben Jemaa TapaniTarvainen Monique Chartrand Adam Peake Jeremy Hunsinger Christian H. Roland Carlos A. Afonso Valeria Betancourt Ray Plzak Erick Iriarte Brenden Kuerbis Ginger Paque HananeBoujemi Danny Butt Lyman Chapin Wolfgang Kleinwächter Fearghas McKay (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we have a membership database!) -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International KualaLumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 WismaWIM, 7 JalanAbangHajiOpeng, TTDI, 60000 KualaLumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Sun Feb 6 15:07:32 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:07:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <669989.63998.qm@web161902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <77019E55-9E14-407A-BC7E-B87CF184408F@ciroap.org> <669989.63998.qm@web161902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D4EFF84.2090702@communisphere.com> If it's not too late, place me on that bandwagon. Tom Lowenhaupt On 2/6/2011 2:54 PM, shaila mistry wrote: > > Hi Jeremy and Izumi and everyone > I did not vote on this , because I was out traveling . However I do > support the draft statement . > I too do not wish my absence to be read as lack of interest nor do I > wish to lose my status as a member in good standing. > Thank you for all you good work! > Shaila > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > ** > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Sun, February 6, 2011 5:48:54 AM > *Subject:* [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement > > Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our > draft statement in the online poll. One person opposed, but that was > Norbert Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed. After > discussion with Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by > consensus, with the two additions earlier discussed. The final > statement is now linked from the front page of our Web site and will > be submitted to the Secretariat. > > For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared > otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: > > Jeremy Malcolm > Dave Kissoondoyal > Ian Peter > Rafik Dammak > Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED > Parminder Jeet Singh > Anupam Agrawal > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Baudouin SCHOMBE > Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA > Omar Kaminski > Janna Anderson > Kwasi Opare > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > Yuliya Morenets > Charity Gamboa-Embley > George Sadowsky > michael gurstein > anita gurumurthy > krittika vishwanath > Nnenna Nwakanma > Norbert Bollow > Jean-Yves Gatete > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Lorena Jaume-Palasi > David Allen > Pascal Bekono > Hong Xue > Marilia Maciel > Fatimata SEYE SYLLA > Anna Orlova > Daniel Pimienta > Roxana Goldstein > Bernard Sadaka > Hakikur Rahman > Shahzad Ahmad > Deirdre Williams > Ben Wagner > Siranush Vardanyan > Solomon Gizaw > Rudi Vansnick > Tijani Ben Jemaa > Tapani Tarvainen > Monique Chartrand > Adam Peake > Jeremy Hunsinger > Christian H. Roland > Carlos A. Afonso > Valeria Betancourt > Ray Plzak > Erick Iriarte > Brenden Kuerbis > Ginger Paque > Hanane Boujemi > Danny Butt > Lyman Chapin > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Fearghas McKay > > (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we > have a membership database!) > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > * > *Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong* > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most > to consumers. *Register now!* > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_ > Twitter #CICongress > * > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 6 15:23:48 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 07:23:48 +1100 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37810@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Among other informed critics of current approaches you will find you will find Phill Hallam-Baker - see his comments here http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101206_the_trouble_with_6to4/ Bill St Arnaud http://billstarnaud.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-comes-after-ipv6-and-dns.html Noel Chiappa My own take here agrees with with Bob Frankston who Lee mentioned - like the Roman roadbuilders of old, we will probably just pave over TCP/IP and build something better and stronger. Perhaps this will come through the established IETF - perhaps through the GENI and other next generation experiments - most likely however, from left field somewhere and some young developer, most likely in India or China. In the meantime, my personal advice to any small or medium sized organisation or business feeling they must rush to IPv6 is - you don't. The end is not nigh! Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Feb 6 16:14:59 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:14:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Could the U.S. shut down the internet? In-Reply-To: <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110205090024.05321a30@jefsey.com> <3D12B6B6-73BA-428B-9406-04AA5F795A9A@acm.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110205175456.05b46860@jefsey.com> At 17:13 05/02/2011, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >I pretty much agree with this analysis. > >The only additional thing I would say, and I think the email gets to >a similar place by the the last paragraph, is that even though the >Internet can be easily taken down by governments, there is a >resilience in the Internet that by using old techniques and >communications technologies, and new technology the communications >links can be reestablished in time. > >But I think there is a good warning that we should heed in this note >and that we should start preparing now for the next regime that >decides to take the network down, that we need to support those who >are being prosecuted now for their content and we should work on the >diversification and distribution of control and governance. Avri, Louis, Old techniques certainly offer parts of the solution that we need, but they did not apply to local and international free (cost and control) coverage. They do not offer routing solutions in asynchronous mode. The typical situation is: no more Internet bandwidth, polluted radio and WiMAX, possible but degraded Wi-Fi, and costly and possibly taped or interrupted phone lines. There are also absolute needs for encryption (a way to promote IPsec?) and FEC (Forwarding Error Correction). This could be investigated through current IETF propositions (Fred Baker, Margaret Wasserman) for NAT66 and, therefore, the dissemination of the chips at low cost. Possibly through a smart plug sold as a security: how to contact your ISP when the connection does not work. Other problems are the concatenation of people's systems into a varying network (I can access my neighbor or someone in Malaysia, etc. like in short wave networks), addressing (location + ID?), transmission control and ACKs, and routing. Naming is OK. Actually, after centralized, decentralized, and distributed full duplex networks we face a quantified intricate network model. Interesting. Obviously in that kind of system we will not obtain end to end high speed! However, Twitter has shown what can be achieved with 140 bytes. Another issue is certainly the classification of information to help people figure out a situation, and to chain texts. Coded and semantic compression are also something needed to transfer language independent situation reports (an example that we all know is: "404") and pictures. This is where, architecturally, my IETF campaigns can pay off in ensuring good exploration coherence. The current status of the world digital system that is emerging from 40 years of experience, partly diluted by merchants as Louis and IAB say, has two identified and possibly competing sequences that we should try to make complementary by any means: 1. The one that we know and that we do not want, what Louis calls a regression : the proprietary or monopolistic, and now politically enforced, merchants/server/client sequence. We are warned: the Rojadirecta.org case is actually a casus belli with Spain. The US is tasting the international mood while they are still "negotiating" via ACTA and with ICANN. 2. The one that we identified in WG/IDNABis and that the whole digital ecosystem community still has to digest, that will most probably be opposed by many, mostly for egoand political reasons, because it uncouples servers and users in introducing an intelligent use interface at the network fringe, between the inside infrastructure and the outside users. Users become protected from the direct market and government real (as we recently learned) influence on servers and ISPs. In this sequence, we have (let us imagine fruit with the kernel [internal networks], pulp [IUI], and skin [UI to people and applications]): 1. people and services (rather than servers) peering on the outside - they all do exist; this is the people centric WSIS information society. 2. IUI on the networks periphery - Intelligent Use Interface. It has to provide a uniform networking experience to users/user-applications - the concept has emerged from IDNA2008 RFCs, etc. 3. the various central networking systems the use of which the IUI must make as transparent as possible, even in degraded situations. These systems range from experimentation (they do not exist) of the Internet of the future and high-speed Internet (it exists but may be shut down), down to "old techniques" (they do exist) being revived, adapted, and pampered towards a people's.net "emergency back-up +", which is the need we are meeting. One cannot address that kind a major, additional foundation in a few days, but one can document the findings on the matters and publish an IUCG I_D on the world digital ecosystem architectural principles and model as they are now emerging from 40 years of experience. To havebasic guidelines. The Internet principles are of constant change (RFC 1958), simplicity (RFC 3439), and subsidiarity (IDNA2008), and the RFC 3935 gives some hints in defining additional Internet architectural options through the IETF mission. Most probably these principles are to build upon. What is interesting is that, due to the imposed constraints, experimentation costs should be very low. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Feb 6 16:23:30 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 16:23:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37810@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37813@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Thanks Ian, Both Phillip's and Bil's comments are well worth reading. To carry on - a link to my 2007 paper 'The Future of the Internet is Not the Internet,' which I had the pleasure of presenting to Vint Cerf, David Clark, and other luminaries at a joint NSF/OECD workshop...in which I told them all they were misguided in worrying about future networks when they should be thinking of future grids...composed of any number of heterogeneous networks and services...and users, and content, and devices, and...whatever else we might imagine, without necessitating but also not precluding IPv4, or v6, or... http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/42/38057172.pdf (Final paragraph was cut off by OECD editors- or by this absent-minded prof sending said editors wrong file to my eternal embarrassment...but I guess that's ok since we are clearly not yet at the end of the story...) Lee ________________________________________ From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 3:23 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; Avri Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial Among other informed critics of current approaches you will find you will find Phill Hallam-Baker - see his comments here http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101206_the_trouble_with_6to4/ Bill St Arnaud http://billstarnaud.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-comes-after-ipv6-and-dns.html Noel Chiappa My own take here agrees with with Bob Frankston who Lee mentioned - like the Roman roadbuilders of old, we will probably just pave over TCP/IP and build something better and stronger. Perhaps this will come through the established IETF - perhaps through the GENI and other next generation experiments - most likely however, from left field somewhere and some young developer, most likely in India or China. In the meantime, my personal advice to any small or medium sized organisation or business feeling they must rush to IPv6 is - you don't. The end is not nigh! Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sun Feb 6 19:27:36 2011 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 07:27:36 +0700 Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement Message-ID: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> Same for me, if it is not too late. Back from hospital in Thailand... Norbert Klein Phnom Penh/Cambodia = -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:07:32 -0500 From: Thomas Lowenhaupt Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Thomas Lowenhaupt To: governance at lists.cpsr.org CC: Jeremy Malcolm If it's not too late, place me on that bandwagon. Tom Lowenhaupt On 2/6/2011 2:54 PM, shaila mistry wrote: > > Hi Jeremy and Izumi and everyone > I did not vote on this , because I was out traveling . However I do > support the draft statement . > I too do not wish my absence to be read as lack of interest nor do I > wish to lose my status as a member in good standing. > Thank you for all you good work! > Shaila > > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > ** > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Sun, February 6, 2011 5:48:54 AM > *Subject:* [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement > > Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our > draft statement in the online poll. One person opposed, but that was > Norbert Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed. After > discussion with Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by > consensus, with the two additions earlier discussed. The final > statement is now linked from the front page of our Web site and will > be submitted to the Secretariat. > > For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared > otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: > > Jeremy Malcolm > Dave Kissoondoyal > Ian Peter > Rafik Dammak > Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED > Parminder Jeet Singh > Anupam Agrawal > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Baudouin SCHOMBE > Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA > Omar Kaminski > Janna Anderson > Kwasi Opare > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > Yuliya Morenets > Charity Gamboa-Embley > George Sadowsky > michael gurstein > anita gurumurthy > krittika vishwanath > Nnenna Nwakanma > Norbert Bollow > Jean-Yves Gatete > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Lorena Jaume-Palasi > David Allen > Pascal Bekono > Hong Xue > Marilia Maciel > Fatimata SEYE SYLLA > Anna Orlova > Daniel Pimienta > Roxana Goldstein > Bernard Sadaka > Hakikur Rahman > Shahzad Ahmad > Deirdre Williams > Ben Wagner > Siranush Vardanyan > Solomon Gizaw > Rudi Vansnick > Tijani Ben Jemaa > Tapani Tarvainen > Monique Chartrand > Adam Peake > Jeremy Hunsinger > Christian H. Roland > Carlos A. Afonso > Valeria Betancourt > Ray Plzak > Erick Iriarte > Brenden Kuerbis > Ginger Paque > Hanane Boujemi > Danny Butt > Lyman Chapin > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Fearghas McKay > > (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we > have a membership database!) > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > * > *Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong* > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most > to consumers. *Register now!* > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress_ > Twitter #CICongress > * > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror: regular reports and comments from Cambodia. This is the latest Sunday Mirror: Free and Open Source Software Avoids Dependencies Sunday, 30.1.2011 http://tinyurl.com/4kj626f (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend. The NEW Address of The Mirror: http://www.cambodiamirror.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Sun Feb 6 21:15:40 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 02:15:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Sad History of IPv6 (was: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial) In-Reply-To: <25C5BF2D-60B4-4403-929C-A479900C6924@acm.org> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <25C5BF2D-60B4-4403-929C-A479900C6924@acm.org> Message-ID: <866E2A33-7BBD-4657-AFFB-B4318F5471A8@corp.arin.net> On Feb 6, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I have not researched it, just lived through it, especially in the years of the IETF. I have been following, and participating at times, from the time the IPng issue got started. I lived it, and many of your thoughts below are correct. Comments follow. Disclaimer: I was a member of the IETF's IPng task force, and am probably the one most clearly on record regarding my concern about the viability of the output (reference: RFC 1669) > Some of the chapters might include: > > - the story starts with requirement that were ignored when the beauty contest picked the winner. and the fact that the winner was picked before it was time and the work was complete on the candidates due to political pressure to have a solution now. Correct. Enormous pressure for a decision resulted in a form of inter-protocol fratricide. > - It includes the inability of anyone to get people to commit to fixing the routing architecutre while going through the pain of changing the address structure. This even though there were candidate solution that included routing architecture considerations. Many of us believe that architecture and addressing must always be worked on together. Correct. Tip of the hat to both Noel Chiappa and Paul Francis for working on protocol candidates that at least tried to take this problem on. > - it includes a very strange tale of the inability of some very smart people to persuade anyone to include the notion of variable size addresses, or at least fixed addresses that allowed for IPv4 encapsulation. Correct. My own personal grievance about the outcome, particularly since we need variable sized addresses would not only work, but provide unique capabilities useful for some problem spaces including transition. > - It goes through at least a decade of hubris where IPv6 was going to replace IPv4 any day now and the elite of IPv6 drank very expensive scotch to toast to the universal deployment of IPv6 Indeterminate. > - It includes years of miscalculation that IPv4 was the walking dead so there was no reason to think about coexistence. I would phrase the above as: "It includes years of ignoring any actual hard assessment of the need for a transition plan and transition tools" > - it would include chapters of how CIDR and NAT saved IPv4. Appropriate, particularly if it were "how CIDR and NAT greatly improved IPv4, and helped it to last past 2010" > - it would discuss the economics of IP addresses and the fact that even though the need to have strict hierarchy is no longer that great, a free market in IP addresses is still prohibited. Disagree. A free market isn't disallowed; it could be done by getting about 100 interested folks to participate to drive a policy change through... At present, there's never been sufficient support for it. In the ARIN region, the policy discussion and the show of support are open to all including remote participants. > - it would discuss the sacred cow legacy IPv4 address blocks and the multicast blocks that have never really been exploited. Agreed. > - it would discuss the new reality where we need to support 2 protocol stacks and the routing infrastructure to support those 2 protocols. We no longer have one Internet, we have 2 Internets that exist side by side, but are separate universes. Good for router hardware sales, but not really an optimal solution. "Not really an optimal solution" might be the understatement of the year. It's probably one of the least desirable outcomes. > - It would include the stories of people who dedicated their lives to marketing a solution that nobody really wanted and made a fortune in the process. Indeterminate. > - it would discuss that in the future, while there will be IPv6 in the network, there will be IPv4 for most of our lifetimes. The routing architecture is still a disaster, and there will be many new solutions to keep IPv4 going, so that unless vendors switch over based on political pressure, many of us will continue to use IPv4 for a very long time to come. Most of us will continue to use IPv4, but you'd be amazed at how fast the broadband service providers are going to IPv6 because its their only option. To the point, if you do not bother to dual-home your web site IPv4 and IPv6, do not be surprised if some of the newer folks have performance issued reaching it. > As I said, IPv6 has come far enough so it will probably survive - I used to believe that could/should never happen but I long ago gave up fighting it. But as we celebrate its alleged ascendancy, I just wanted to point out the sad path we took to get to this point and warn that we should not expect IPv6 to be the last address solution, nor should we expect that it will be an easy road ahead. Correct. > Me, I am still trying to figure out how to route on names and to avoid bothering with psuedo-numbers (aka IP addresses) anyway - why translate from one name type to another? Given that routing is getting less hierarchical all the time, these numerical names may someday be an anachronism of the past. But this is a governance list and not technical research speculation list, so that was probably off topic. And I apologize for being an IPv6 heretic and a party pooper. Avri - Just remember that I'm not only the first IPv6 heretic (on record in August 1994 per RFC 1669) and presently one, I also get to be one of the lead cheerleaders today for IPv6 because the service providers have no other option at this point. I don't disagree with most of what you've said, and certainly wish that we had a better IP Next Generation protocol, but that doesn't make IPv4 viable for another 20 years either. /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 jcurran at arin.net Sun Feb 6 21:15:51 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 02:15:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:06 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > I tend to think of IPv6 as being a separate internet that happens to share physical wiring. I've actually taken to describing it in terms of power outlets; we've effectively set forth on switching the entire Internet to use new plugs and outlets, and for a short time you're going to have to build houses (websites) with both types of outlets (address formats), so that users of either plug type (IPv4 or IPv6) can be happy. :-( /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 aizu at anr.org Sun Feb 6 22:17:00 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:17:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> Message-ID: Shame to say I could not vote this time as I was occupied by some personal matter (nothing serious), but I did tell Jeremy that I do support the final draft, and will try to catch up. So, if not too late, please add me as well ;-). izumi 2011/2/7 Norbert Klein > Same for me, if it is not too late. > > Back from hospital in Thailand... > > > Norbert Klein > Phnom Penh/Cambodia > > = > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] Results of > consensus call on themes statement Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:07:32 -0500 From: > Thomas Lowenhaupt Reply-To: > governance at lists.cpsr.org,Thomas Lowenhaupt To: > governance at lists.cpsr.org CC: Jeremy Malcolm > > > If it's not too late, place me on that bandwagon. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 2/6/2011 2:54 PM, shaila mistry wrote: > > > Hi Jeremy and Izumi and everyone > I did not vote on this , because I was out traveling . However I do support > the draft statement . > I too do not wish my absence to be read as lack of interest nor do I wish > to lose my status as a member in good standing. > Thank you for all you good work! > Shaila > > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > ** > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Sun, February 6, 2011 5:48:54 AM > *Subject:* [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement > > Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our draft > statement in the online poll. One person opposed, but that was Norbert > Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed. After discussion with > Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by consensus, with the two > additions earlier discussed. The final statement is now linked from the > front page of our Web site and will be submitted to the Secretariat. > > For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared > otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: > Jeremy Malcolm Dave Kissoondoyal Ian Peter Rafik Dammak Karim ATTOUMANI > MOHAMED Parminder Jeet Singh Anupam Agrawal Gurumurthy Kasinathan Baudouin > SCHOMBE Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA Omar Kaminski Janna Anderson Kwasi Opare Imran > Ahmed Shah Fouad Bajwa Yuliya Morenets Charity Gamboa-Embley George > Sadowsky michael gurstein anita gurumurthy krittika vishwanath Nnenna > Nwakanma Norbert Bollow Jean-Yves Gatete Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Lorena > Jaume-Palasi David Allen Pascal Bekono Hong Xue Marilia Maciel Fatimata > SEYE SYLLA Anna Orlova Daniel Pimienta Roxana Goldstein Bernard Sadaka Hakikur > Rahman Shahzad Ahmad Deirdre Williams Ben Wagner Siranush Vardanyan Solomon > Gizaw Rudi Vansnick Tijani Ben Jemaa Tapani Tarvainen Monique Chartrand Adam > Peake Jeremy Hunsinger Christian H. Roland Carlos A. Afonso Valeria > Betancourt Ray Plzak Erick Iriarte Brenden Kuerbis Ginger Paque Hanane > Boujemi Danny Butt Lyman Chapin Wolfgang Kleinwächter Fearghas McKay > (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we have a > membership database!) > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > * > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to > consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > Twitter #CICongress > * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > -- > If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit > The Mirror: regular reports and comments from Cambodia. > > This is the latest Sunday Mirror: > > Free and Open Source Software Avoids Dependencies > Sunday, 30.1.2011 > http://tinyurl.com/4kj626f > (to read it, click on the line above.) > > And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend. > > The NEW Address of The Mirror:http://www.cambodiamirror.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 > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Sun Feb 6 22:59:56 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:59:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> Message-ID: I am sorry I did not vote as I was not sure that my vote counted but I remember being told once that I could not vote. Am confused. I enjoy the interactions and participate in the discussions when I can. On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Shame to say I could not vote this time as I was occupied by > some personal matter (nothing serious), but I did tell Jeremy that I > do support the final draft, and will try to catch up. > > So, if not too late, please add me as well ;-). > > izumi > > 2011/2/7 Norbert Klein > >> Same for me, if it is not too late. >> >> Back from hospital in Thailand... >> >> >> Norbert Klein >> Phnom Penh/Cambodia >> >> = >> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] Results of >> consensus call on themes statement Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:07:32 -0500 From: >> Thomas Lowenhaupt Reply-To: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org,Thomas Lowenhaupt To: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org CC: Jeremy Malcolm >> >> >> If it's not too late, place me on that bandwagon. >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> On 2/6/2011 2:54 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >> >> >> Hi Jeremy and Izumi and everyone >> I did not vote on this , because I was out traveling . However I do >> support the draft statement . >> I too do not wish my absence to be read as lack of interest nor do I wish >> to lose my status as a member in good standing. >> Thank you for all you good work! >> Shaila >> >> *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** >> *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** >> *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** >> >> ** >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> *Sent:* Sun, February 6, 2011 5:48:54 AM >> *Subject:* [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement >> >> Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our draft >> statement in the online poll. One person opposed, but that was Norbert >> Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed. After discussion with >> Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by consensus, with the two >> additions earlier discussed. The final statement is now linked from the >> front page of our Web site and will be submitted to the Secretariat. >> >> For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared >> otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: >> Jeremy Malcolm Dave Kissoondoyal Ian Peter Rafik Dammak Karim ATTOUMANI >> MOHAMED Parminder Jeet Singh Anupam Agrawal Gurumurthy Kasinathan Baudouin >> SCHOMBE Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA Omar Kaminski Janna Anderson Kwasi Opare Imran >> Ahmed Shah Fouad Bajwa Yuliya Morenets Charity Gamboa-Embley George >> Sadowsky michael gurstein anita gurumurthy krittika vishwanath Nnenna >> Nwakanma Norbert Bollow Jean-Yves Gatete Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Lorena >> Jaume-Palasi David Allen Pascal Bekono Hong Xue Marilia Maciel Fatimata >> SEYE SYLLA Anna Orlova Daniel Pimienta Roxana Goldstein Bernard Sadaka Hakikur >> Rahman Shahzad Ahmad Deirdre Williams Ben Wagner Siranush Vardanyan Solomon >> Gizaw Rudi Vansnick Tijani Ben Jemaa Tapani Tarvainen Monique Chartrand Adam >> Peake Jeremy Hunsinger Christian H. Roland Carlos A. Afonso Valeria >> Betancourt Ray Plzak Erick Iriarte Brenden Kuerbis Ginger Paque Hanane >> Boujemi Danny Butt Lyman Chapin Wolfgang Kleinwächter Fearghas McKay >> (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we have a >> membership database!) >> >> -- >> >> *Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> * >> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers >> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer >> groups from around the world >> for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to >> consumers. Register now! >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >> Twitter #CICongress >> * >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> -- >> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit >> The Mirror: regular reports and comments from Cambodia. >> >> This is the latest Sunday Mirror: >> >> Free and Open Source Software Avoids Dependencies >> Sunday, 30.1.2011 >> http://tinyurl.com/4kj626f >> (to read it, click on the line above.) >> >> And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend. >> >> The NEW Address of The Mirror:http://www.cambodiamirror.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 >> >> >> > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 ceo at bnnrc.net Sun Feb 6 23:27:24 2011 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 10:27:24 +0600 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy Malcolm, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) Pls include us. I had casted my vote. With best regards, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:59 AM Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement I am sorry I did not vote as I was not sure that my vote counted but I remember being told once that I could not vote. Am confused. I enjoy the interactions and participate in the discussions when I can. On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: Shame to say I could not vote this time as I was occupied by some personal matter (nothing serious), but I did tell Jeremy that I do support the final draft, and will try to catch up. So, if not too late, please add me as well ;-). izumi 2011/2/7 Norbert Klein Same for me, if it is not too late. Back from hospital in Thailand... Norbert Klein Phnom Penh/Cambodia = -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:07:32 -0500 From: Thomas Lowenhaupt Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Thomas Lowenhaupt To: governance at lists.cpsr.org CC: Jeremy Malcolm If it's not too late, place me on that bandwagon. Tom Lowenhaupt On 2/6/2011 2:54 PM, shaila mistry wrote: Hi Jeremy and Izumi and everyone I did not vote on this , because I was out traveling . However I do support the draft statement . I too do not wish my absence to be read as lack of interest nor do I wish to lose my status as a member in good standing. Thank you for all you good work! Shaila Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, February 6, 2011 5:48:54 AM Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our draft statement in the online poll. One person opposed, but that was Norbert Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed. After discussion with Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by consensus, with the two additions earlier discussed. The final statement is now linked from the front page of our Web site and will be submitted to the Secretariat. For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: Jeremy Malcolm Dave Kissoondoyal Ian Peter Rafik Dammak Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Parminder Jeet Singh Anupam Agrawal Gurumurthy Kasinathan Baudouin SCHOMBE Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA Omar Kaminski Janna Anderson Kwasi Opare Imran Ahmed Shah Fouad Bajwa Yuliya Morenets Charity Gamboa-Embley George Sadowsky michael gurstein anita gurumurthy krittika vishwanath Nnenna Nwakanma Norbert Bollow Jean-Yves Gatete Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Lorena Jaume-Palasi David Allen Pascal Bekono Hong Xue Marilia Maciel Fatimata SEYE SYLLA Anna Orlova Daniel Pimienta Roxana Goldstein Bernard Sadaka Hakikur Rahman Shahzad Ahmad Deirdre Williams Ben Wagner Siranush Vardanyan Solomon Gizaw Rudi Vansnick Tijani Ben Jemaa Tapani Tarvainen Monique Chartrand Adam Peake Jeremy Hunsinger Christian H. Roland Carlos A. Afonso Valeria Betancourt Ray Plzak Erick Iriarte Brenden Kuerbis Ginger Paque Hanane Boujemi Danny Butt Lyman Chapin Wolfgang Kleinwächter Fearghas McKay (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we have a membership database!) -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror: regular reports and comments from Cambodia. This is the latest Sunday Mirror: Free and Open Source Software Avoids Dependencies Sunday, 30.1.2011 http://tinyurl.com/4kj626f (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend. The NEW Address of The Mirror: http://www.cambodiamirror.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 -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Mon Feb 7 00:24:21 2011 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 06:24:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> Message-ID: Same for me, Jeremy Divina Frau-Meigs France Le 07/02/11 01:27, « Norbert Klein » a écrit : > Same for me, if it is not too late. > > Back from hospital in Thailand... > > > Norbert Klein > Phnom Penh/Cambodia > > = > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement > Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:07:32 -0500 > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Thomas Lowenhaupt > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > CC: Jeremy Malcolm > > If it's not too late, place me on that bandwagon. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 2/6/2011 2:54 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >> >> >> Hi Jeremy and Izumi and everyone >> I did not vote on this , because I was out traveling . However I do support >> the draft statement . >> I too do not wish my absence to be read as lack of interest  nor do I wish to >> lose my status as a member in good standing. >> Thank you for all you good work! >>  Shaila >> >>   >> >> Life is too short ....challenge the rules >> >> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly >> >> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!  >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Sent: Sun, February 6, 2011 5:48:54 AM >> Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement >> >> Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our draft >> statement in the online poll.  One person opposed, but that was Norbert >> Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed.  After discussion with Izumi >> we are declaring the statement approved by consensus, with the two additions >> earlier discussed.  The final statement is now linked from the front page of >> our Web site and will be submitted to the Secretariat. >> >> >> >> For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared >> otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: >> >> Jeremy Malcolm Dave Kissoondoyal Ian Peter Rafik Dammak Karim ATTOUMANI >> MOHAMED Parminder Jeet Singh Anupam Agrawal Gurumurthy Kasinathan >> Baudouin SCHOMBE Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA Omar Kaminski Janna Anderson >> Kwasi Opare Imran Ahmed Shah Fouad Bajwa Yuliya Morenets Charity >> Gamboa-Embley George Sadowsky michael gurstein anita gurumurthy krittika >> vishwanath Nnenna Nwakanma Norbert Bollow Jean-Yves Gatete >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Lorena Jaume-Palasi David Allen Pascal Bekono >> Hong Xue Marilia Maciel Fatimata SEYE SYLLA Anna Orlova Daniel Pimienta >> Roxana Goldstein Bernard Sadaka Hakikur Rahman Shahzad Ahmad Deirdre >> Williams Ben Wagner Siranush Vardanyan Solomon Gizaw Rudi Vansnick >> Tijani Ben Jemaa Tapani Tarvainen Monique Chartrand Adam Peake Jeremy >> Hunsinger Christian H. Roland Carlos A. Afonso Valeria Betancourt Ray >> Plzak Erick Iriarte Brenden Kuerbis Ginger Paque Hanane Boujemi Danny >> Butt Lyman Chapin Wolfgang Kleinwächter Fearghas McKay >> >> (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we have a >> membership database!) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --  >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers  >> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >> >> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups >> from around the world >> >> for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to >> consumers. Register now! >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >> >> >> Twitter #CICongress >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't print >> this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chloe at itforchange.net Mon Feb 7 00:48:11 2011 From: chloe at itforchange.net (Chloe) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:18:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Public software bulletin - January 2011 issue Message-ID: <4D4F879B.8070603@itforchange.net> Font Public Software for the Public Sector www.public-software.in Public Software News January 2011 IN THIS ISSUE Within the Government <#WITHIN_THE_GOVERNMENT> . National Policy on Open Standards in e-governance <#National_Policy> . Assam state and public software <#Assam> Within other public institutions <#WITHIN_OTHER_PUBLIC_INSTITUTIONS> . UNESCO's work for public software <#UNESCO> . Competition Commission of Indiaand Microsoft Corp <#Competition_Commission_of_India> Education <#EDUCATION> . State Master Trainers on public education software tools <#Completion> . Education institutions role in digital inclusion <#Education_institutions> <#CeTIT> Workshops <#WORKSHOPS>and Conferences <#WORKSHOPS> . Knowledge Management and Knowledge Networking Workshop <#KMKN> . Declaration on ICTs in Education <#Declaration> . CeTIT 2010 <#CeTIT> International <#INTERNATIONAL> . Russia uses Microsoft to suppress dissent <#Russia> . Public software for Russian Government <#Open> . Defining open source hardware <#Defining> WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT *National Policy on Open Standards in e-governance - *India is one of the first countries in the world to adopt open standards in e-governance . As part of this policy, the government has notified the specific open standards for each format including odf (Open document format) and ogg. Read more here (/The Hindu/ , 26 November 2010). *Assam*promotes public software and distributes more than 19,000 laptops to high school students during 2010. Read more . WITHIN OTHER PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS *UNESCO to support implementation of public educational software - *Sri. A. Parsuramen, Director of *UNESCO*, India, talks about promoting the use and development of public educational software tools for teacher training and teaching purposes, with the state governments. Read more . The *Competition Commission of India *(CCI) is hearing a case against Microsoftfor abusing its dominant position as a market leader (/The Economic Times/ , 27 September 2010). EDUCATION *Karnataka creates State master trainers on public education software tools -*Following the successful Kerala model of computer aided learning programmes in schools, many organisations, including IT for Change, with the support of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and R.V. College of Engineering (RVCE), trained approximately 150 teacher educators from government institutions as State Master Trainers on Computer Aided Education tools (Mathematics, English language and Geography). Read more and browse through the course material . *Educational institutions role in digital inclusion -- */Frontline/analyses the Declaration on ICTs in education by anchoring it in the history of the free software movement. (/Frontline/ , 23 October -- 5 November 2010). WORKSHOPS AND CONFERENCES **Capacity Building Workshop for Knowledge Management and Knowledge Networking - The UN Solution Exchange -- Karnataka Community and Public Software Centre, IT for Change, organised a Capacity Building Workshop for Knowledge Management and Knowledge Networking, using public software tools, for organisations of the Bengaluru Division of Karnataka in December 2010. A similar workshop was held for Mysore division organisations in January 2011. Read more . *The Declaration on ICTs in Education *urges educational institutions, policy makers, students and teachers to start fostering digital inclusion by exclusively using FOSS tools, sharing knowledge, reasserting the basic rights of education and participation at all levels, and asking the State for quality education in ICTs and beyond. The declaration was signed at the National Conference on Free Software in Education in Kozhikode (Kerala, 10-12 September 2010). Read more . CeTIT 2010 - IT for Change participated in CeTIT 2010 (Citizen empowerment throught information technology), the second edition of the Conference-Cum-Exhibitionon e-governance in Chennai, Tamil Nadu). Read more about Gurumurthy K's intervention on 'Public software for public institutions - Rethinking e-governance'. INTERNATIONAL Russia uses Microsoft to suppress dissent -The Russian authorities' latest tactics for quelling outspoken advocacy groups or opposition newspapers is confiscating computers under the pretext of searching for pirated Microsoft software.(/The New York Times/ , 11 September 2010). *Public software for Russian Government**- *Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has ordered government agencies to be on Linux by 2015. His support is critical for the success of open source software within the government arena. Read more . Defining open source hardware - A group of open source hardware enthusiasts has been working on the draft version of a definition of open source hardware (/The Hindu/ , 28 August 2010). A first version of the Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Draft Statement of Principles and Definition has been defined at the Open Hardware Summit (September 2010, New York). Back to the top <#ISSUE> Public Software Website - www.public-software.in Follow us on Twitter @publicsoftware To subscribe, unsubscribe or send us your feedback: PS-Bulletin-owner at public-software.in -- * Chloé Zollman* Knowledge and Communication Associate IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.net Skype id: chloezollman Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 Have you heard about the CITIGEN programme? Visit www.gender-IS-citizenship.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Feb 7 02:26:10 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 02:56:10 -0430 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4D4F9E92.3070301@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Feb 7 03:59:01 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:59:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Sad History of IPv6 (was: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial) In-Reply-To: <866E2A33-7BBD-4657-AFFB-B4318F5471A8@corp.arin.net> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <25C5BF2D-60B4-4403-929C-A479900C6924@acm.org> <866E2A33-7BBD-4657-AFFB-B4318F5471A8@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: In message <866E2A33-7BBD-4657-AFFB-B4318F5471A8 at corp.arin.net>, at 02:15:40 on Mon, 7 Feb 2011, John Curran writes >Most of us will continue to use IPv4, but you'd be amazed at how fast >the broadband service providers are going to IPv6 because its their >only option. To the point, if you do not bother to dual-home your > web site IPv4 and IPv6, do not be surprised if some of the newer > folks have performance issued reaching it. I don't want to raise any false hopes, but with 20%+ of traffic hitting probably just five sites (YouTube/Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and whichever of Iplayer, Netflix etc is the big local traffic generator) we could quickly end up with only a relatively small amount of bandwidth needed for the very long tail of IPv4-only websites if the top 100, top 1000 (or whatever) get native IPv6 access in the foreseeable future. (And you might expect the one third of bandwidth that's P2P to migrate pretty much with the connectivity). Meanwhile, I'll still be nagging my website hosting company to dual-home, but nagging is about all I can do. -- 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 Feb 7 03:58:53 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:58:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [] Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Milestone & Comcast Starts DOCSIS IPv6 Trial In-Reply-To: References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message , at 02:15:51 on Mon, 7 Feb 2011, John Curran writes >> I tend to think of IPv6 as being a separate internet that happens to share physical wiring. > >I've actually taken to describing it in terms of power outlets; we've effectively >set forth on switching the entire Internet to use new plugs and outlets, and for a >short time you're going to have to build houses (websites) with both types of outlets >(address formats), so that users of either plug type (IPv4 or IPv6) can be happy. Some of the original power to homes was DC, so introducing AC was not just a change of socket, but a change of appliance (or buy one that was AC/DC compatible). A useful "travel adapter" would be a CPE that connects to the outside world by IPv6, but supports both IPv6 and IPv4 inside the premises - with whatever functionality is required to deliver a useful-enough experience but without having to issue a public IPv4 address to each premises. No doubt there will be cries of anguish about the "end to end" issue, but I'm not sure it would be worse than the current IPV4 NAT-box situation. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Mon Feb 7 07:07:05 2011 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 10:07:05 -0200 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4d4fe0699b04d_7cdf39c403412c@a2-weasel6.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Mon Feb 7 07:10:35 2011 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:10:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: below the societal usage layer In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110207091627.061cb548@jefsey.com> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110207091627.061cb548@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <4B5FE47F-659F-417E-ACC7-201E8B35F5B3@arin.net> On Feb 7, 2011, at 3:45 AM, jefsey wrote: > John, > > I think we should give more thinking at the way to turn this situation as an advantage. A smart multi-plug could be a blessing for this and other transitions and other services. > > Civil society should not only complain and propose at the societal usage layer, but also at the lower technical and human use layers that condition them. It does not make sense to demand things and not to care about their practical feasibility. Full agreement... In fact, the development of IPv6 has been one of the strongest influences on my thoughts regarding the need for multistakeholder involvement in standards and technical policy setting activities. It's perfectly reasonable to have the technological constraints play a major factor in outcome determination, but not without the proactive solicitation of views from those affected by the results. It's incredibly challenging to get done right, since you really need to interface both early on with requirements, and then periodically as an outcome is evolving; also, such interfaces need to be done at a level that is appropriate (i.e. it's not reasonable to email a 70 page detailed technical spec to civil society organizations and ask for input; you have to prepare briefing materials that explain the current likely outcome in lay terms) In IPv6, this did not happen with even with respect to the ISP & operator community, let along civil society organizations, and it shows in the outcome. /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 anriette at apc.org Mon Feb 7 04:24:57 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:24:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> Hi Jeremy I would also like to support the statement. I notice that I am not listed as a member, which is probably why I did not get the call to support the statement. If not too late, please add my name. And I am trying to register as a member. Others should also check the list of members.. there are many active members who are not there yet. http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/ Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 7 04:27:52 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:27:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC input to Working Group on IGF improvements Message-ID: <4D4FBB18.4020408@apc.org> Hi all Attached is the input from APC to the CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It congtains mostly the same content that is in our statement on IGF 2011 which my colleague Valeria Betancourt posted last week. Best Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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: APC_contributions_2011 WGIGFImprovements_draft structure01022011.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 95692 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Feb 7 03:45:05 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 09:45:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] below the societal usage layer In-Reply-To: References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110207091627.061cb548@jefsey.com> At 03:15 07/02/2011, John Curran wrote: >On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:06 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > I tend to think of IPv6 as being a separate internet that happens > to share physical wiring. > >I've actually taken to describing it in terms of power outlets; >we've effectively >set forth on switching the entire Internet to use new plugs and >outlets, and for a >short time you're going to have to build houses (websites) with both >types of outlets >(address formats), so that users of either plug type (IPv4 or IPv6) >can be happy. John, I think we should give more thinking at the way to turn this situation as an advantage. A smart multi-plug could be a blessing for this and other transitions and other services. Civil society should not only complain and propose at the societal usage layer, but also at the lower technical and human use layers that condition them. It does not make sense to demand things and not to care about their practical feasibility. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Mon Feb 7 12:03:18 2011 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (catherine) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:03:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> Message-ID: <8c3c8ff62b52ca40d5fc7441e08fceac.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> I would also like to add my support to this document. As to membership, I echo Anriette's observations. Also, the membership policy states : "Not all list participants are members. To determine membership, each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before any election or voting event will be given a voter account." I have been a member of this list for several years now and have never received such an account. How can this be resolved ? Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On Mon, February 7, 2011 4:24 am, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > I would also like to support the statement. I notice that I am not > listed as a member, which is probably why I did not get the call to > support the statement. > > If not too late, please add my name. And I am trying to register as a > member. > > Others should also check the list of members.. there are many active > members who are not there yet. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/ > > Anriette > > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 pouzin at well.com Mon Feb 7 08:50:42 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:50:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> Message-ID: Guess what ? same for me. - - - On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Divina MEIGS wrote: > Same for me, Jeremy > > Divina Frau-Meigs > France > -------------- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Feb 7 11:25:31 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 17:25:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: below the societal usage layer In-Reply-To: <4B5FE47F-659F-417E-ACC7-201E8B35F5B3@arin.net> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110207091627.061cb548@jefsey.com> <4B5FE47F-659F-417E-ACC7-201E8B35F5B3@arin.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110207150816.060c6c60@jefsey.com> At 13:10 07/02/2011, John Curran wrote: >On Feb 7, 2011, at 3:45 AM, jefsey wrote: > > John, > > > > I think we should give more thinking at the way to turn this > situation as an advantage. A smart multi-plug could be a blessing > for this and other transitions and other services. > > > > Civil society should not only complain and propose at the > societal usage layer, but also at the lower technical and human use > layers that condition them. It does not make sense to demand things > and not to care about their practical feasibility. > >Full agreement... In fact, the development of IPv6 has been one >of the strongest influences on my thoughts regarding the need for >multistakeholder involvement in standards and technical policy >setting activities. > >It's perfectly reasonable to have the technological constraints >play a major factor in outcome determination, but not without >the proactive solicitation of views from those affected by the >results. This is why I came to the analysis of three management layers: - operance as what is short term and determined by contracts. Activists often flame over that levelr which very user relevant. - governance as what is middle term and determined by law and international agreement, These are sociatel issues. IGF, ACTA, etc. ICANN tries to build an operance/governance niche. - adminance as what is the long term and standard driven, often conflicting with cultures (quality), affecting/blocking/helping civilisational (quantity) strategies. I understand that the dynamic equilibrirum of the three of them (three bodies problem :-) ) decide of their (attractor) meaning .... in some sort of chaos ! Adminance permits governance, governance is the operance framework. What is important to operators is to know that Governance is going to influencef their operance framework. What is important to Governance is to make sure that adminance will not block its strategy due to technology constraints. Up to now, adminance was actually carried by IAB because the Internet was large/very-large technical system. It is now a universal ambient system and at the same time only a part of the digital ecosystem. This is why we need to get a digital ecosystem adminance forum, to foster technical innovation/evolution that the Governance can accept and Operance can economically live with. IMHO this comes at the same time as a dramatic extension of the digital ecosystem due to the introduction of the architectural principle of subsidiarity (IDNA2008) which keeps the same code, but reverse its reading making the whole architecture people centric. IPv4/v6 make two internets, IDNA2008 make 300 to 20,000 lingual internets, ML-DNS classes and presentations make million internets. >It's incredibly challenging to get done right, since >you really need to interface both early on with requirements, >and then periodically as an outcome is evolving; also, such >interfaces need to be done at a level that is appropriate Obviously the language must be adapted to Governance by users, with the hope that "lead users" may help being an interface between activists and ingineers. This is what I tried to initiate with the iucg at ietf.org mailing list (http://iucg.org). It helped introducing subsidiarity in the Internet architecture, but it still is quite non-active mailing list. Russ Housley authorised it and is on it. But it is mostly inactive. I think some the mail exchanges with Louis, Avri, etc. could find a good place with two kind of real propositions : civil society informed technical requirements, and non-"internal-internet" Governance originated technical suggestions. There is a section http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations which could be a seed for such an endeavour. >(i.e. >it's not reasonable to email a 70 page detailed technical spec >to civil society organizations and ask for input; you have to >prepare briefing materials that explain the current likely >outcome in lay terms) Yes. However, I was never able to find a detail 70 page _complete_and_stable_ documentation of IPv6 :-). >In IPv6, this did not happen with even with respect to the ISP >& operator community, let along civil society organizations, and >it shows in the outcome. In addition, motivations are of the essence. The responsibility duty of ISP does not sell, however the IDv6 (64 bits IID under IPv6 or others) could sell as an advantage, IPv4 on auction will sell quite well. For explaining that on the French IPv6 Task Force (as in charge of user relations) with the full support of Latif.... I was fired. As a User I would be OK with LISP4/6, i.e. IPv4+IDv6 and then an IPvX intelligently managing the IPv4 numbering plan, in relation with telephone numbers, then a progressive evolution towards a complete new addressing, naming, routing review. What Interplus/ML-DNS imply is a begining of the need to smartly consider it. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Feb 7 11:53:55 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:53:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: below the societal usage layer In-Reply-To: <4B5FE47F-659F-417E-ACC7-201E8B35F5B3@arin.net> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110207091627.061cb548@jefsey.com>,<4B5FE47F-659F-417E-ACC7-201E8B35F5B3@arin.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37817@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> John, Completely agree re early input/co-design by civil society and broader interests is key for effective open specifications. That can be done without requiring everyone wade through ITU-style standards documents. My one quibble is with your 'short time' phrase re the need for easy co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6, but anyway. Since we're going all geeky on civil society: In my faculty/research day job, the attached is under construction, some pieces are in beta; and others hypothetical. For not-too-techie csers, just note 2 things: wired and wireless are treated the same; also note the 'policy engine' boxes down at the cognitive radio guts level on the lower right. That is kind a blow-up of what is on the lower left. Those policies can be whatever someone constructs, out of open source tools. Meaning we can write the policies, in all senses of the word. Likewise, note 'grid/cloud specs' box on lower right of upper left part of left diagram...got it? The hypothetical easy IPv4/v6 converter module could connect there; and could be driven by a a policy engine at lower levels If someone can jam it through IETF or anything else too, go for it. Anyway it is all very early for WiGiT but if folks wish to come up with a spec - the virtual organization of WiGiT which is neither here nor there, and which has no dysfunctional formal rules to undo since - there are no rules - is happy to be of service. And as the diagram illustrates, if something comes from or goes back to IEEE, or IETF, or gasp even a company, it can all feed into the emergent open specifications suite. In other words: define an open spec and we can have it quickly adopted, virtually, as another mix and match module. I guess Parminder's already worrying about OECD knowing about this before cs - all I can say is next university in the virtual club is South African which will make their own contributions to the open specs suite. And they knew about it all long before OECD, as did Brazilian universities...hey I did what I could. More on that next month. Anyway, this may all be premature for IGC, but I just wanted to get an early word - and a picture - out to illustrate where we are going, and what we will be defining more precisely in hopefully human-readable documents by next fall, with first draft open specs released about a year from now. If anyone or anything wants to join the virtual club of WiGiT - for now just send me an email, we'll be adding self-service buttons to the website soon. Admission is of course free, as will be explained on our site http://wglab.net, when my students get around to it. Many of whom are from India, and doing very cool things - happy now Parminder? : ) Lee ' ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of John Curran [jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 7:10 AM To: jefsey Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Re: below the societal usage layer On Feb 7, 2011, at 3:45 AM, jefsey wrote: > John, > > I think we should give more thinking at the way to turn this situation as an advantage. A smart multi-plug could be a blessing for this and other transitions and other services. > > Civil society should not only complain and propose at the societal usage layer, but also at the lower technical and human use layers that condition them. It does not make sense to demand things and not to care about their practical feasibility. Full agreement... In fact, the development of IPv6 has been one of the strongest influences on my thoughts regarding the need for multistakeholder involvement in standards and technical policy setting activities. It's perfectly reasonable to have the technological constraints play a major factor in outcome determination, but not without the proactive solicitation of views from those affected by the results. It's incredibly challenging to get done right, since you really need to interface both early on with requirements, and then periodically as an outcome is evolving; also, such interfaces need to be done at a level that is appropriate (i.e. it's not reasonable to email a 70 page detailed technical spec to civil society organizations and ask for input; you have to prepare briefing materials that explain the current likely outcome in lay terms) In IPv6, this did not happen with even with respect to the ISP & operator community, let along civil society organizations, and it shows in the outcome. /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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WiGiTOpenSpecs10.6.2010.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 383741 bytes Desc: WiGiTOpenSpecs10.6.2010.pdf URL: From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Mon Feb 7 12:52:09 2011 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (catherine) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:52:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <8c3c8ff62b52ca40d5fc7441e08fceac.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> <8c3c8ff62b52ca40d5fc7441e08fceac.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: This email seems to have not gone through on the list so I am trying again. -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On Mon, February 7, 2011 12:03 pm, catherine wrote: > I would also like to add my support to this document. As to membership, I > echo Anriette's observations. Also, the membership policy states : > > "Not all list participants are members. To determine membership, each > person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before any > election or voting event will be given a voter account." > > I have been a member of this list for several years now and have never > received such an account. How can this be resolved ? > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > > On Mon, February 7, 2011 4:24 am, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Hi Jeremy >> >> I would also like to support the statement. I notice that I am not >> listed as a member, which is probably why I did not get the call to >> support the statement. >> >> If not too late, please add my name. And I am trying to register as a >> member. >> >> Others should also check the list of members.. there are many active >> members who are not there yet. >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/ >> >> Anriette >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director >> association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raquelgatto at uol.com.br Mon Feb 7 13:35:25 2011 From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:35:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> <8c3c8ff62b52ca40d5fc7441e08fceac.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <4d503b6d209b0_50d5a95a830579@a2-weasel16.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carloswatson at gmail.com Mon Feb 7 18:49:35 2011 From: carloswatson at gmail.com (carlos watson) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:49:35 -0600 Subject: [governance] New gTLD. Message-ID: Comments about this http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/USGmonstrosity.pdf http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20030854-501465.html cw www.isoc-cr.org regards ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 7 22:07:00 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:07:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> Message-ID: <1297134420.28389.1897.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 11:24 +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > I would also like to support the statement. I notice that I am not > listed as a member, which is probably why I did not get the call to > support the statement. > > If not too late, please add my name. And I am trying to register as a > member. > > Others should also check the list of members.. there are many active > members who are not there yet. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/ As it states, this is just a static list of the members as at 10 October 2010 who voted in the last coordinator elections, so this particular document hasn't been updated since then and won't be. However I am (as time permits) working on a membership list that will be automatically generated from the membership database and will immediately reflect those who have qualified for a "voter account". This will address the concerns of those who are worried that their names do not appear on the above list. But, I need to clarify the purpose of a poll such as that which we just had. It is not a vote, so we do not need to record those who "voted" for or against it. Once a statement has been adopted by rough consensus, it becomes a document of the caucus at large. By the same token, a "voter account" is needed to participate in such a poll. A voter account is only used to select the new coordinator each year, and during the year following that, the same voters may also vote on any amendments to the Charter. I hope that clarifies things - agreed that it is confusing, and if you want to talk about how things can be improved, there is a (currently small and inactive) charter review working group that you can join. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Feb 7 22:14:34 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:14:34 +0800 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <1297134420.28389.1897.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> <1297134420.28389.1897.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <1297134874.28389.1917.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 11:07 +0800, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > But, I need to clarify the purpose of a poll such as that which we just > had. It is not a vote, so we do not need to record those who "voted" > for or against it. Once a statement has been adopted by rough > consensus, it becomes a document of the caucus at large. By the same > token, a "voter account" is needed to participate in such a poll. Very significant typo above. Should read "is NOT needed." -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 02:37:51 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 23:37:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Facebook: "the revolution of the youth of the Internet." In-Reply-To: <1297134874.28389.1917.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> <1297134420.28389.1897.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <1297134874.28389.1917.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <556875.42628.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just want to share the news about The young Google Inc. executive detained by Egyptian authorities for 12 days said Monday he was behind the Facebook page that helped spark what he called "the revolution of the youth of the Internet."   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_egypt   Wael Ghonim In this undated photo provided by Google Inc., Wael Ghonim, a Google Inc. marketing manager, is shown. http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/undated-photo-provided-Google-Inc-Wael-Ghonim-Google-Inc-marketing/photo//110207/3564/urn_publicid_ap_org_a2a76b1a953f456293fed4704aae062f//s:/ap/ml_egypt;_ylt=Ane21r6Mh_G1xnqSo.iG5mEUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTFidmdrMmVzBHBvcwMxMQRzZWMDeW5fcl9qdW1wX3Bob3RvBHNsawNpbnRoaXN1bmRhdGU-       Thanks   Imran -------------- 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 Feb 8 03:23:40 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:23:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] New gTLD. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 17:49:35 on Mon, 7 Feb 2011, carlos watson writes >Comments about this > >http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/USGmonstrosity.pdf >http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20030854-501465.html Ultimately, you need to participate (remotely if not in person) at the GAC/Board meeting in Brussels and hear the arguments at first hand. As for the case supporting objections: if Germany blocked .nazi at a national firewall (their national laws might make it compulsory to do so), some would call that "breaking the Internet" because it defeats the principle of universal reachability. So their answer would be to make sure it was never issued, so never had to be blocked. But that does indicate that there might be quite a long list of such potential TLDs, and ignores blocking going on today. And not just because of "morality" issues. Some countries block skype.com, so you'd expect them also to block .skype; and of course this is all before we start to consider names which are quite inoffensive in their native tongue but mean something rude in another (this issue has been addressed previously by some authorities administering vehicle vanity licence plates - sometimes there are lessons we can learnt from other name-spaces, although the trademark name-space seems to have got its teeth firmly into the issue already). Finally, I don't think "but they cost $200k and no-one will risk spending that on an easily rejectable name" is a useful stance, because I'm not sure a fine of that magnitude for falling at the first hurdle would be judged equitable, and one day the price may well be only $100. -- 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 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Tue Feb 8 03:49:06 2011 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 09:49:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] New gTLD. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32212.cGQ1X0cCUVg=.1297154946.squirrel@webmail.rack66.com> For your information, I will be at the meeting in Brussels as I obtained a RSVP yesterday. Being based in Belgium, I can provide some assistance to those coming to Belgium Brussels. Just let me know. Best regards, Rudi Vansnick President/CEO Internet Society Belgium Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 17:49:35 on Mon, 7 Feb 2011, carlos watson > writes >>Comments about this >> >>http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/USGmonstrosity.pdf >>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20030854-501465.html > > Ultimately, you need to participate (remotely if not in person) at the > GAC/Board meeting in Brussels and hear the arguments at first hand. > > As for the case supporting objections: if Germany blocked .nazi at a > national firewall (their national laws might make it compulsory to do > so), some would call that "breaking the Internet" because it defeats the > principle of universal reachability. So their answer would be to make > sure it was never issued, so never had to be blocked. But that does > indicate that there might be quite a long list of such potential TLDs, > and ignores blocking going on today. > > And not just because of "morality" issues. Some countries block > skype.com, so you'd expect them also to block .skype; and of course this > is all before we start to consider names which are quite inoffensive in > their native tongue but mean something rude in another (this issue has > been addressed previously by some authorities administering vehicle > vanity licence plates - sometimes there are lessons we can learnt from > other name-spaces, although the trademark name-space seems to have got > its teeth firmly into the issue already). > > Finally, I don't think "but they cost $200k and no-one will risk > spending that on an easily rejectable name" is a useful stance, because > I'm not sure a fine of that magnitude for falling at the first hurdle > would be judged equitable, and one day the price may well be only $100. > -- > 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Feb 8 15:42:31 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 18:42:31 -0200 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D4B7B1A.70403@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <650502F2-8CD6-42D3-A52C-7E19E541725F@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377E4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B7B1A.70403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Miguel, thanks very much for this detailed and useful summary. Indeed, the comments made in response to some of the questions (such as regional meetings and remote participation) were in other threads. I have gathered these e-mail messages and saved them in the doc file attached, just for easier reference in the future. No time to edit them, though. Sorry. I take the opportunity to also forward the contribution I sent to the CSTD Secretariat last week. Happy to see it is in tune with your summary. Marília On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:05 AM, parminder wrote: > Enclosed is our first set of inputs to the draft structure of WGIGF > report circulated by the WG chair. > > And thanks Miguel for your very good points. parminder > > > Miguel Alcaine wrote: > > Dear all, > > I am also late to participate in this thread again. > > This might be one of my last active contributions to this mailing list > because in a short period of time, I will start working for an entity where > it is not possible to fit as civil society. Once the formalities are done, I > will post those details in this list. Dear colleagues: Keep the great work, > not only around the IGF and the UN, but all around the IG ecosystem. > > I read all emails, highlighted some ideas and used them to prepare the > following comments as a draft summary (with some twisting sometimes but > hopefully without hurting the original idea) of this thread so far. I > expect, we will be in a position to submit something based on this to the > Secretariat as soon as possible. > > *There is no suggestions yet on remote participation or national and > regional IGFs. Are they in another email thread?* > > ***Here is the start of the draft summary*** > > 1) IGF mandate is defined in the Tunis Agenda, as well as the recent UN > General Assembly's directions to improve the IGF towards some specific > purposes. > > *2) IGF* > > 2.1) People support having 2 days of workshops (workshop phase) and > consecutively 2 days of main sessions at IGF meetings. There is awareness of > the risks of high ranking participants chossing only to be in the main > session days. For that risk, there was a suggestion to schedule something to > attrack this people to assist from the beginning but not in parallel with > workshops. To my knowledge there were no specifics on this suggestion. > 2.2) The need for a positive output from IGF is widely shared. The word > "messages" is the best among other possible choices. They should be non > negotiated text from a recognized (and respected) source as the chair, a > rapporteur the secretariat or something else. (This idea is taken to another > level in the MAG section) > 2.3) To be innovative and creative, 7 new roles for IGF were propossed: i) > observatory, ii) clearinghouse, iii) laboratory, iv) school, v) scout, vi) > early warning system and vii) wachtdog. Of those iii and iv received support > while on the others there is a need for further discussion to clarified > them. > > > *3) Workshops.* There are two kinds of workshops. The first type should > work in harmony with the respective main session. > > 3.1) The bar should be higher to accept propossals. > 3.2) The quality and the assurance of quality need to be improved. > 3.3) Should have A declared purpose or goal as part of the evaluation > process was suggested. > 3.4) Could also identify messages that should be passed to the respective > main sessions. > 3.5) Organizers should be efficient and held accountable. > 3.6) There was even a suggestion to work backwards between the respective > main session and the workshops. This is to identify the different parts a > topic may have and guide the workshops in this sense (This is exactly how > the subrgroup mailing list made for the IG4D session for the last IGF and > my best guess is that the same approach was followed by the subgroup on > cloud computing). > 3,7) The merge of different workshops, apparently similar, has not worked > out well in general (it does not work electronically and in a "short" period > of time). > 3.8) Workshops atracting the same audience should not happen at the same > time. > 3.9) Need to keep a truly multi stakeholder nature for the workshops. > 3.10) As a result of the preceding suggestions, there might be an increase > in negative responses to propossals. > > > * 4) MAG* > > 4.1) It was suggested that links should be established between the MAG and > other bodies wit actual decision making power, including to feed into the EC > mechanism, if it exists in the future. > 4.2) As usually there is no time to transform rough material into material > that is fit for policy making during wrap up at workshops or main sessions > and therefore there is a need for more time and more careful discussion to > transform these summaries into something that can serve as input for policy, > MAG sould be charged with proposing action lines regarding policies and > regulation, based on the input received from the IGF. > 4.3) Should also be responsible to foster coordination with other > organizations on the IG ecosystem. > 4.4) Should communicate the aforementioned action lines regarding policies > and regulation to the spaces/ forums/ bodies etc that should and would make > actual policies, and > 4.5) MAG should keep up an ongoing process of reviewing what has been > happening to the outcomes of the IGF, and how well or not they have been > followed up". > > > * 5) Intergovernmental Machinery* > > 5.1) Amend ECOSOC res 2007/8 to require the IGF Secretariat to submit > directly its respective report to the CSTD Secretariat, as it is the case > already explicitly for GAID. This will be in addition of what DESA includes > in its respective report, as GAID and IGF are part of DESA. > 5.2) As CSTD is in charge of assisting ECOSOC with the system-wide > follow-up of WSIS, including the IGF, the CSTD and its Secretariat should > adopt - mutis mutandis - some of the effective practices of the IGF and its > Secretariat, like keeping its multistakeholderism, remote participation and > real time transcripts. > > > *** end of the draft summary *** > > Best, > > Miguel > > > -- > PK > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSTD_IGF_questionnaire-Marília_Maciel.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 104476 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Other_comments_CSTD_WG_questionnaire.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 271832 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Feb 8 16:08:52 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:08:52 +0500 Subject: [governance] Updating Wikipedia.org section on Internet Governance Forum Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I would like to request a bit of time from your busy schedules to contribute towards the updating of the IGF Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum. This entry serves as a major source of public information about IGF and as it progresses requires regular updates and improvements. I thank you in advance. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 8 16:35:33 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:35:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] 2010 Pacific Island mobile market update Message-ID: Dear All, This is the link for the 2010 Pacific Islands Mobile Market Update which was carried out by Network Strategies. This should give a perspective of Mobile Penetration in the Pacific. http://www.strategies.nzl.com/wpapers/2010012.htm Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Feb 9 05:12:51 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:12:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> Message-ID: <15187054.110886.1297246371577.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f17> Same for me ... if I'm authorized to vote. Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT - France Chaire UNESCO - University Strasbourg > Message du 07/02/11 06:25 > De : "Divina MEIGS" > A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Jeremy Malcolm" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement > > Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement Same for me, Jeremy > > Divina Frau-Meigs > France > > > > > Le 07/02/11 01:27, « Norbert Klein » a écrit : > > Same for me, if it is not too late. > > Back from hospital in Thailand... > > > Norbert Klein > Phnom Penh/Cambodia > > = > -------- Original Message --------    >  Subject:  Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement   >  Date:  Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:07:32 -0500   >  From:  Thomas Lowenhaupt    >  Reply-To:  governance at lists.cpsr.org,Thomas Lowenhaupt    >  To:  governance at lists.cpsr.org   >  CC:  Jeremy Malcolm    > > If it's not too late, place me on that bandwagon. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 2/6/2011 2:54 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >   > > Hi Jeremy and Izumi and everyone > I did not vote on this , because I was out traveling . However I do support the draft statement . > I too do not wish my absence to be read as lack of interest  nor do I wish to lose my status as a member in good standing. > Thank you for all you good work! >  Shaila >   >   >    > Life is too short ....challenge the rules > > Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly > > Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!  > > >    > >   >   > >   > > From: Jeremy Malcolm >  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >  Sent: Sun, February 6, 2011 5:48:54 AM >  Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement >   > Apart from comments on the list, 58 people expressed support for our draft statement in the online poll.  One person opposed, but that was Norbert Bollow whose concerns have since been addressed.  After discussion with Izumi we are declaring the statement approved by consensus, with the two additions earlier discussed.  The final statement is now linked from the front page of our Web site and will be submitted to the Secretariat. > >   >   > For transparency (all IGF polls and votes are open unless declared otherwise), those who participated in the poll were: >   >   Jeremy Malcolm  Dave Kissoondoyal  Ian Peter  Rafik Dammak  Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED  Parminder Jeet Singh  Anupam Agrawal  Gurumurthy Kasinathan  Baudouin SCHOMBE  Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA  Omar Kaminski  Janna Anderson  Kwasi Opare  Imran Ahmed Shah  Fouad Bajwa  Yuliya Morenets  Charity Gamboa-Embley  George Sadowsky  michael gurstein  anita gurumurthy  krittika vishwanath  Nnenna Nwakanma  Norbert Bollow  Jean-Yves Gatete  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy  Lorena Jaume-Palasi  David Allen  Pascal Bekono  Hong Xue  Marilia Maciel  Fatimata SEYE SYLLA  Anna Orlova  Daniel Pimienta  Roxana Goldstein  Bernard Sadaka  Hakikur Rahman  Shahzad Ahmad  Deirdre Williams  Ben Wagner  Siranush Vardanyan  Solomon Gizaw  Rudi Vansnick  Tijani Ben Jemaa  Tapani Tarvainen  Monique Chartrand  Adam Peake  Jeremy Hunsinger  Christian H. Roland  Carlos A. Afonso  Valeria Betancourt  Ray Plzak  Erick Iriarte  Brenden Kuerbis  Ginger Paque  Hanane Boujemi  Danny Butt  Lyman Chapin  Wolfgang Kleinwächter  Fearghas McKay   >   > (As a side-note, it is SO much easier to tell you that, now that we have a membership database!) >   >   > >   > >   >   >   > >   >   > --  >   > > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > >   >   >   >   >   >   >   >   >   >   > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers  >  CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world > > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > >   >   >   >   >   >   >   >   >   >   > > > >  Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > >   >   >   >   > >   > >   >   >   > >   > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 15:09:39 2011 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:09:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] CSW Feb 2011 , New York Message-ID: <509474.72405.qm@web161903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi Everyone Is any one on this list going to be at the CSW in NY If so let me know . Shaila Rao Mistry Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! -------------- 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 ecrire at catherine-roy.net Fri Feb 11 15:34:50 2011 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (catherine) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:34:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <1297134420.28389.1897.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> <1297134420.28389.1897.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <9d7392f131229bfae4594d8d447dbcc9.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Hi, Thanks for the information but this does not really answer my request to sign the consensus document. Can you please reply to that? Thanks, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On Mon, February 7, 2011 10:07 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 11:24 +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Hi Jeremy >> >> I would also like to support the statement. I notice that I am not >> listed as a member, which is probably why I did not get the call to >> support the statement. >> >> If not too late, please add my name. And I am trying to register as a >> member. >> >> Others should also check the list of members.. there are many active >> members who are not there yet. >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/12/ > > As it states, this is just a static list of the members as at 10 October > 2010 who voted in the last coordinator elections, so this particular > document hasn't been updated since then and won't be. > > However I am (as time permits) working on a membership list that will be > automatically generated from the membership database and will > immediately reflect those who have qualified for a "voter account". > This will address the concerns of those who are worried that their names > do not appear on the above list. > > But, I need to clarify the purpose of a poll such as that which we just > had. It is not a vote, so we do not need to record those who "voted" > for or against it. Once a statement has been adopted by rough > consensus, it becomes a document of the caucus at large. By the same > token, a "voter account" is needed to participate in such a poll. > > A voter account is only used to select the new coordinator each year, > and during the year following that, the same voters may also vote on any > amendments to the Charter. > > I hope that clarifies things - agreed that it is confusing, and if you > want to talk about how things can be improved, there is a (currently > small and inactive) charter review working group that you can join. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on > the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > > Twitter #CICongress > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Feb 11 16:25:07 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:25:07 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] CSW Feb 2011 , New York In-Reply-To: <509474.72405.qm@web161903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <509474.72405.qm@web161903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46331.41.241.214.195.1297459507.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Dear Shaila.. APC will have people there. I am cc ing them. Will put you in touch with them. Also look out for a special edition of http://www.genderit.org/ which we will put out next week for CSW. Anriette > Hi Everyone > Is any one on this list going to be at the CSW in NY > If so let me know . > Shaila Rao Mistry > > Life is too short ....challenge the rules > Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly > Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Feb 11 23:11:39 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:11:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: <9d7392f131229bfae4594d8d447dbcc9.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> <1297134420.28389.1897.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <9d7392f131229bfae4594d8d447dbcc9.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: On 12/02/2011, at 4:34 AM, catherine wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the information but this does not really answer my request to > sign the consensus document. Can you please reply to that? It can't be signed, because there are no signatures attached to it. It is only signed by the "Internet Governance Caucus" as a collective. The poll that was conducted was not a request for signatures, but just a way for the coordinators to gauge the level of support that the statement had from IGC members, so that they could declare consensus on it or not. In the past, we didn't even use a poll for that, we just asked people to put their thoughts on the mailing list. There are only two types of formal votes that the IGC ever takes - voting for coordinators, and voting for charter amendments. Every other decision is made by rough consensus. I hope this explains the position better. -- 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 for Fair Financial Services World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and competitive markets in financial services for all. http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 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 ecrire at catherine-roy.net Sat Feb 12 00:20:06 2011 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (catherine) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:20:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on themes statement In-Reply-To: References: <4D4F3C78.1040004@gmx.net> <4D4FBA69.9040209@apc.org> <1297134420.28389.1897.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <9d7392f131229bfae4594d8d447dbcc9.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <36a5374d01ddb6742c422426fc5fd4c9.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Yes, that makes things much clearer, thanks. Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On Fri, February 11, 2011 11:11 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 12/02/2011, at 4:34 AM, catherine wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the information but this does not really answer my request to >> sign the consensus document. Can you please reply to that? > > It can't be signed, because there are no signatures attached to it. It is > only signed by the "Internet Governance Caucus" as a collective. The poll > that was conducted was not a request for signatures, but just a way for > the coordinators to gauge the level of support that the statement had from > IGC members, so that they could declare consensus on it or not. In the > past, we didn't even use a poll for that, we just asked people to put > their thoughts on the mailing list. There are only two types of formal > votes that the IGC ever takes - voting for coordinators, and voting for > charter amendments. Every other decision is made by rough consensus. I > hope this explains the position better. > > -- > 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 for Fair Financial Services > World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 > Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and > competitive markets in financial services for all. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 12 01:49:01 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:19:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: below the societal usage layer In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37817@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110207091627.061cb548@jefsey.com>,<4B5FE47F-659F-417E-ACC7-201E8B35F5B3@arin.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37817@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D562D5D.5070703@itforchange.net> On Monday 07 February 2011 10:23 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > J > > Anyway, this may all be premature for IGC, but I just wanted to get an early word - and a picture - out to illustrate where we are going, and what we will be defining more precisely in hopefully human-readable documents by next fall, with first draft open specs released about a year from now. If anyone or anything wants to join the virtual club of WiGiT - for now just send me an email, we'll be adding self-service buttons to the website soon. Admission is of course free, as will be explained on our site http://wglab.net, when my students get around to it. Many of whom are from India, and doing very cool things - happy now Parminder? : ) > > Lee > I completely trust you Lee :). But yes I do believe in keeping a suspicious eye on any place of concentration of power, whether that be OECD or G20 (which includes India). More so when a group of actors or a set of institutions seem to be falling into the habit of deciding policy issues knowing very well that such policies are expected, often designed, to impact people and groups outside the political spaces from where these actors/ institutions derive legitimacy, without democratically including them in the decisions. This only means that I believe in democracy, which it appears is living out a tenuous existence in the new brave digital world. Tahrir squares are not only needed in Middle East, there are many more places where power is blatantly usurped. In fact, when dominant power hides behind complicated 'systems' and networks, it may be even more difficult to come up with the right strategies to counter it than when there are obvious symbols of such domination and usurpation (Mubarak, for instance). Just to leave you with a 'democracy thought of the day' :) on a day when democracy made a giant leap, in, and perhaps through, Egypt. Parminder > ' > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of John Curran [jcurran at arin.net] > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 7:10 AM > To: jefsey > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Re: below the societal usage layer > > On Feb 7, 2011, at 3:45 AM, jefsey wrote: >> John, >> >> I think we should give more thinking at the way to turn this situation as an advantage. A smart multi-plug could be a blessing for this and other transitions and other services. >> >> Civil society should not only complain and propose at the societal usage layer, but also at the lower technical and human use layers that condition them. It does not make sense to demand things and not to care about their practical feasibility. > Full agreement... In fact, the development of IPv6 has been one > of the strongest influences on my thoughts regarding the need for > multistakeholder involvement in standards and technical policy > setting activities. > > It's perfectly reasonable to have the technological constraints > play a major factor in outcome determination, but not without > the proactive solicitation of views from those affected by the > results. It's incredibly challenging to get done right, since > you really need to interface both early on with requirements, > and then periodically as an outcome is evolving; also, such > interfaces need to be done at a level that is appropriate (i.e. > it's not reasonable to email a 70 page detailed technical spec > to civil society organizations and ask for input; you have to > prepare briefing materials that explain the current likely > outcome in lay terms) > > In IPv6, this did not happen with even with respect to the ISP > & operator community, let along civil society organizations, and > it shows in the outcome. > > /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 > -- PK -------------- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Feb 12 12:08:19 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 18:08:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: below the societal usage layer In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37817@suex07-mbx-08.a d.syr.edu> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110207091627.061cb548@jefsey.com> <4B5FE47F-659F-417E-ACC7-201E8B35F5B3@arin.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37817@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110212163246.05ed8d70@jefsey.com> On 17:53 07/02/2011, Lee W McKnight said: >If anyone or anything wants to join the virtual club of WiGiT - for >now just send me an email, we'll be adding self-service buttons to >the website soon. Admission is of course free, as will be explained >on our site http://wglab.net, when my students get around to it. I certainly am. Just cast a glance: is a meshed network management technology included? I understand that satellite links could be supported? best jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Feb 12 12:34:46 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:34:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: below the societal usage layer In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110212163246.05ed8d70@jefsey.com> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <4D4DF42F.7070601@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110207091627.061cb548@jefsey.com> <4B5FE47F-659F-417E-ACC7-201E8B35F5B3@arin.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37817@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<7.0.1.0.2.20110212163246.05ed8d70@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B37890@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi. First parminder, indeed very exciting and hopeful times in newest democracy Egypt. Re mesh nets, llead developer of the new mesh sensor network spec IEEE 802.15.5, Prof. Myung Lee of CCNY (City College of New York) recently joined effort. As to actually managing all the open pieces, well you all better get to work ; ) But seriously, general concept is a mesh - or grid - can be made across any digital device, resource, application, or service. So low-power sensor meshes of consumer electronics devices cooperating with each other - I believe the first application space imagined by Prof. Lee - or much larger digital devices - like satellites - can be tied together. In due course, as we expand beyond the first ~10 universities ~10 companies and a few random other government partners in Portugal, Virginia, and oh yeah OECD. Which honestly isn't paying much attention to us just yet, beyond agreeing to -watch - while concept grew. Anyway, in reply both to you and Parminder, at the first instance the draft open spec suite for wireless grids will be set by rough consensus, with admittedly the 2 co-PIs myself and Prof. Tamal Bose at Virginia Tech carrying a bit more weight. Beyond that it will be to the open/virtual/participatory organization of WiGiT to carry things forward and fill in details like managing satellite meshes from your iPhone ; ) Since conversation on this is continuing on governance list. permit me to invite as many of you as have time to virtually participate in 8th WiGiT Meeting, March 14, held at Virginia Tech. Draft agenda will be out soon and pretty techie since we are in that early stage of effort, but I will ensure as we always do that there is time in agenda for anyone from anywhere to comment. Lee PS: And if anyone was really really motivated to go hang @ Virginia Tech for full day of demos of 'Cognitive Radio Network Testbed' and other building blocks, as I said just email me. Otherwise, meetings are recorded and folks can watch webcasts at their leisure, at http://wglab.net. ________________________________________ From: jefsey [jefsey at jefsey.com] Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 12:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] RE: below the societal usage layer On 17:53 07/02/2011, Lee W McKnight said: >If anyone or anything wants to join the virtual club of WiGiT - for >now just send me an email, we'll be adding self-service buttons to >the website soon. Admission is of course free, as will be explained >on our site http://wglab.net, when my students get around to it. I certainly am. Just cast a glance: is a meshed network management technology included? I understand that satellite links could be supported? best jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 12 12:41:06 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 09:41:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: FW: Blogpost: Immiserating the Poor: We Have An App For That (Social Media vs. the iPhone in Egypt and a Kenyan slum) Message-ID: <08D7D73FAE994B9EA1FB711A63C2A20E@userPC> Since we seem to be drifting a bit in our discussion and discussing "societal usage" this below might be of interest... Immiserating the Poor: We Have An App For That (Social Media vs. the iPhone in Egypt and a Kenyan slum) The fundamental problem with all of this comes in the failure to distinguish between the residents of Kibera as consumers using their cell phones and this "shiny app" to pursue their individual consumer dreams, and the residents of Kibera as citizens who could and should be insisting on the availability of water as a right of residence or alternatively developing some community based collaborative approach to responding to the water crisis. http://wp.me/pJQl5-5P Michael Gurstein ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sat Feb 12 14:19:40 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:19:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Confirmation of dates Sept 25-30 as dates for IGF 2011? Message-ID: Hello everyone, Is it pretty much confirmed that the dates for IGF 2011 in Nairobi are (generally) the week of 25-30 September 2011? I would be keen on adjusting my professional calendar accordingly. I have been able to squeeze this off the http://dcs.unon.org site where if you are diligent (and use Google's cache), you will find reference to Thursday, 29 September 2011, 15:00 - 18:00 by admin Hits : 107 6th Meeting of the *Internet Governance Forum* *Location : *Room 7 at http://dcs.unon.org/en/conferenceservices/calender-of-events/icalrepeat.detail/2011/09/29/46223/68/NjZmM2JmMWUtNzNiYi00ZDVmLTk0OWYtNWY2NDY2NjE3ZDlk where -------------- 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 ecrire at catherine-roy.net Sun Feb 13 20:32:14 2011 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (catherine) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:32:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cuba's Internet Capacity To Increase 3,000x In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4e5b9f45c58a73a67336261ebdd3052c.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Cuba's Internet Capacity To Increase 3,000x According to a press release from the International Telecommunications Union, a new undersea data cable connected to Cuba this week will increase the amount of the country's data and video transmission speed 3,000-fold when it becomes operation this summer. Read more : -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On Sat, February 5, 2011 1:16 am, catherine wrote: > FYI: > > Why the Web Is Useless in Developing Countries – And How to Fix It > > Like many who study the struggles of developing countries, Steve Bratt has > done the math on the potential of mobile phones. The United Nation’s > International Telecommunication Union estimated that at the end of 2010 > there were 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide and that a > full 90% of the world population now has access to a mobile network. In > contrast, only about 2 billion people have Internet access. > > The high prevalence of mobile phones (even in developing countries, > penetration rates were expected to reach 68% by the end of 2010) has led > many non-profits to choose mobile networks as tools for positive change. > Mobile banking in Kenya has helped farmers increase their incomes, 300,000 > people in Bangladesh signed up to learn English through their phones, and > many consider mobile phones the key to developing nations. > > But Bratt, now the CEO of The World Wide Web Foundation, came up with a > different hypothesis when he looked at the 3.3 billion-person gap between > mobile phone users and Internet users. Theoretically, he thinks that the > two numbers could one day even out as people use their phones to log onto > the Internet. > > Read more: > > http://mashable.com/2011/02/04/web-developing-world > > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Feb 13 20:37:56 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:37:56 -0200 Subject: [governance] EuroDIG draft programme online: public consultation open until Feb 22 Message-ID: Hello all, Just a quick remind that the *draft programme* for the next EuroDIG has been put online for *public consultation until Feb 22.* This programme has been put together based on the inputs received: responses to the online agenda survey, e-mails and workshop proposals. You can see the programmme here: http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2011/programme A platform has been created to allow comments to be post to every item of the programme, with the aim to foster debate and facilitate the summary of the discussions: http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/eurodig_prog/ Alternatively, you can send your comments by e-mail: office at eurodig.org An *EuroDIG planning meeting* will take place in February 24th, in Geneva. Options for remote participation will be available and further information will be publicized in due time. Information about the agenda of the meeting can be found here: http://www.eurodig.org/important/2nd-planning-meeting-24-feb-2011-geneva Best wishes, Marilia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:09 PM Subject: EuroDIG - Information letter no. 01/11 To: office at eurodig.org [image: cid:4BBF99E7.4051B7AB.00000002] Information letter no. 01/11 Dear EuroDIGGERS with this letter we like to provide you the following information and milestones about EuroDIG 2011: 1. Public comment period on the draft programme is now open until 22 February 2011 2. 24 February 2011: 2nd preparatory meeting in Geneva 3. 1 March 2011: finalized programme online * * ********************************************************************************** *1. Public comment period on the draft programme is now open until 22 February 2011* Based on the workshop proposals (WSP) we received a programme was drafted. We invite herewith to comment this programme. *Please post your input on the** **comment platform **. *The public comment period will remain open until 22 February 2011. *2. 24 February 2011: 2nd preparatory meeting in Geneva- participate also remotely! * EuroDIGs 2nd open planning meeting in Geneva, will be held in the UN’s premises in Geneva on 24 February 2011 from 2 – 4 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the EuroDIG 2011 programme proposals. read more… *3. 1 March 2011: finalized programme online* After the discussion and the evaluation of the comments received during the public comment period the programme will be finalized by the 1 March 2011. You are welcome to participate in this discussion on 24 February 2011 in Geneva (see item no. 2 above). * * * * *NOTE:** 12 February 2011- Last chance to apply for DiploFoundation’s 2011 foundation courses* A call for applications for Diplo's ACP Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Internet Governance (IG) Capacity Development Programme Foundation Course has been issued to all government and sub-regional/regional institutions of ACP countries involved in ICT and IG policy as well as civil society, business, academia, media, and other interested individuals or groups. This 12-week online course is designed to improve ICT- and IG-related knowledge read more… The EuroDIG team If you don’t want to receive this information letter in the future please send a short message to office at eurodig.org . * * ------------------------------ S a n d r a H o f e r i c h t e r Management and Communication *European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG)* Medienstadt Leipzig e.V. / Netcom Institute PF 650 107 D-04189 Leipzig Fon: +49.341.301 28 27 Fax: +49.341.945 60 11 Mobile: +49.163.380 87 85 office at eurodig.org www.eurodig.org [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] [image: cid:image002.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] [image: cid:image002.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] [image: cid:image002.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] [image: cid:image002.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] [image: Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.] -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 168 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19555 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 169 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Feb 14 17:11:31 2011 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:11:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts regarding the selection of the next MAG Chair (possible criteria) Message-ID: Dear all, As we are preparing for the February IGF consultations and the first (unfortunately closed) meeting of the WGIIGF (or WOGII : WOrking Group on Improvements to the Igf), there is one element that deserves some attention: the future selection of the future MAG Chair. In order to launch the discussion on this list, I have listed below *some possible criteria* that could be taken into account and used as input by CS participants in the WOGII. They are largely based on the reasons why Nitin Desai has been exemplary in this role and they constitute a useful benchmark for any successor, albeit a difficult one to match. This is only a seed and comments are of course welcome. 1) First and foremost, *the new MAG Chair must elicit trust among all stakeholder groups*, by his/her reputation in terms of neutrality, patience, understanding of the notion and challenges of multi-stakeholder dialogue, and capacity to moderate discussions on sensitive topics, foster consensus and constructively summarize complex exchanges into actionable items. 2) Even if in principle it should be possible to choose this person from any stakeholder group (and in a long-term perspective this should be the case), the next five year period would probably benefit from *a MAG Chair with governmental (or international organization) experience*, in order to facilitate acceptance even by the critical governments. If this is the case, an additional experience within civil society, the business sector or the technical community would certainly be a plus. 3) During his/her tenure, *the MAG Chair should preferably not be in an active position within an organization actively involved in the IGF process*, in order to limit potential conflicts of interests, illustrate neutrality and ensure time availability for the critical meetings. This points to people that are retired, or willing to leave their current function (but the Chair position is not full-time and is not paid) or active in different domains with schedule flexibility. 4) *The MAG Chair should have attended at least one recent IGF* (and hopefully more than one), to have a concrete experience of the unique format of the event and its dynamics. This is necessary because the working methods of the IGF have evolved through time and they are not formalized and documented yet. Knowledge of the existing good practices is therefore essential. Having sponsored, participated in or organized workshops or moderated panels would be a plus. 5) Additionally, *the MAG Chair should preferably have himself/herself been a member of the MAG, at least for one year*: this is where the role of the Chair is the most important and firsthand understanding of the potential and limits of this particular structure could prove critical in fulfilling this role. 6) Finally, and ideally, *the MAG Chair should have participated in the WSIS, at least its second phase*, to have a holistic understanding of the history and the delicate balance that allowed consensus around the creation of the IGF in the first place. These criteria are not absolute requirements and are more or less listed in order of importance. However, the first one (eliciting trust among all stakeholder groups) should be considered an absolute must. The other criteria are contributing to this essential trust-building in the second mandate of the IGF. I hope this helps foster a useful discussion on this list and - hopefully - in the Working Group. Looking forward to more discussion. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Feb 14 18:58:25 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:58:25 +1100 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts regarding the selection of the next MAG Chair (possible criteria) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Bertrand, Let me put on my requirements ranking hat and respond to your various criteria by labelling them MANDATORY, HIGHLY DESIRABLE, DESIRABLE, and LESS IMPORTANT (in line below with some reasoning where it might help)). Hope that helps in moving the discussion forward. From: Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE Reply-To: , Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:11:31 +0100 To: Subject: [governance] Some thoughts regarding the selection of the next MAG Chair (possible criteria) Dear all,   As we are preparing for the February IGF consultations and the first (unfortunately closed) meeting of the WGIIGF (or WOGII : WOrking Group on Improvements to the Igf), there is one element that deserves some attention: the future selection of the future MAG Chair.   In order to launch the discussion on this list, I have listed below some possible criteria that could be taken into account and used as input by CS participants in the WOGII. They are largely based on the reasons why Nitin Desai has been exemplary in this role and they constitute a useful benchmark for any successor, albeit a difficult one to match.   This is only a seed and comments are of course welcome.   1)    First and foremost, the new MAG Chair must elicit trust among all stakeholder groups, by his/her reputation in terms of neutrality, patience, understanding of the notion and challenges of multi-stakeholder dialogue, and capacity to moderate discussions on sensitive topics, foster consensus and constructively summarize complex exchanges into actionable items. MANDATORY   2)    Even if in principle it should be possible to choose this person from any stakeholder group (and in a long-term perspective this should be the case), the next five year period would probably benefit from a MAG Chair with governmental (or international organization) experience, in order to facilitate acceptance even by the critical governments. If this is the case, an additional experience within civil society, the business sector or the technical community would certainly be a plus. HIGHLY DESIRABLE   3)    During his/her tenure, the MAG Chair should preferably not be in an active position within an organization actively involved in the IGF process, in order to limit potential conflicts of interests, illustrate neutrality and ensure time availability for the critical meetings. This points to people that are retired, or willing to leave their current function (but the Chair position is not full-time and is not paid) or active in different domains with schedule flexibility. MANDATORY   4)    The MAG Chair should have attended at least one recent IGF (and hopefully more than one), to have a concrete experience of the unique format of the event and its dynamics. This is necessary because the working methods of the IGF have evolved through time and they are not formalized and documented yet. Knowledge of the existing good practices is therefore essential. Having sponsored, participated in or organized workshops or moderated panels would be a plus. HIGHLY DESIRABLE   5)    Additionally, the MAG Chair should preferably have himself/herself been a member of the MAG, at least for one year: this is where the role of the Chair is the most important and firsthand understanding of the potential and limits of this particular structure could prove critical in fulfilling this role. NOT IMPORTANT. I think this narrows the field too much and could lead to a more incestuous future rather than the capacity to invoke new directions and possibilities   6)    Finally, and ideally, the MAG Chair should have participated in the WSIS, at least its second phase, to have a holistic understanding of the history and the delicate balance that allowed consensus around the creation of the IGF in the first place. DESIRABLE   These criteria are not absolute requirements and are more or less listed in order of importance. However, the first one (eliciting trust among all stakeholder groups) should be considered an absolute must. The other criteria are contributing to this essential trust-building in the second mandate of the IGF.   I hope this helps foster a useful discussion on this list and - hopefully - in the Working Group. Looking forward to more discussion. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Tue Feb 15 05:10:53 2011 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:10:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Deadline Extension: SAR/SSI 2011 CFP Message-ID: <013701cbccf8$a1374220$e3a5c660$@unimi.it> *** Apologies for possible cross-postings. Please send it to interested colleagues and students. *** *********************************************************** *** Paper Submission Extended: March 1, 2011 *** *********************************************************** SAR/SSI-2011 International Conference on Network and Information Systems Security La Rochelle, France - 18-21 May 2011 The SAR-SSI conference series provides a forum for presenting novel research results, practical experiences and innovative ideas in network and information systems security. The goal of SAR-SSI-2011 is fostering exchanges among academic researchers, industry and a wider audience interested in network and information system security. The conference will offer a broad area of events, ranging from panels, tutorials, technical presentations and informal meetings. Prospective authors are encouraged to submit papers describing novel research contributions as well as proposals for tutorials and panels. Submissions can address theoretical issues in network and information system security or provide practical and operational experiences in security management. Languages for papers and presentations can be French or English, both languages being used in SAR-SSI. TOPICS Authors are invited to submit research papers, papers presenting a practical experience or new industrial applications, panel and tutorial proposals on topics related to network and information systems security. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: +Network Security - Security of new network architectures (e.g. VoIP, MAN/WAN, Giga-Ethernet) - Security in wireless and adhoc networks, - Security of communications (e.g. VPN, IPsec, SSL, MPLS) - Security in backbone and IPv6 networks - Multicast security - Security in peer-to-peer systems - Security in embedded networks +Formal methods and models for computer security - Applied cryptography - Authentication and access control - Anonymity and privacy - Metrology and security measurement - Public Key Infrastructures (PKI) - Security protocols - Security assessment and certification - Trust representation and management +Computer Forensics and Incident Response - Intrusion detection systems, honeypots - Worms, Viruses, Botnets, Malware and Spyware - Security assessment +Software and Systems Security - Reverse engineering and software protection - Methodology, ethics, legislation and regulation - Biometry and watermarking - E-commerce security - Security in vehicular communications +XML, Web Services and Cloud Security - Web services and GRID computing security - Security on Untrusted Clouds - Frameworks for managing inter-organizational trust relationships - Web services exploitation of Trusted Computing - Secure orchestration of Web services PAPER SUBMISSIONS Submissions should not exceed 15 pages must include on the cover page the paper title, author(s) name(s) and affiliation, a full address (Phone, fax, e-mail), an abstract of the paper (150 words max) and no more than 5 keywords. Authors must submit an electronic version of their paper (PDF / A4 format). Authors are requested to use the sarssi.cls type and use the alpha style for the bibliography. For the final version the sources of the contribution in LaTeX will also be required. All accepted papers will also be published in the conference proceeding by IEEE, and will be indexed by IEEE Xplore Digital Library. The submission of papers must be done through the EasyChair Conference system using the following page: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sarssi2011 PANEL PROPOSALS The conference may include panel sessions addressing topics of interest to the computer security community. Proposals for panels should list possible panellists, specifying those who have confirmed participation. Please submit panel proposals by email to the TPC co-chairs. JOURNAL PUBLICATION Authors of the best papers selected by the technical program committee will be invited to publish an extended version of their paper in a journal of international audience. TUTORIALS The conference will include a tutorial and prominent invited speakers session. The tutorials will address hot research and/or industry topics relating to network and information systems security. Please submit tutorial proposals by email to the TPC co-chairs. IMPORTANT DATES Submission: March 1st, 2011 -- EXTENDED DEADLINE Notification: March 29th, 2011 Registration: April 18th, 2011 (reduced fare) Camera Ready Version: April 25th, 2011 Conference: May 18th - 21st, 2011 COMMITTEES General Chairs - Ahmed Serhrouchni, Télécom ParisTech, France Steering Committee - Abdelmajid Bouabdallah, UTC, France - Danielle Boulanger, Univ. Lyon-Jean Moulin, France - Isabelle Chrisment, Université Nancy I, France - Alban Gabillon, Université de la Polynésie Française - Ludovic Mé, Supélec, France - Ahmed Serhrouchni, Télécom ParisTech, France Technical Program Committee Chair - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Organizing Committee - Ibrahim Hajjeh, Ineovation, France - Jean Leneutre, Télécom ParisTech, France - Radwan Saâd, Télécom ParisTech, France - Ahmed Serhrouchni, Télécom ParisTech, France - Youcef Begriche, IEEE, France - Rim Moalla, Télécom ParisTech, France Technical Program Committee - Mhamed Abdallah, Telecom Sud Paris, France - Mohammed Achemlal, France Telecom / Orange, France - Hossam Afifi, Telecom Sud Paris, France - Claudio Agostino Ardagna, Univ. degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Gildas Avoine, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgique - Mohammed Badra, Limos CNRS, Clermont Ferrand, France - Youcef Begriche, IEEE, France - Patrick Bellot, Télécom ParisTech, France - Nadia Bennani, INSA-Lyon, France - Abdelmalek Benzekri, IRIT, Toulouse, France - Christophe Bidan, Supélec, France - Karima Boudaoud, Université de Nice, France - Adel Bouhoula, SUPCOM of Tunis, Tunisie - Lionel Brunie, INSA-Lyon, France - Laurent Bussard, Microsoft Innovation Center, Germany - Laurent Butti, Orange R&D, France - Marco Casassa-Mont, HPLabs, HK - Yacine Challal, UTC, France - Claude Chaudet, Télécom ParisTech, France - Ken Chen, Université de Paris 13, France - Yves Correc, DGA/CELAR, France - Bernard Cousin, IRISA, France - Mathieu Couture, Carleton University, Canada - Frederic Cuppens, Telecom Bretagne, France - Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Telecom Bretagne, France - Hervé Debar, Telecom Sud Paris, France - Rachida Dssouli, Concordia University, Canada - Anas Abou El Kalam, ENSEEIHT, France - Robert Erra, ESIEA, Paris, France - Mounir Frikha, SUPCOM of Tunis, Tunisie - Laurent Gallon, Université de Pau, France - Sihem Guemara, SUPCOM of Tunis, Tunisie - Gilles Guette, University of Rennes 1, France - Vincent Guyot, ESIEA, Paris, France - Gaétan Hains, Université Paris-Est, France - Ibrahim Hajjeh, Ineovation, France - Artur Hecker, Télécom ParisTech, France - Guillaume Hiet, Supélec, France - Mathieu Jaume, Lab. d'Informatique de Paris 6, France - Rida Khatoun, UTT, Troyes, France - Abou Khaled Omar, HES.SO, Fribourg, Switzerland - Djamel Khadraoui, CRP Henri Tudor, Luxembourg - Houda Labiod, Télécom ParisTech, France - Mohamed Lambarki, ESIEA, Paris, France - Jean-Louis Lanet, University of Limoges, France - Maryline Laurent, Telecom Sud Paris, France - Daniel Le Métayer, INRIA Grenoble - Rhône-Alpes, France - Jean Leneutre, Télécom ParisTech, France - Bruno Martin, Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis, France - Fabio Martinelli, IIT-CNR, Italy - Ludovic Mé, Supélec, France - Mohamed Mosbah, Labri, Bordeaux, France - Elena Mugellini, HES.SO, Fribourg, Swizertland - Farid Naït-Abdesselam, Univ. of Paris Descartes, France - Philippe Owezarski, LAAS, CNRS, France - Guillaume Piolle, Supélec, France - Fabien Pouget, CERTA, France - Nicolas Prigent, Supélec, France - Guy Pujolle, Laboratoire d'Informatique de Paris 6, France - Jean-Luc Richier, Lab. d'Informatique de Grenoble, France - Etienne Riviere, Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland - Jean-Marc Robert, École de Tech. Supérieure, Canada - Yves Roudier, Institut Eurécom, France - Jörg Schwenk, University of Bochum, Germany - Eric Totel, Supélec, France - Frederic Tronel, Supélec, France - Pascal Urien, Télécom ParisTech, France - Valerie Viet Triem Tong, Supélec, France -------------- 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 Feb 15 17:50:06 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:50:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] Clinton's remarks on Internet freedom and US policy. Message-ID: A very interesting speech... trying, but only partially succeeding at squaring the circle supporting FB in Egypt and opposing Wikileaks in the US but interesting nevertheless. M http://www.scribd.com/doc/48895078/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-Feb-15-2011 Hillary Rodham Clinton; Feb. 15, 2011 www.scribd.com Full text of Clinton's remarks on Internet freedom and US policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 16 09:08:36 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:08:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?FW=3A_=5BIP=5D_Fwd=3A_Webcast=3A_U?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=2ES=2E_Senate_Hearing_on_seizing_websites_=96_today_2/1?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?6?= In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B378D3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI ________________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:05 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Fwd: Webcast: U.S. Senate Hearing on seizing websites – today 2/16 Begin forwarded message: From: Joly MacFie > Date: February 16, 2011 2:54:59 AM EST To: dave > Cc: ip > Subject: Webcast: U.S. Senate Hearing on seizing websites – today 2/16 In contrast to yesterday’s Hillary Clinton speech about Internet Freedom, today, Feb. 16 2011, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing entitled “Targeting Websites Dedicated To Stealing American Intellectual Property” at 10:00 am EST (1500 UTC). This is a followup to last year’s shelving of the COICA act and the recent DHS-ICE site seizures – which some consider to be of dubious legality. Witnesses include representatives of the Authors Guild, Go Daddy, Verizon, and Visa. There will be a webcast. http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1767 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org --------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org --------------------------------------------------------------- Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From robin at ipjustice.org Wed Feb 16 14:30:21 2011 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:30:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] Public Interest Groups to Discuss Controversial Plans to Add New Domains at San Francisco ICANN Meeting Pre-Event Message-ID: NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance and the Global Public Interest 11 March 2011 – Westin St. Francis Hotel -- San Francisco Public Interest Groups to Discuss Controversial Plans to Add New Domains at San Francisco ICANN Meeting Pre-Event craigslist Founder Craig Newmark to Keynote Internet Policy Conference (San Francisco) ICANN’s Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is pleased to host a policy conference “NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance and the Global Public Interest” on Friday 11 March 2011 at the Westin St. Francis Hotel at Union Square in San Francisco. The all-day civil society policy conference will be held immediately before the 40th International ICANN Meeting takes place at the same historic hotel in San Francisco over the next week. NCUC’s conference is targeted at international Internet governance participants, as well as Bay Area law and policy experts, digital rights activists and other civil society organizations concerned with Internet governance policies. “NCUC at ICANN: Internet Governance and the Global Public Interest” will explore a number of Internet policy issues in which NCUC is engaged, including panel discussions on censorship, privacy, intellectual property rights and domain name take-downs. Panelists will examine the appropriate role for national governments vis-à-vis other stakeholders in Internet governance. The conference will also consider ICANN’s ability to address the concerns of developing countries and serve the global public interest. Internet entrepreneur Craig Newmark, founder of the popular website craigslist.org will deliver a keynote address at the conference during lunch. For many years, he has been a vocal advocate of free expression on the Internet, and a strong supporter of many nonprofits that work, online and offline, to serve and unite people worldwide. "ICANN's work in the area of Internet freedom is vital to the future of all enterprises online, and I'm pleased to be a part of this important program," said Newmark. ICANN Chairman of the Board of Directors Peter Dengate Thrush will deliver the closing remarks at the NCUC policy conference. Former ICANN Board Member Karl Auerbach will lead a discussion on the emerging issue of an independent compatible domain name system and the challenges and opportunities such services provide for Internet users. The conference is free and open to the public, but advance registration is required to attend. NCUC plans to webcast the policy conference and provide online remote participation for those who cannot attend in person on 11 March in San Francisco. The conference host, NCUC, represents more than 200 non-commercial organizations and individuals engaged in Internet policymaking within ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). NCUC’s membership includes educational institutions, human rights groups, religious institutions, development-oriented nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, individuals and other non-commercial participants. For more information on the NCUC conference, including a detailed discussion agenda, speaker list and online registration, visit the website or email conference organizer Robin Gross Robin at IPJustice.org. NCUC at ICANN Conference Website: http://www.tinyurl.com/NCUC-SF NCUC Website: http://ncdnhc.org/ ICANN’s 40th International Meeting Website: http://svsf40.icann.org/ IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Wed Feb 16 16:54:27 2011 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:54:27 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] Cuba's Internet Capacity To Increase 3,000x In-Reply-To: <4e5b9f45c58a73a67336261ebdd3052c.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <4e5b9f45c58a73a67336261ebdd3052c.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <020c01cbce24$1d94d9f0$58be8dd0$@uol.com.br> Wonderful news!! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 -----Mensagem original----- De: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de catherine Enviada em: domingo, 13 de fevereiro de 2011 23:32 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Assunto: [governance] Cuba's Internet Capacity To Increase 3,000x Cuba's Internet Capacity To Increase 3,000x According to a press release from the International Telecommunications Union, a new undersea data cable connected to Cuba this week will increase the amount of the country's data and video transmission speed 3,000-fold when it becomes operation this summer. Read more : -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On Sat, February 5, 2011 1:16 am, catherine wrote: > FYI: > > Why the Web Is Useless in Developing Countries – And How to Fix It > > Like many who study the struggles of developing countries, Steve Bratt has > done the math on the potential of mobile phones. The United Nation’s > International Telecommunication Union estimated that at the end of 2010 > there were 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide and that a > full 90% of the world population now has access to a mobile network. In > contrast, only about 2 billion people have Internet access. > > The high prevalence of mobile phones (even in developing countries, > penetration rates were expected to reach 68% by the end of 2010) has led > many non-profits to choose mobile networks as tools for positive change. > Mobile banking in Kenya has helped farmers increase their incomes, 300,000 > people in Bangladesh signed up to learn English through their phones, and > many consider mobile phones the key to developing nations. > > But Bratt, now the CEO of The World Wide Web Foundation, came up with a > different hypothesis when he looked at the 3.3 billion-person gap between > mobile phone users and Internet users. Theoretically, he thinks that the > two numbers could one day even out as people use their phones to log onto > the Internet. > > Read more: > > http://mashable.com/2011/02/04/web-developing-world > > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 presidencia at internauta.org.ar Wed Feb 16 16:59:58 2011 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (presidencia Internauta Argentina) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:59:58 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] Cuba's Internet Capacity To Increase 3,000x In-Reply-To: <020c01cbce24$1d94d9f0$58be8dd0$@uol.com.br> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0348B377EE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D4B317A.1010609@cavebear.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204080420.0b2927f8@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110204101346.0b292a88@jefsey.com> <4D4C8AF3.3040105@cavebear.com> <4e5b9f45c58a73a67336261ebdd3052c.squirrel@webmail.catherine-roy.net> <020c01cbce24$1d94d9f0$58be8dd0$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: <4D5C48DE.6000408@internauta.org.ar> A very good news for the Cuban people and to Latin America ... live Cuba! *Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet LACRALO - ALAC Member facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 * El 16/02/2011 06:54 p.m., Vanda UOL escribió: > Wonderful news!! > > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > IT Trend > Alameda Santos 1470 -- 1407,8 > 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > Mob + 55118181.1464 > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de catherine > Enviada em: domingo, 13 de fevereiro de 2011 23:32 > Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org > Assunto: [governance] Cuba's Internet Capacity To Increase 3,000x > > Cuba's Internet Capacity To Increase 3,000x > > According to a press release from the International Telecommunications > Union, a new undersea data cable connected to Cuba this week will increase > the amount of the country's data and video transmission speed 3,000-fold > when it becomes operation this summer. > > Read more : > > 000_percent.php> > > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > > On Sat, February 5, 2011 1:16 am, catherine wrote: >> FYI: >> >> Why the Web Is Useless in Developing Countries -- And How to Fix It >> >> Like many who study the struggles of developing countries, Steve Bratt has >> done the math on the potential of mobile phones. The United Nation's >> International Telecommunication Union estimated that at the end of 2010 >> there were 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide and that a >> full 90% of the world population now has access to a mobile network. In >> contrast, only about 2 billion people have Internet access. >> >> The high prevalence of mobile phones (even in developing countries, >> penetration rates were expected to reach 68% by the end of 2010) has led >> many non-profits to choose mobile networks as tools for positive change. >> Mobile banking in Kenya has helped farmers increase their incomes, 300,000 >> people in Bangladesh signed up to learn English through their phones, and >> many consider mobile phones the key to developing nations. >> >> But Bratt, now the CEO of The World Wide Web Foundation, came up with a >> different hypothesis when he looked at the 3.3 billion-person gap between >> mobile phone users and Internet users. Theoretically, he thinks that the >> two numbers could one day even out as people use their phones to log onto >> the Internet. >> >> Read more: >> >> http://mashable.com/2011/02/04/web-developing-world >> >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 17 06:07:32 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:07:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts regarding the selection of the next MAG Chair (possible criteria) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 23:11:31 on Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Bertrand de La Chapelle writes >As we are preparing for the February IGF consultations and the first >(unfortunately closed) meeting of the WGIIGF (or WOGII : WOrking Group >on Improvements to the Igf), there is one element that deserves some >attention: the future selection of the future MAG Chair. > >In order to launch the discussion on this list, I have listed below >some possible criteria that could be taken into account and used as >input by CS participants in the WOGII. They are largely based on the >reasons why Nitin Desai has been exemplary in this role and they >constitute a useful benchmark for any successor, albeit a difficult one >to match. If we are looking for someone who has been a long time WSIS participant, a MAG member, and is no longer involved with one of the stakeholders, that narrows things a great deal. We would soon be talking about a small number of identifiable individuals. Are you also talking about a chair *to* the MAG (more on the secretariat side of the fence, appointed by the UN) rather than a chair *of* the MAG, who is chosen from the current MAG membership as their most suitable leader. The former model is common in a corporate setting (where a Chair of the Board is often chosen quite independently of them previously being one of the regular Directors of the company); versus the ICANN Supporting Organisations and GAC model where the chairs come from the defacto shortlist of the incumbent members. Which reminds me - what's the current view on MAG membership/rotation? Because of the uncertainty last year there wasn't a rotation, and the rotation in 2008 was very restricted as far as I can tell. We now have members who have served as follows: 16 - five years 19 - four years 1 - three years 20 - two years -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Feb 17 09:39:33 2011 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:39:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts regarding the selection of the next MAG Chair (possible criteria) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Roland, On your questions/comments : 1) The question of excessively restricting the pool by having too many criteria is a fair one. Ian Peter has already raised it and I think his categorization of the criteria (mandatory, desirable, less important) was good in that regard. 2) As for the important distinction between a Chair "for" (or "to") the MAG or a Chair "of" the MAG, the initial mechanism (with Nitin) has been a Chair "for" the MAG, as he was designated by Kofi Annan as his special advisor for Internet Governance for the WSIS period and subsequently asked (with Markus) to set up the IGF and Chair its MAG. Moving to a Chair that would be chosen by the MAG itself among its members is a perfectly valid option, worthy of consideration. Maybe one could envisage having an interim Chair for the process preparing Nairobi and then, once the "improved modalities" are being decided at the end of this year (after the report of the Working group on improvements), include in these improvements clearer modalities for the selection of the MAG members and the provision that the MAG would then choose its own Chair. Worth keeping in mind. 3) Rotation rules are likely to be an important element to discuss in the context of defining "improvements". There is however a dynamic tension here between two principles : - on the one hand, the desire to bring new blood and not maintain the same people (or entities) in a "permanent seat" - on the other hand, the natural tendency or even desire to maintain involvement of certain key actors and structures (cf. the fact that some countries have been constantly designated by their region, but also the participation of IGOs) that are relevant or whose participation bolster legitimacy and recognition. Not easy. Innovation required here. Best Bertrand On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message >, > at 23:11:31 on Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Bertrand de La Chapelle < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> writes > > > As we are preparing for the February IGF consultations and the first >> (unfortunately closed) meeting of the WGIIGF (or WOGII : WOrking Group on >> Improvements to the Igf), there is one element that deserves some attention: >> the future selection of the future MAG Chair. >> >> In order to launch the discussion on this list, I have listed below some >> possible criteria that could be taken into account and used as input by CS >> participants in the WOGII. They are largely based on the reasons why Nitin >> Desai has been exemplary in this role and they constitute a useful benchmark >> for any successor, albeit a difficult one to match. >> > > If we are looking for someone who has been a long time WSIS participant, a > MAG member, and is no longer involved with one of the stakeholders, that > narrows things a great deal. We would soon be talking about a small number > of identifiable individuals. > > Are you also talking about a chair *to* the MAG (more on the secretariat > side of the fence, appointed by the UN) rather than a chair *of* the MAG, > who is chosen from the current MAG membership as their most suitable leader. > > The former model is common in a corporate setting (where a Chair of the > Board is often chosen quite independently of them previously being one of > the regular Directors of the company); versus the ICANN Supporting > Organisations and GAC model where the chairs come from the defacto shortlist > of the incumbent members. > > Which reminds me - what's the current view on MAG membership/rotation? > > Because of the uncertainty last year there wasn't a rotation, and the > rotation in 2008 was very restricted as far as I can tell. We now have > members who have served as follows: > > 16 - five years > 19 - four years > 1 - three years > 20 - two years > > -- > 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 > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 17 12:31:05 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:31:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! Thanks, ---- Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Feb 17 13:23:34 2011 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:23:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] free speech - America the 'defender' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <735CEF59-E666-4B3F-8640-373FC4B83448@post.harvard.edu> This incredibly sad incident says it all. http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/02/16-3 Ray McGovern, for those who will not know, is ex-military intelligence, ex-CIA (for 27 years an analyst there). You only have to google a little to see the great intelligence and perspicacity and courage of his writings in recent years, for instance when he said it most plainly against utter disinformation from the GW Bush fiasco. Now at 71 years of age, he is brutalized for standing - silently - with his back to Hilary Clinton - as she, most ironically, defends free speech! US positions have _no_ credibility, in the Middle East's dawning new day, in this light. A good bit worse than that, US citizens have every reason to ask whether the time for change, at home, has now also come. Text and photos from the link above are reproduced below. Though the link itself is a cohesive presentation and also includes the video splash screen and a long trail of comments. David ______ 'So This is America': Veteran Ray McGovern Bloodied and Arrested At Clinton Speech by Partnership for Civil Justice From the Partnership for Civil Justice: As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her speech at George Washington University yesterday condemning governments that arrest protestors and do not allow free expression, 71-year-old Ray McGovern was grabbed from the audience in plain view of her by police and an unidentified official in plain clothes, brutalized and left bleeding in jail. She never paused speaking. When Secretary Clinton began her speech, Mr. McGovern remained standing silently in the audience and turned his back. Mr. McGovern, a veteran Army officer who also worked as a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years, was wearing a Veterans for Peace t- shirt. Blind-sided by security officers who pounced upon him, Mr. McGovern remarked, as he was hauled out the door, "So this is America?" Mr. McGovern is covered with bruises, lacerations and contusions inflicted in the assault. Mr. McGovern is being represented by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). "It is the ultimate definition of lip service that Secretary of State Clinton would be trumpeting the U.S. government's supposed concerns for free speech rights and this man would be simultaneously brutalized and arrested for engaging in a peaceful act of dissent at her speech," stated attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the PCJF. Mr. McGovern now works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C. http://www.youtube.com/embed/My29YT1T4R4 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 13472.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4622 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 13474.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5866 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Feb 17 14:28:46 2011 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:28:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks Blowback - Senate Bill Would Make Leaks a Felony Message-ID: <4D5D76EE.1080704@gmail.com> [Going Native... imperialism anywhere = tyranny at home...] Senate Bill Would Make Leaks a Felony February 17th, 2011 by Steven Aftergood Legislation introduced in the Senate this week would broadly criminalize leaks of classified information. The bill (S. 355 ) sponsored by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) would make it a felony for a government employee or contractor who has authorized access to classified information to disclose such information to an unauthorized person in violation of his or her nondisclosure agreement. Under existing law , criminal penalties apply only to the unauthorized disclosure of a handful of specified categories of classified information (in non-espionage cases). These categories include codes, cryptography, communications intelligence, identities of covert agents, and nuclear weapons design information. The new bill would amend the espionage statutes to extend such penalties to the unauthorized disclosure of any classified information. (Another pending bill, known as the SHIELD Act , would specifically criminalize disclosure --- and publication --- of information concerning human intelligence activities and source identities. Both bills were originally introduced at the end of the last Congress, and were reintroduced this month.) "I am convinced that changes in technology and society, combined with statutory and judicial changes to the law, have rendered some aspects of our espionage laws less effective than they need to be to protect the national security," said Sen. Cardin . "I also believe that we need to enhance our ability to prosecute... those who make unauthorized disclosures of classified information." "We don't need an Official State Secrets Act, and we must be careful not to chill protected First Amendment activities," he said. "We do, however, need to do a better job of preventing unauthorized disclosures of classified information that can harm the United States, and at the same time we need to ensure that public debates continue to take place on important national security and foreign policy issues." The bill would replace the Espionage Act's use of the term "national defense information" with the broader but more precise term "national security information." It would outlaw any knowing violation of an employee's classified information nondisclosure agreement, "irrespective of whether [the discloser] intended to aid a foreign nation or harm the United States." The bill would not criminalize the receipt of leaked information, and it would not apply to whistleblowers who disclose classified information through authorized channels. But it would establish a rebuttable presumption that any information marked as classified is properly classified. (The bill does not distinguish between "information" and "records.") This means that the government would not have to prove that the leaked information was properly classified; the defendant would have to prove it was not. In order to mount a defense arguing "improper classification," a defendant would have to present "clear and convincing evidence" that the original classifier could not have identified or described damage to national security resulting from unauthorized disclosure. Such challenges to original classification are almost never upheld, and so the defendant's burden of proof would be nearly impossible to meet. The bill does not provide for a "public interest" defense, i.e. an argument that any damage to national security was outweighed by a benefit to the nation. It does not address the issue of overclassification, nor does it admit the possibility of "good" leaks. Disclosing that the President authorized waterboarding of detainees or that the government conducted unlawful domestic surveillance would be considered legally equivalent to revealing the identities of intelligence sources, the design of secret military technologies or the details of ongoing military operations. And at a time when an unprecedented number of leak prosecutions are underway, the bill's premise that an enhanced ability to prosecute leaks is needed seems questionable. In fact, in a 2002 report to Congress , then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the laws already on the books were sufficient and that no new anti-leak legislation was required. "Given the nature of unauthorized disclosures of classified information that have occurred, however, I conclude that current statutes provide a legal basis to prosecute those who engage in unauthorized disclosures, if they can be identified.... Accordingly, I am not recommending that the Executive Branch focus its attention on pursuing new legislation at this time," Mr. Ashcroft wrote . In 2000, Congress enacted legislation to criminalize all leaks of classified information, but the measure was vetoed by President Clinton. "There is a serious risk that this legislation would tend to have a chilling effect on those who engage in legitimate activities," President Clinton wrote in his November 4, 2000 veto message . "A desire to avoid the risk that their good faith choice of words --- their exercise of judgment --- could become the subject of a criminal referral for prosecution might discourage Government officials from engaging even in appropriate public discussion, press briefings, or other legitimate official activities. Similarly, the legislation may unduly restrain the ability of former Government officials to teach, write, or engage in any activity aimed at building public understanding of complex issues." "Incurring such risks is unnecessary and inappropriate in a society built on freedom of expression and the consent of the governed and is particularly inadvisable in a context in which the range of classified materials is so extensive. In such circumstances, this criminal provision would, in my view, create an undue chilling effect," President Clinton wrote . http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/02/cardin_leaks.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 17 14:42:16 2011 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:42:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Wikileaks Blowback - Senate Bill Would Make Leaks a Felony In-Reply-To: <4D5D76EE.1080704@gmail.com> References: <4D5D76EE.1080704@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ok, so what do we do with all the legislation on whistleblowing/ protection of whistleblowers/ promoting whistleblowing on wrongdoing/ corruption abuse of power, etc? Rui 2011/2/17 Riaz K Tayob > [Going Native... imperialism anywhere = tyranny at home...] > Senate Bill Would Make Leaks a Felony February 17th, 2011 by Steven > Aftergood > > Legislation introduced in the Senate this week would broadly criminalize > leaks of classified information. The bill (S. 355) > sponsored by Sen. Benjamin Cardin(D-MD) would make it a felony for a government employee or contractor who > has authorized access to classified information to disclose such information > to an unauthorized person in violation of his or her nondisclosure > agreement. > > Under existing law, > criminal penalties apply only to the unauthorized disclosure of a handful of > specified categories of classified information (in non-espionage cases). > These categories include codes, cryptography, communications intelligence, > identities of covert agents, and nuclear weapons design information. The > new bill would amend > the espionage statutes to extend such penalties to the unauthorized > disclosure of any classified information. > > (Another pending bill, known as the SHIELD Act, > would specifically criminalize disclosure — and publication — of information > concerning human intelligence activities and source identities. Both bills > were originally introduced at the end of the last Congress, and were > reintroduced this month.) > > “I am convinced that changes in technology and society, combined with > statutory and judicial changes to the law, have rendered some aspects of our > espionage laws less effective than they need to be to protect the national > security,” said Sen. Cardin. > “I also believe that we need to enhance our ability to prosecute… those who > make unauthorized disclosures of classified information.” > > “We don’t need an Official State Secrets Act, and we must be careful not to > chill protected First Amendment activities,” he said. “We do, however, need > to do a better job of preventing unauthorized disclosures of classified > information that can harm the United States, and at the same time we need to > ensure that public debates continue to take place on important national > security and foreign policy issues.” > > The bill would replace > the Espionage Act’s use of the term “national defense information” with the > broader but more precise term “national security information.” It would > outlaw any knowing violation of an employee’s classified information > nondisclosure agreement, “irrespective of whether [the discloser] intended > to aid a foreign nation or harm the United States.” The bill would not > criminalize the receipt of leaked information, and it would not apply to > whistleblowers who disclose classified information through authorized > channels. > > But it would establish a rebuttable presumption that any information marked > as classified is properly classified. (The bill does not distinguish > between “information” and “records.”) This means that the government would > not have to prove that the leaked information was properly classified; the > defendant would have to prove it was not. In order to mount a defense > arguing “improper classification,” a defendant would have to present “clear > and convincing evidence” that the original classifier could not have > identified or described damage to national security resulting from > unauthorized disclosure. Such challenges to original classification are > almost never upheld, and so the defendant’s burden of proof would be nearly > impossible to meet. > > The bill does not > provide for a “public interest” defense, i.e. an argument that any damage to > national security was outweighed by a benefit to the nation. It does not > address the issue of overclassification, nor does it admit the possibility > of “good” leaks. Disclosing that the President authorized waterboarding of > detainees or that the government conducted unlawful domestic surveillance > would be considered legally equivalent to revealing the identities of > intelligence sources, the design of secret military technologies or the > details of ongoing military operations. > > And at a time when an unprecedented number of leak prosecutions are > underway, the bill’s premise that an enhanced ability to prosecute leaks is > needed seems questionable. In fact, in a 2002 report to Congress, > then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the laws already on the books > were sufficient and that no new anti-leak legislation was required. > > “Given the nature of unauthorized disclosures of classified information > that have occurred, however, I conclude that current statutes provide a > legal basis to prosecute those who engage in unauthorized disclosures, if > they can be identified…. Accordingly, I am not recommending that the > Executive Branch focus its attention on pursuing new legislation at this > time,” Mr. Ashcroft wrote . > > In 2000, Congress enacted legislation to criminalize all leaks of > classified information, but the measure was vetoed by President Clinton. > > “There is a serious risk that this legislation would tend to have a > chilling effect on those who engage in legitimate activities,” President > Clinton wrote in his November 4, 2000 veto message. > “A desire to avoid the risk that their good faith choice of words — their > exercise of judgment — could become the subject of a criminal referral for > prosecution might discourage Government officials from engaging even in > appropriate public discussion, press briefings, or other legitimate official > activities. Similarly, the legislation may unduly restrain the ability of > former Government officials to teach, write, or engage in any activity aimed > at building public understanding of complex issues.” > > “Incurring such risks is unnecessary and inappropriate in a society built > on freedom of expression and the consent of the governed and is particularly > inadvisable in a context in which the range of classified materials is so > extensive. In such circumstances, this criminal provision would, in my view, > create an undue chilling effect,” President Clinton wrote > . > > http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/02/cardin_leaks.html > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ àáâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 nhklein at gmx.net Fri Feb 18 02:43:57 2011 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 02:43:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> On 02/17/2011 12:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. > > http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto > > Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! > Already done. Norbert Klein -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror: regular reports and comments from Cambodia. This is the latest Sunday Mirror: Why Is Communication about Preah Vihear so Difficult? Sunday, 13.2.2011 http://tinyurl.com/4smatn4 (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend. The NEW Address of The Mirror: http://www.cambodiamirror.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 17 17:33:07 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:33:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] UN Cybercrime Resolutions Message-ID: <436806B5-0D4F-4CC3-B0F9-1A2C62B99D0B@eff.org> Greetings, Yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton mentioned in her speech that the U.S has led the effort to get multiple resolutions passed at the United Nations, including one this year. Is anyone familiar with this resolution, and which part of the UN she is referring to? ITU? I would appreciate any information you may have, All the best, Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Thu Feb 17 22:18:29 2011 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:18:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] UN Cybercrime Resolutions In-Reply-To: <436806B5-0D4F-4CC3-B0F9-1A2C62B99D0B@eff.org> References: <436806B5-0D4F-4CC3-B0F9-1A2C62B99D0B@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi, Katitza, There are no new ITU Resolutions on Cybercrime in 2011. I can only think of PP-10's, which entered into force this year. At PP-10, in October, negotiations among US, Brazil, UK, Sweeden, EU, China, Syria, Iran, UAE, regarding Cybersecurity were intense, but US' position was to block any effective ITU mandate on it. At the end, Resolution 130 (on the role of ITU) was revised and a new Res. 181 (on a Cybersecurity definition) was approved: - (Revised) Res 130 ("Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of ICTs"), originally from PP-02 and PP-06. It basically states that ITU’s no mandate do not include areas related to Member States' application of legal or policy principles related to national defense, national security, content and cybercrime. In these sensitive matters, ITU's mandate is to foster cooperation, share best practices, support the establishment of CIRTs. By the way, Brazil successfully managed to delete every mention to EC Budapest Convention on both Res.130 and 181. - (New) Res 181 ("Definition and terminology relating to building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) is an effort to make official an ITU-T's definition on "Cybersecurity" (Recommendation X.1205), but it was not fully agreed, as it was developed under a specific technical sphere (ITU’s SG 17: Security). It was accep "*Cybersecurity: Cybersecurity is the collection of tools, policies, security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines, risk management approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and user’s assets. Organization and user’s assets include connected computing devices, personnel, infrastructure, applications, services, telecommunications systems, and the totality of transmitted and/or stored information in the cyber environment. Cybersecurity strives to ensure the attainment and maintenance of the security properties of the organization and user’s assets against relevant security risks in the cyber environment. The general security objectives comprise the following:* * • Availability* * • Integrity, which may include authenticity and non-repudiation* * • Confidentiality*" In sum, Res. 130 and 181, which were of great interest to US, are not on Cybercrime, they are on not-Cybercrime. Furthermore, it is not a US propos If you want, I can send you part of PP-10’s Brazilian delegation report (em português), where I tried to collect the voices of various Member States interested in the ITU Cybersecurity debate. Abraços, Sérgio Brazil 2011/2/17 Katitza Rodriguez > Greetings, > > Yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton mentioned in her speech that the U.S > has led the effort to get multiple resolutions passed at the United Nations, > including one this year. Is anyone familiar with this resolution, and which > part of the UN she is referring to? ITU? I would appreciate any information > you may have, > > All the best, Katitza > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 18 00:36:20 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:06:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> Milton/ Norbert Excuse my ignorance about complicated ICANN issues. I am still only trying to understand the issue but... Do you think an objection that needs to be supported by *a full consensus in the GAC* is really 'putting GAC in charge of domain name policy.How easy is it to get a consensus among all governments. In fact pursuant to any such consensus it is at present 'legal' to militarily raid and takeover any country. But that really doesn't happen that often, right. Moreover, how does it compare with the present practice where any adjudication regarding 'public interest' issues involved in domain name policy is done by a body of the International Chambers of Commerce. Interestingly, this body of ICC - the ICC International Centre of Expertise - on its website claims expertise in 'every conceivable subject relevant to business operations'. Business operations?? Public interest ?? Am I missing something here. Furthermore, any vote of any country (say, the US)in the GAC on a public interest issue, since its implication will also be produced within that country, should be able to be challenged in the national courts vis a vis its compliance to constitutional and subordinate law. As you would have surmised, I am not too enamored of global political power being exercised by big business, and between that and legitimate political systems, will prefer to work with the latter, and seek reforms to them. And, Milton, if a legitimate transnational political system has to be sought, placing big business in a central position is hardly the right way to go about it. It is best sought as an evolution from existing representative systems. Parminder On Friday 18 February 2011 01:13 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > On 02/17/2011 12:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. >> >> http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto >> >> Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! >> > Already done. > > > Norbert Klein > > -- PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Feb 18 01:19:50 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:19:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: hi, They are quite careful to explain that the required consensus, only requires one country to voice the objection and other countries to keep their silence. And in the collegiality of the GAc, we can expect that most representatives will keep their silence so that others will keep their silence when they object. The GAC does not vote, it mostly just goes along silently behind the lead of a few leaders. So it is questionable what one could take to court on a national basis As for your comments on the ICC Center of Expertise, that is another problem and many of us agree with you, but the two problems do not cancel each other out. And yeah, we know you are not enamored of big business. a. someone who signed the petition On 18 Feb 2011, at 00:36, parminder wrote: > Milton/ Norbert > > Excuse my ignorance about complicated ICANN issues. I am still only trying to understand the issue but... > > Do you think an objection that needs to be supported by *a full consensus in the GAC* is really 'putting GAC in charge of domain name policy. How easy is it to get a consensus among all governments. In fact pursuant to any such consensus it is at present 'legal' to militarily raid and takeover any country. But that really doesn't happen that often, right. > > Moreover, how does it compare with the present practice where any adjudication regarding 'public interest' issues involved in domain name policy is done by a body of the International Chambers of Commerce. Interestingly, this body of ICC - the ICC International Centre of Expertise - on its website claims expertise in 'every conceivable subject relevant to business operations'. Business operations?? Public interest ?? Am I missing something here. > > Furthermore, any vote of any country (say, the US) in the GAC on a public interest issue, since its implication will also be produced within that country, should be able to be challenged in the national courts vis a vis its compliance to constitutional and subordinate law. > > As you would have surmised, I am not too enamored of global political power being exercised by big business, and between that and legitimate political systems, will prefer to work with the latter, and seek reforms to them. > > And, Milton, if a legitimate transnational political system has to be sought, placing big business in a central position is hardly the right way to go about it. It is best sought as an evolution from existing representative systems. > > Parminder > > > On Friday 18 February 2011 01:13 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> On 02/17/2011 12:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. >>> >>> >>> http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto >>> >>> >>> Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! >>> >>> >> Already done. >> >> >> Norbert Klein >> >> >> > > -- > PK > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 02:14:30 2011 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:14:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> Message-ID: <398276.91307.qm@web120209.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> On 02/17/2011 12:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. > http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto > Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! >    Already done. Dina Hovakmian dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror: regular reports and comments from Cambodia. This is the latest Sunday Mirror: Why Is Communication about Preah Vihear so Difficult? Sunday, 13.2.2011 http://tinyurl.com/4smatn4 (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend. The NEW Address of The Mirror: http://www.cambodiamirror.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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Feb 18 05:51:20 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:51:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] UN Cybercrime Resolutions In-Reply-To: References: <436806B5-0D4F-4CC3-B0F9-1A2C62B99D0B@eff.org> Message-ID: Sergio, May I please also get a copy of PP-10’s Brazilian delegation report (em português), where I tried to collect the voices of various Member States interested in the ITU Cybersecurity debate? Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Sergio Alves Junior < sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Katitza, > > > > There are no new ITU Resolutions on Cybercrime in 2011. I can only think of > PP-10's, which entered into force this year. > > > > At PP-10, in October, negotiations among US, Brazil, UK, Sweeden, EU, > China, Syria, Iran, UAE, regarding Cybersecurity were intense, but US' > position was to block any effective ITU mandate on it. At the end, > Resolution 130 (on the role of ITU) was revised and a new Res. 181 (on a > Cybersecurity definition) was approved: > > > > - (Revised) Res 130 ("Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence > and security in the use of ICTs"), originally from PP-02 and PP-06. It > basically states that ITU’s no mandate do not include areas related to > Member States' application of legal or policy principles related to national > defense, national security, content and cybercrime. In these sensitive > matters, ITU's mandate is to foster cooperation, share best practices, > support the establishment of CIRTs. By the way, Brazil successfully managed > to delete every mention to EC Budapest Convention on both Res.130 and 181. > > > > - (New) Res 181 ("Definition and terminology relating to building > confidence and security in the use of ICTs) is an effort to make official an > ITU-T's definition on "Cybersecurity" (Recommendation X.1205), but it was > not fully agreed, as it was developed under a specific technical sphere > (ITU’s SG 17: Security). It was accep > > > > "*Cybersecurity: Cybersecurity is the collection of tools, policies, > security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines, risk management > approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies > that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and > user’s assets. Organization and user’s assets include connected computing > devices, personnel, infrastructure, applications, services, > telecommunications systems, and the totality of transmitted and/or stored > information in the cyber environment. Cybersecurity strives to ensure the > attainment and maintenance of the security properties of the organization > and user’s assets against relevant security risks in the cyber environment. > The general security objectives comprise the following:* > > * • Availability* > > * • Integrity, which may include authenticity and > non-repudiation* > > * • Confidentiality*" > > > > In sum, Res. 130 and 181, which were of great interest to US, are not on > Cybercrime, they are on not-Cybercrime. Furthermore, it is not a US propos > > > > If you want, I can send you part of PP-10’s Brazilian delegation report (em > português), where I tried to collect the voices of various Member States > interested in the ITU Cybersecurity debate. > > > > > > Abraços, > > Sérgio > > Brazil > > 2011/2/17 Katitza Rodriguez > > Greetings, >> >> Yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton mentioned in her speech that the U.S >> has led the effort to get multiple resolutions passed at the United Nations, >> including one this year. Is anyone familiar with this resolution, and which >> part of the UN she is referring to? ITU? I would appreciate any information >> you may have, >> >> All the best, Katitza >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 18 08:26:21 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:56:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> Hi Avri On Friday 18 February 2011 11:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > They are quite careful to explain that the required consensus, only requires one country to voice the objection and other countries to keep their silence. > > And in the collegiality of the GAc, we can expect that most representatives will keep their silence so that others will keep their silence when they object. / /I understand there are problems. But in relation to the collegiality among gov reps, the collegiality of all those who represents the political interests of big business is many many times more, and so much more solid, and sticky. > The GAC does not vote, it mostly just goes along silently behind the lead of a few leaders. So it is questionable what one could take to court on a national basis Both acts of omission and commission are liable to be challenged if the rights of a citizen are affected. And not exercising the right to veto an objection is a clear act of omission, if there ever was one. In any case, with democratic governments there are at least some avenues of checks and balances on which we can work, while one can keep seeking further improvements. > As for your comments on the ICC Center of Expertise, that is another problem and many of us agree with you, but the two problems do not cancel each other out. They dont. And in real world which presents real choices, we have to begin with one of the two problem situations. I choose governments over big business. With governments there are ways to work on improvements - as is happening on such a big scale in the middle east, which will no doubt also have a big influence, eventually, on global governance. With big business the logic is simply of profit and accumulation. That is what all economists and business schools also tell us. What is my avenue of seeking accountability from it? > And yeah, we know you are not enamored of big business. Nothing against big business it they stick to what they are supposed to do - organize our productive forces more effectively. The problem comes when they want to corner political power as well (which includes distributional issues), which is what often happens in IG arena, evne more than everywhere else. And IMHO the IG civil society has been rather lacking in recognizing and addressing this key global IG issue. Parminder > a. > someone who signed the petition > > On 18 Feb 2011, at 00:36, parminder wrote: > >> Milton/ Norbert >> >> Excuse my ignorance about complicated ICANN issues. I am still only trying to understand the issue but... >> >> Do you think an objection that needs to be supported by *a full consensus in the GAC* is really 'putting GAC in charge of domain name policy. How easy is it to get a consensus among all governments. In fact pursuant to any such consensus it is at present 'legal' to militarily raid and takeover any country. But that really doesn't happen that often, right. >> >> Moreover, how does it compare with the present practice where any adjudication regarding 'public interest' issues involved in domain name policy is done by a body of the International Chambers of Commerce. Interestingly, this body of ICC - the ICC International Centre of Expertise - on its website claims expertise in 'every conceivable subject relevant to business operations'. Business operations?? Public interest ?? Am I missing something here. >> >> Furthermore, any vote of any country (say, the US) in the GAC on a public interest issue, since its implication will also be produced within that country, should be able to be challenged in the national courts vis a vis its compliance to constitutional and subordinate law. >> >> As you would have surmised, I am not too enamored of global political power being exercised by big business, and between that and legitimate political systems, will prefer to work with the latter, and seek reforms to them. >> >> And, Milton, if a legitimate transnational political system has to be sought, placing big business in a central position is hardly the right way to go about it. It is best sought as an evolution from existing representative systems. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 18 February 2011 01:13 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: >>> On 02/17/2011 12:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>>> I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto >>>> >>>> >>>> Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! >>>> >>>> >>> Already done. >>> >>> >>> Norbert Klein >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> PK >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 > > -- PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Feb 18 09:20:52 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:20:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <772907E1-6D81-4963-B1B9-AAB07A21C9DD@acm.org> On 18 Feb 2011, at 08:26, parminder wrote: > I choose governments over big business. I choose neither but will work with either or both. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Feb 18 10:02:45 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:02:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: All bullet arguments are valid, but it seems a major one is missing: • The GAC veto cannot apply internationally because the GAC does not represent any internationally agreed authority. - - - On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! Thanks, ---- Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry > into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It > relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC > (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. > > http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto > > Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! > > Thanks, > ---- > Milton L. Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > Internet Governance Project > http://blog.internetgovernance.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Fri Feb 18 12:46:46 2011 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:46:46 -0200 Subject: [governance] UN Cybercrime Resolutions In-Reply-To: References: <436806B5-0D4F-4CC3-B0F9-1A2C62B99D0B@eff.org> Message-ID: Sala, I've sent it to your email. Abraços, Sérgio 2011/2/18 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Sergio, > > May I please also get a copy of PP-10’s Brazilian delegation report (em > português), where I tried to collect the voices of various Member States > interested in the ITU Cybersecurity debate? > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Sergio Alves Junior < > sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, Katitza, >> >> >> >> There are no new ITU Resolutions on Cybercrime in 2011. I can only think >> of PP-10's, which entered into force this year. >> >> >> >> At PP-10, in October, negotiations among US, Brazil, UK, Sweeden, EU, >> China, Syria, Iran, UAE, regarding Cybersecurity were intense, but US' >> position was to block any effective ITU mandate on it. At the end, >> Resolution 130 (on the role of ITU) was revised and a new Res. 181 (on a >> Cybersecurity definition) was approved: >> >> >> >> - (Revised) Res 130 ("Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence >> and security in the use of ICTs"), originally from PP-02 and PP-06. It >> basically states that ITU’s no mandate do not include areas related to >> Member States' application of legal or policy principles related to national >> defense, national security, content and cybercrime. In these sensitive >> matters, ITU's mandate is to foster cooperation, share best practices, >> support the establishment of CIRTs. By the way, Brazil successfully managed >> to delete every mention to EC Budapest Convention on both Res.130 and 181. >> >> >> >> - (New) Res 181 ("Definition and terminology relating to building >> confidence and security in the use of ICTs) is an effort to make official an >> ITU-T's definition on "Cybersecurity" (Recommendation X.1205), but it was >> not fully agreed, as it was developed under a specific technical sphere >> (ITU’s SG 17: Security). It was accep >> >> >> >> "*Cybersecurity: Cybersecurity is the collection of tools, policies, >> security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines, risk management >> approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies >> that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and >> user’s assets. Organization and user’s assets include connected computing >> devices, personnel, infrastructure, applications, services, >> telecommunications systems, and the totality of transmitted and/or stored >> information in the cyber environment. Cybersecurity strives to ensure >> the attainment and maintenance of the security properties of the >> organization and user’s assets against relevant security risks in the cyber >> environment. The general security objectives comprise the following:* >> >> * • Availability* >> >> * • Integrity, which may include authenticity and >> non-repudiation* >> >> * • Confidentiality*" >> >> >> >> In sum, Res. 130 and 181, which were of great interest to US, are not on >> Cybercrime, they are on not-Cybercrime. Furthermore, it is not a US propos >> >> >> >> If you want, I can send you part of PP-10’s Brazilian delegation report >> (em português), where I tried to collect the voices of various Member States >> interested in the ITU Cybersecurity debate. >> >> >> >> >> >> Abraços, >> >> Sérgio >> >> Brazil >> >> 2011/2/17 Katitza Rodriguez >> >> Greetings, >>> >>> Yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton mentioned in her speech that the U.S >>> has led the effort to get multiple resolutions passed at the United Nations, >>> including one this year. Is anyone familiar with this resolution, and which >>> part of the UN she is referring to? ITU? I would appreciate any information >>> you may have, >>> >>> All the best, Katitza >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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 sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Fri Feb 18 14:33:04 2011 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:33:04 -0200 Subject: [governance] UN Cybercrime Resolutions In-Reply-To: References: <436806B5-0D4F-4CC3-B0F9-1A2C62B99D0B@eff.org> Message-ID: Just in case someone else is interested in US's position on ITU/Cybersecurity (and Internet) at PP-10, Amb. Verveer's policy statement made it pretty clear. "... Much of the effort here in Guadalajara should be devoted to seeking ways to enhance the ITU’s excellent contributions to efficient and widely developed telecommunications services and infrastructure—to improving things that it does best: harmonizing radio frequency allocations, developing and disseminating best practices, and contributing to capacity building. The United States has identified three matters that warrant special mention in this regard. First, the ITU should be a place where the development of the Internet is fostered. The Internet has progressed and evolved in a remarkably successful way under the existing multi-stakeholder arrangements. Changes, especially changes involving inter-governmental controls, are likely to impair the dynamism of the Internet—something we all have an interest in avoiding. Second, the ITU’s interest in cybersecurity should continue to focus on capacity building and the associated development and dissemination of best practices. This is an area where an enormous amount remains to be done, and where improvements will prove very valuable to all ITU members, regardless of the state of their digital development. We believe very strongly that the ITU should not be distracted from this important responsibility by straying into areas outside of its mandate and expertise such as cybercrime and cyberwar. Third, looking forward to the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications, it would be a serious mistake to seek to extend the International Telecommunications Regulations to today’s world of broadband and the Internet. There is a superficial similarity between the narrowband for which the ITRs were configured and the broadband of today, but it is only superficial. Just as with the Internet, inter-governmental controls over broadband are likely to do much more harm than good." http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/2010/statements/usa/verveer.html Abraços, Sérgio 2011/2/18 Sergio Alves Junior > Sala, > I've sent it to your email. > > Abraços, > Sérgio > > 2011/2/18 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > >> Sergio, >> >> May I please also get a copy of PP-10’s Brazilian delegation report (em >> português), where I tried to collect the voices of various Member States >> interested in the ITU Cybersecurity debate? >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Sergio Alves Junior < >> sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Katitza, >>> >>> >>> >>> There are no new ITU Resolutions on Cybercrime in 2011. I can only think >>> of PP-10's, which entered into force this year. >>> >>> >>> >>> At PP-10, in October, negotiations among US, Brazil, UK, Sweeden, EU, >>> China, Syria, Iran, UAE, regarding Cybersecurity were intense, but US' >>> position was to block any effective ITU mandate on it. At the end, >>> Resolution 130 (on the role of ITU) was revised and a new Res. 181 (on a >>> Cybersecurity definition) was approved: >>> >>> >>> >>> - (Revised) Res 130 ("Strengthening the role of ITU in building >>> confidence and security in the use of ICTs"), originally from PP-02 and >>> PP-06. It basically states that ITU’s no mandate do not include areas >>> related to Member States' application of legal or policy principles related >>> to national defense, national security, content and cybercrime. In these >>> sensitive matters, ITU's mandate is to foster cooperation, share best >>> practices, support the establishment of CIRTs. By the way, Brazil >>> successfully managed to delete every mention to EC Budapest Convention on >>> both Res.130 and 181. >>> >>> >>> >>> - (New) Res 181 ("Definition and terminology relating to building >>> confidence and security in the use of ICTs) is an effort to make official an >>> ITU-T's definition on "Cybersecurity" (Recommendation X.1205), but it was >>> not fully agreed, as it was developed under a specific technical sphere >>> (ITU’s SG 17: Security). It was accep >>> >>> >>> >>> "*Cybersecurity: Cybersecurity is the collection of tools, policies, >>> security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines, risk management >>> approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies >>> that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and >>> user’s assets. Organization and user’s assets include connected computing >>> devices, personnel, infrastructure, applications, services, >>> telecommunications systems, and the totality of transmitted and/or stored >>> information in the cyber environment. Cybersecurity strives to ensure >>> the attainment and maintenance of the security properties of the >>> organization and user’s assets against relevant security risks in the cyber >>> environment. The general security objectives comprise the following:* >>> >>> * • Availability* >>> >>> * • Integrity, which may include authenticity and >>> non-repudiation* >>> >>> * • Confidentiality*" >>> >>> >>> >>> In sum, Res. 130 and 181, which were of great interest to US, are not on >>> Cybercrime, they are on not-Cybercrime. Furthermore, it is not a US propos >>> >>> >>> >>> If you want, I can send you part of PP-10’s Brazilian delegation report >>> (em português), where I tried to collect the voices of various Member States >>> interested in the ITU Cybersecurity debate. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Abraços, >>> >>> Sérgio >>> >>> Brazil >>> >>> 2011/2/17 Katitza Rodriguez >>> >>> Greetings, >>>> >>>> Yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton mentioned in her speech that the >>>> U.S has led the effort to get multiple resolutions passed at the United >>>> Nations, including one this year. Is anyone familiar with this resolution, >>>> and which part of the UN she is referring to? ITU? I would appreciate any >>>> information you may have, >>>> >>>> All the best, Katitza >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Feb 18 15:03:25 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:03:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D5ED08D.8030105@cafonso.ca> In general I agree with Parminder. I think the document exaggerates a bit: "The GAC represents all the world's governments, including Iran, the U.S., Russia and China." It does not. It is a representation of a bunch of governments in a non-binding forum aggregated to a private organization. As Louis Pouzin reminds us, a bullet is missing in the petition: "• The GAC veto cannot apply internationally because the GAC does not represent any internationally agreed authority." What needs to be preserved is the advisory nature of the GAC as such. In any case, with our without this proposal being approved (by whom?), "one or two" governments can, GAC or no GAC, legally or not, block TLD applications. And, please, an independent Russian journalist would have the dough to go through the extremely expensive application process? Hmmm, I think I prefer to abstain. --c.a. On 02/18/2011 03:36 AM, parminder wrote: > Milton/ Norbert > > Excuse my ignorance about complicated ICANN issues. I am still only > trying to understand the issue but... > > Do you think an objection that needs to be supported by *a full > consensus in the GAC* is really 'putting GAC in charge of domain name > policy.How easy is it to get a consensus among all governments. In fact > pursuant to any such consensus it is at present 'legal' to militarily > raid and takeover any country. But that really doesn't happen that > often, right. > > Moreover, how does it compare with the present practice where any > adjudication regarding 'public interest' issues involved in domain name > policy is done by a body of the International Chambers of Commerce. > Interestingly, this body of ICC - the ICC International Centre of > Expertise - on its website claims expertise in 'every conceivable > subject relevant to business operations'. Business operations?? Public > interest ?? Am I missing something here. > > Furthermore, any vote of any country (say, the US)in the GAC on a public > interest issue, since its implication will also be produced within that > country, should be able to be challenged in the national courts vis a > vis its compliance to constitutional and subordinate law. > > As you would have surmised, I am not too enamored of global political > power being exercised by big business, and between that and legitimate > political systems, will prefer to work with the latter, and seek reforms > to them. > > And, Milton, if a legitimate transnational political system has to be > sought, placing big business in a central position is hardly the right > way to go about it. It is best sought as an evolution from existing > representative systems. > > Parminder > > > On Friday 18 February 2011 01:13 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> On 02/17/2011 12:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. >>> >>> http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto >>> >>> Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! >>> >> Already done. >> >> >> Norbert Klein >> >> > > -- > PK > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 18 15:19:52 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:19:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5ED08D.8030105@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5ED08D.8030105@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4D5ED468.2040606@digsys.bg> On 18.2.2011 г. 22:03 ч., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > And, please, an independent Russian journalist would have the dough to > go through the extremely expensive application process? One has to take into account few things. First, there are pretty rich people in Russia. Probably not as rich as elsewhere, but sufficiently rich to spend the cash for an TLD, instead of for some diamond jevellery for the current favorite. When you have got easy money, it's also easy to spend. The value system i also quite different and one could want a TLD "just for the trills". Also, some really rich people might have whatever hobbies, including journalism. :) However, I agree that the issue is exagerated a bit. The GAC is nowehere as representative as it could be. I also note that there is currently an political inerplay going on between the GAC group and ICANN. Both parties have their merits. The question is, do we want to be used as instrument, or weapon in this fight? The problems stay with the ICANN processes ot lack of these, not with what desires a group like the GAC has. 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Feb 18 15:30:34 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:30:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5ED468.2040606@digsys.bg> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5ED08D.8030105@cafonso.ca> <4D5ED468.2040606@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4D5ED6EA.1050309@cafonso.ca> :) --c.a. On 02/18/2011 06:19 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > On 18.2.2011 г. 22:03 ч., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> And, please, an independent Russian journalist would have the dough to >> go through the extremely expensive application process? > One has to take into account few things. > > First, there are pretty rich people in Russia. Probably not as rich as > elsewhere, but sufficiently rich to spend the cash for an TLD, instead > of for some diamond jevellery for the current favorite. > > When you have got easy money, it's also easy to spend. The value system > i also quite different and one could want a TLD "just for the trills". > > Also, some really rich people might have whatever hobbies, including > journalism. :) > > However, I agree that the issue is exagerated a bit. The GAC is nowehere > as representative as it could be. I also note that there is currently an > political inerplay going on between the GAC group and ICANN. Both > parties have their merits. The question is, do we want to be used as > instrument, or weapon in this fight? > > The problems stay with the ICANN processes ot lack of these, not with > what desires a group like the GAC has. > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 19 00:17:16 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:17:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] Libya (mostly) offline Message-ID: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/02/libyan-disconnect-1.shtml more gov't meddling. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Feb 19 02:50:48 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:50:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] UN Cybercrime Resolutions In-Reply-To: References: <436806B5-0D4F-4CC3-B0F9-1A2C62B99D0B@eff.org> Message-ID: This was extremely interesting Sergio. On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Sergio Alves Junior < sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com> wrote: > Just in case someone else is interested in US's position on > ITU/Cybersecurity (and Internet) at PP-10, Amb. Verveer's policy statement > made it pretty clear. > > "... > Much of the effort here in Guadalajara should be devoted to seeking ways to > enhance the ITU’s excellent contributions to efficient and widely developed > telecommunications services and infrastructure—to improving things that it > does best: harmonizing radio frequency allocations, developing and > disseminating best practices, and contributing to capacity building. > > The United States has identified three matters that warrant special mention > in this regard. > > First, the ITU should be a place where the development of the Internet is > fostered. The Internet has progressed and evolved in a remarkably > successful way under the existing multi-stakeholder arrangements. Changes, > especially changes involving inter-governmental controls, are likely to > impair the dynamism of the Internet—something we all have an interest in > avoiding. > > Second, the ITU’s interest in cybersecurity should continue to focus on > capacity building and the associated development and dissemination of best > practices. This is an area where an enormous amount remains to be done, and > where improvements will prove very valuable to all ITU members, regardless > of the state of their digital development. We believe very strongly that > the ITU should not be distracted from this important responsibility by > straying into areas outside of its mandate and expertise such as cybercrime > and cyberwar. > > Third, looking forward to the 2012 World Conference on International > Telecommunications, it would be a serious mistake to seek to extend the > International Telecommunications Regulations to today’s world of broadband > and the Internet. There is a superficial similarity between the narrowband > for which the ITRs were configured and the broadband of today, but it is > only superficial. Just as with the Internet, inter-governmental controls > over broadband are likely to do much more harm than good." > http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/2010/statements/usa/verveer.html > > Abraços, > Sérgio > > > > 2011/2/18 Sergio Alves Junior > > Sala, >> I've sent it to your email. >> >> Abraços, >> Sérgio >> >> 2011/2/18 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> >> >>> Sergio, >>> >>> May I please also get a copy of PP-10’s Brazilian delegation report (em >>> português), where I tried to collect the voices of various Member States >>> interested in the ITU Cybersecurity debate? >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Sala >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Sergio Alves Junior < >>> sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, Katitza, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are no new ITU Resolutions on Cybercrime in 2011. I can only think >>>> of PP-10's, which entered into force this year. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At PP-10, in October, negotiations among US, Brazil, UK, Sweeden, EU, >>>> China, Syria, Iran, UAE, regarding Cybersecurity were intense, but US' >>>> position was to block any effective ITU mandate on it. At the end, >>>> Resolution 130 (on the role of ITU) was revised and a new Res. 181 (on a >>>> Cybersecurity definition) was approved: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - (Revised) Res 130 ("Strengthening the role of ITU in building >>>> confidence and security in the use of ICTs"), originally from PP-02 and >>>> PP-06. It basically states that ITU’s no mandate do not include areas >>>> related to Member States' application of legal or policy principles related >>>> to national defense, national security, content and cybercrime. In these >>>> sensitive matters, ITU's mandate is to foster cooperation, share best >>>> practices, support the establishment of CIRTs. By the way, Brazil >>>> successfully managed to delete every mention to EC Budapest Convention on >>>> both Res.130 and 181. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - (New) Res 181 ("Definition and terminology relating to building >>>> confidence and security in the use of ICTs) is an effort to make official an >>>> ITU-T's definition on "Cybersecurity" (Recommendation X.1205), but it was >>>> not fully agreed, as it was developed under a specific technical sphere >>>> (ITU’s SG 17: Security). It was accep >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "*Cybersecurity: Cybersecurity is the collection of tools, policies, >>>> security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines, risk management >>>> approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies >>>> that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and >>>> user’s assets. Organization and user’s assets include connected computing >>>> devices, personnel, infrastructure, applications, services, >>>> telecommunications systems, and the totality of transmitted and/or stored >>>> information in the cyber environment. Cybersecurity strives to ensure >>>> the attainment and maintenance of the security properties of the >>>> organization and user’s assets against relevant security risks in the cyber >>>> environment. The general security objectives comprise the following:* >>>> >>>> * • Availability* >>>> >>>> * • Integrity, which may include authenticity and >>>> non-repudiation* >>>> >>>> * • Confidentiality*" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In sum, Res. 130 and 181, which were of great interest to US, are not on >>>> Cybercrime, they are on not-Cybercrime. Furthermore, it is not a US propos >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If you want, I can send you part of PP-10’s Brazilian delegation report >>>> (em português), where I tried to collect the voices of various Member States >>>> interested in the ITU Cybersecurity debate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Abraços, >>>> >>>> Sérgio >>>> >>>> Brazil >>>> >>>> 2011/2/17 Katitza Rodriguez >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>>> >>>>> Yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton mentioned in her speech that the >>>>> U.S has led the effort to get multiple resolutions passed at the United >>>>> Nations, including one this year. Is anyone familiar with this resolution, >>>>> and which part of the UN she is referring to? ITU? I would appreciate any >>>>> information you may have, >>>>> >>>>> All the best, Katitza >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 19 07:18:10 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:48:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <772907E1-6D81-4963-B1B9-AAB07A21C9DD@acm.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <772907E1-6D81-4963-B1B9-AAB07A21C9DD@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D5FB502.7070407@itforchange.net> On Friday 18 February 2011 07:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 18 Feb 2011, at 08:26, parminder wrote: > >> I choose governments over big business. > > I choose neither but will work with either or both. In politics every 'non choice' is itself a choice, with full implications. And this is politics out here. Are you saying that you see no difference between the political role of governments and of big business? > > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- PK -------------- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Sat Feb 19 07:45:51 2011 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:45:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] UN Cybercrime Resolutions In-Reply-To: <436806B5-0D4F-4CC3-B0F9-1A2C62B99D0B@eff.org> References: <436806B5-0D4F-4CC3-B0F9-1A2C62B99D0B@eff.org> Message-ID: Katiza, My understanding is that there is work going on in the UN first Committee regarding cyberwar and cyberwarfare. I do not have more information but understand that the US and Russia in particular are discussing the idea of "confidence-building measures". Arms control discussions on nuclear issues were predicated on notions like deterrence, retaliation, attribution, non-proliferation, etc... But the military in all countries are struggling to find the proper intellectual categories for new types of potentially harmful attacks where there is no easy attribution, little modalities of retaliation, very low financial and technical threshold for proliferation and a real threat from unknown actors insensitive to the notion of deterrence for the reasons just listed. The question of "attribution" is particularly worrysome for state actors, as the debate about what happened in Estonia clearly highlighted, because of the potential for uncontrolled escalation. hence the notion of confidence-building measures. Any additional information would be interesting. Best Bertrand On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Greetings, > > Yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton mentioned in her speech that the U.S > has led the effort to get multiple resolutions passed at the United Nations, > including one this year. Is anyone familiar with this resolution, and which > part of the UN she is referring to? ITU? I would appreciate any information > you may have, > > All the best, Katitza > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Feb 19 09:55:40 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 09:55:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5FB502.7070407@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <772907E1-6D81-4963-B1B9-AAB07A21C9DD@acm.org> <4D5FB502.7070407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 19 Feb 2011, at 07:18, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 18 February 2011 07:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 18 Feb 2011, at 08:26, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> I choose governments over big business. >>> >> >> I choose neither but will work with either or both. >> > > In politics every 'non choice' is itself a choice, with full implications. And this is politics out here. Are you saying that you see no difference between the political role of governments and of big business? I rarely see "no difference" between two things. When I do, I figure it is because I have not looked at them closely enough. I do see a diference between them and their roles, and that difference varies nation by nation, business by business. Just as all countries are different, all businesses are as well. Each one needs to be understood in its own right and as a thing in itself with its appropriate role emanating from its individual qualities. In general I see most countries in their role as handmaidens of business and other powerful elites with a patina of public choice when it is not inconvenient to the elites. I see big businesses as conglomerates of people wanting to be rich and being motivated by profit more than principle, though often they hold a principle (one i do not hold) that increase in profit is an increase in good. There are exceptions and variations in both generalities, since for the most part generalities are always partially false while being partially true. Yes, I know that is a generality. In terms of their roles, I see them as equal stakeholders among others each following their perspectives of what it means to achieve the good, even when i think their good is not so good. I see neither as representing the full will or interests of the people but only as representatives of some part of some people's will or interests at some point in time. So I chose neither, but will work with either or both. And of course I know that it is a political choice. a.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sat Feb 19 11:33:07 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:03:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, I signed it as an individual. Only 113 signatures so far? It must be millions.... Sivasubramanian M On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. > > http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto > > Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! > > Thanks, > ---- > Milton L. Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > Internet Governance Project > http://blog.internetgovernance.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Feb 19 11:58:22 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:58:22 -0200 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D5FF6AE.9080705@cafonso.ca> Probably these millions are as unsure as I am :) --c.a. On 02/19/2011 02:33 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Milton, > > I signed it as an individual. > > Only 113 signatures so far? It must be millions.... > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. >> >> http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto >> >> Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! >> >> Thanks, >> ---- >> Milton L. Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> Internet Governance Project >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sat Feb 19 15:51:16 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:51:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] EuroDIG draft programme consultation: deadline Feb 22 Message-ID: Hello all, Just a quick remind that the deadline to present comments to EuroDIG draft programme is February 22nd. The programme will be finalized on the planning meeting that will take place on Feb 24th, in Geneva (see more information below). Options for remote participation in the planning meeting will be available. Best, Marilia On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hello all, > > Just a quick remind that the *draft programme* for the next EuroDIG has > been put online for *public consultation until Feb 22.* > This programme has been put together based on the inputs received: > responses to the online agenda survey, e-mails and workshop proposals. > > You can see the programmme here: > http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2011/programme > > A platform has been created to allow comments to be post to every item of > the programme, with the aim to foster debate and facilitate the summary of > the discussions: http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/eurodig_prog/ > > Alternatively, you can send your comments by e-mail: office at eurodig.org > > An *EuroDIG planning meeting* will take place in February 24th, in Geneva. > Options for remote participation will be available and further information > will be publicized in due time. Information about the agenda of the meeting > can be found here: > http://www.eurodig.org/important/2nd-planning-meeting-24-feb-2011-geneva > > > Best wishes, > > Marilia > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:09 PM > Subject: EuroDIG - Information letter no. 01/11 > To: office at eurodig.org > > > > > > > [image: cid:4BBF99E7.4051B7AB.00000002] > Information letter no. 01/11 > > > > Dear EuroDIGGERS > > > > with this letter we like to provide you the following information and > milestones about > > EuroDIG 2011: > > > > 1. Public comment period on the draft programme is now open until 22 > February 2011 > > 2. 24 February 2011: 2nd preparatory meeting in Geneva > > 3. 1 March 2011: finalized programme online > > * * > > > ********************************************************************************** > > > *1. Public comment period on the draft programme is now open until 22 > February 2011* > > Based on the workshop proposals (WSP) we > received a programme was > drafted. We invite herewith to comment this programme. *Please post your > input on the** **comment platform > **. *The public comment period will remain open until 22 February 2011. > > *2. 24 February 2011: 2nd preparatory meeting in Geneva- participate also > remotely! * > > > > EuroDIGs 2nd open planning meeting in Geneva, will be held in the UN’s > premises in Geneva on 24 February 2011 from 2 – 4 p.m. The purpose of this > meeting is to discuss the EuroDIG 2011 programme proposals. read more… > > > > *3. 1 March 2011: finalized programme online* > > > > After the discussion and the evaluation of the comments received during the > public comment period the programme will be finalized by the 1 March 2011. > You are welcome to participate in this discussion on 24 February 2011 in > Geneva (see item no. 2 above). > > > > * * > > * * > > *NOTE:** 12 February 2011- Last chance to apply for DiploFoundation’s 2011 > foundation courses* > > A call for applications for Diplo's ACP Information and Communication > Technologies (ICT) and Internet Governance (IG) Capacity Development > Programme Foundation Course has been issued to all government and > sub-regional/regional institutions of ACP countries involved in ICT and IG > policy as well as civil society, business, academia, media, and other > interested individuals or groups. This 12-week online course is designed to > improve ICT- and IG-related knowledge read more… > > > > > > The EuroDIG team > > > > > > If you don’t want to receive this information letter in the future please > send a short message to office at eurodig.org > . > > > > * * > ------------------------------ > > S a n d r a H o f e r i c h t e r > > Management and Communication > > > > *European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG)* > > Medienstadt Leipzig e.V. / Netcom Institute > > PF 650 107 > > D-04189 Leipzig > > > > Fon: +49.341.301 28 27 > > Fax: +49.341.945 60 11 > > Mobile: +49.163.380 87 85 > > > > office at eurodig.org > www.eurodig.org > > > > > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] > > [image: cid:image002.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] > > [image: cid:image002.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] > > [image: cid:image002.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] > > [image: cid:image002.png at 01CAD83B.FBCA2700] > > [image: Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.] > > > > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 168 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 169 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19555 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 20 04:25:47 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 14:55:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <772907E1-6D81-4963-B1B9-AAB07A21C9DD@acm.org> <4D5FB502.7070407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D60DE1B.6060608@itforchange.net> On Saturday 19 February 2011 08:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > In general I see most countries in their role as handmaidens of business and other powerful elites with a patina of public choice when it is not inconvenient to the elites. If your problem is that governments are mostly handmaidens of big business (and other elite) then the only way out is to keep seeking improvements in governments, by trying to make them more and more democratic (surely, some government forms are more democratic than others) as may be happening in the Arab world at present. Grearter involvement of civil society and community based organizations is one of the important ways of improving democracy. In any case, the problem of business/ elite domination can hardly be solved by going toward governance forms where big business is even more legitimately and formally a part of governance structures. And that is what multistakeholderism in IG is largely turning out to be. > I see big businesses as conglomerates of people wanting to be rich No, 'big business' are people already very rich, and having resources and means to manipulate everything and everyone for seeking ever greater power, unless there is some political check on them. More and more, 'big business' is not even people, it is just fast moving blind capital, much more so in a network society. There is no way to correct/ improve the wrongful acts or inclinations of big business other than through proper political checks. Therefore, the solution to both, the wrong kind of governments and the wrong kind of business practices, is more democratic governance, not a return to feudal systems where existing power (then of rank, and now of money) itself secures seats in the political system. > and being motivated by profit more than principle, though often they hold a principle (one i do not hold) that increase in profit is an increase in good. There are exceptions and variations in both generalities, since for the most part generalities are always partially false while being partially true. Yes, I know that is a generality. > > In terms of their roles, I see them as equal stakeholders My problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) begins when it is raised to this level. I can never see governments and big business are 'equal stakeholder'. That for me is the death of democracy. i can accept MSism as a subservient part of democracy (which is the way the term was always used till I heard new formulations in the global IG discourse), but not as overriding democracy. parminder > among others each following their perspectives of what it means to achieve the good, even when i think their good is not so good. I see neither as representing the full will or interests of the people but only as representatives of some part of some people's will or interests at some point in time. > > So I chose neither, but will work with either or both. And of course I know that it is a political choice. > > a.____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Feb 20 04:40:52 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:10:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D60DE1B.6060608@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <772907E1-6D81-4963-B1B9-AAB07A21C9DD@acm.org> <4D5FB502.7070407@itforchange.net> <4D60DE1B.6060608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Carlos, "governments could object simply because the name is controversial, or because one or two governments don’t like the applicant, or because an authoritarian government wants to suppress the kind of content that might be published under a specific top level domain name. A veto could take place regardless of whether a proposed domain name violated an international law, and regardless of whether its expression was protected by the U.S. Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, or other national and international laws or treaties prohibiting censorship. There would be no transparency and no right of appeal." Still unsure???? Sivasubramanian M On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Saturday 19 February 2011 08:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > In general I see most countries in their role as handmaidens of business and > other powerful elites with a patina of public choice when it is not > inconvenient to the elites. > > If your problem is that governments are mostly handmaidens of big business > (and other elite) then the only way out is to keep seeking improvements in > governments, by trying to make them more and more democratic (surely, some > government forms are more democratic than others) as may be happening in the > Arab world at present. Grearter involvement of civil society and community > based organizations is one of the important ways of improving democracy. > > In any case, the problem of business/ elite domination can hardly be solved > by going toward governance forms where big business is even more > legitimately and formally a part of governance structures. And that is what > multistakeholderism in IG is largely turning out to be. > > I see big businesses as conglomerates of people wanting to be rich > > No, 'big business' are people already very rich, and having resources and > means to manipulate everything and everyone for seeking ever greater power, > unless there is some political check on them. More and more, 'big business' > is not even people, it is just fast moving blind capital, much more so in a > network society. There is no way to correct/ improve the wrongful acts or > inclinations of big business other than through proper political checks. > > Therefore, the solution to both, the wrong kind of governments and the wrong > kind of business practices, is more democratic governance, not a return to > feudal systems where existing power (then of rank, and now of money) itself > secures seats in the political system. > > > and being motivated by profit more than principle, though often they hold a > principle (one i do not hold) that increase in profit is an increase in > good. There are exceptions and variations in both generalities, since for > the most part generalities are always partially false while being partially > true. Yes, I know that is a generality. In terms of their roles, I see them > as equal stakeholders > > My problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) begins when it is raised to this > level. I can never see governments and big business are 'equal stakeholder'. > That for me is the death of democracy. i can accept MSism as a subservient > part of democracy (which is the way the term was always used till I heard > new formulations in the global IG discourse), but not as overriding > democracy. > > parminder > > among others each following their perspectives of what it means to achieve > the good, even when i think their good is not so good. I see neither as > representing the full will or interests of the people but only as > representatives of some part of some people's will or interests at some > point in time. So I chose neither, but will work with either or both. And > of course I know that it is a political choice. > a.____________________________________________________________ You received > this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.orgTo > be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sun Feb 20 08:50:38 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:50:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <772907E1-6D81-4963-B1B9-AAB07A21C9DD@acm.org> <4D5FB502.7070407@itforchange.net> <4D60DE1B.6060608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D611C2E.4020305@cafonso.ca> I am sure I am unsure :) The DoC proposal attributes to the GAC a power of representation it does not have -- a government outside of the GAC and completely beyond the DoC's wishes can do what you say on any ground. What, if the Doc proposal is approved (by consensus, I imagine?) this will not be considered because they are not part of the GAC "tribe"? I would like to see this happening in real life... Further, there was no need of a resolution of this kind for the USG to veto .xxx in 2005... and it will continue exercise this independently of the approval of this proposal, unless the Board finally moves itself away from its usual cowardice regarding mighty USA. What if a specific government proposes that it has the right to *request* veto on a new TLD without litigation if this is done during the ICANN application processing period? This might be a strong argument in defence of "less developed" countries' cultural resources, for example, who might not have the dough to confront a ligitation process. I might vote yes on a rewritten petition, which would stress the importance of not modifying GAC's advisory role, which would stress the relative irrelevance of its representation as a multilateral constituency vis a vis the other multitlateral representative structures and the sovereignty of any specific government, would recognize that any specific government could *request* a veto and would stress the role of the Board in keeping the GAC in line with its originally agreed role. Would I be followed by millions? :) --c.a. On 02/20/2011 06:40 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > "governments could object simply because the name is controversial, or because > one or two governments don’t like the applicant, or because an authoritarian > government wants to suppress the kind of content that might be published > under a specific top level domain name. > > A veto could take place regardless of whether a proposed domain name > violated an international law, and regardless of whether its expression was > protected by the U.S. Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, > or other national and international laws or treaties prohibiting censorship. > There would be no transparency and no right of appeal." > > Still unsure???? > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM, parminder > wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday 19 February 2011 08:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> In general I see most countries in their role as handmaidens of business > and >> other powerful elites with a patina of public choice when it is not >> inconvenient to the elites. >> >> If your problem is that governments are mostly handmaidens of big business >> (and other elite) then the only way out is to keep seeking improvements in >> governments, by trying to make them more and more democratic (surely, some >> government forms are more democratic than others) as may be happening in > the >> Arab world at present. Grearter involvement of civil society and community >> based organizations is one of the important ways of improving democracy. >> >> In any case, the problem of business/ elite domination can hardly be > solved >> by going toward governance forms where big business is even more >> legitimately and formally a part of governance structures. And that is > what >> multistakeholderism in IG is largely turning out to be. >> >> I see big businesses as conglomerates of people wanting to be rich >> >> No, 'big business' are people already very rich, and having resources and >> means to manipulate everything and everyone for seeking ever greater > power, >> unless there is some political check on them. More and more, 'big > business' >> is not even people, it is just fast moving blind capital, much more so in > a >> network society. There is no way to correct/ improve the wrongful acts or >> inclinations of big business other than through proper political checks. >> >> Therefore, the solution to both, the wrong kind of governments and the > wrong >> kind of business practices, is more democratic governance, not a return to >> feudal systems where existing power (then of rank, and now of money) > itself >> secures seats in the political system. >> >> >> and being motivated by profit more than principle, though often they hold > a >> principle (one i do not hold) that increase in profit is an increase in >> good. There are exceptions and variations in both generalities, since for >> the most part generalities are always partially false while being > partially >> true. Yes, I know that is a generality. In terms of their roles, I see > them >> as equal stakeholders >> >> My problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) begins when it is raised to > this >> level. I can never see governments and big business are 'equal > stakeholder'. >> That for me is the death of democracy. i can accept MSism as a > subservient >> part of democracy (which is the way the term was always used till I heard >> new formulations in the global IG discourse), but not as overriding >> democracy. >> >> parminder >> >> among others each following their perspectives of what it means to > achieve >> the good, even when i think their good is not so good. I see neither as >> representing the full will or interests of the people but only as >> representatives of some part of some people's will or interests at some >> point in time. So I chose neither, but will work with either or both. > And >> of course I know that it is a political choice. >> a.____________________________________________________________ You > received >> this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.orgTo >> be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to > find >> the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this > email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Feb 20 12:08:39 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:08:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5ED08D.8030105@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5ED08D.8030105@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: frere Carlos, On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > In general I agree with Parminder. > > I think the document exaggerates a bit: ACK "The GAC represents all the > world's governments, including Iran, the U.S., Russia and China." It > does not. It is a representation of a bunch of governments in a > non-binding forum aggregated to a private organization. right, but the USG seems willing to give this body sweeping, unprecedented authority. As Louis Pouzin > reminds us, a bullet is missing in the petition: > > "• The GAC veto cannot apply internationally because the GAC does not > represent any internationally agreed authority." There is NO GAC veto now (but some GAC memebrs think there is, and the USG seems to want to give it one) > What needs to be preserved is the advisory nature of the GAC exactly > And, please, an independent Russian journalist would have the dough to > go through the extremely expensive application process? > > Hmmm, I think I prefer to abstain. I wafflled for a few days, but eventually signed, c'mon, you KNOW you want to ;-) -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 21 10:01:51 2011 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:01:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <25686.74232.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Milton, Yes I signed the petition and I facebooked it, so as to publish it to at least 4 ;-( Rights are not maintained by silence. Rights require wars, wars-battles, battles -skirmishes and ultimately one person resolving to do battle. No matter the size of this conflict, it is important that each of us stand up and resolve to do our part to stop the deterioration of our rights. Each little notch leads to another. Each silence leads to more silence against usurpation of the Internet. Bad things happen when good women do nothing. Be thankful that this war is so far not violent. Eric ________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Sent: Thu, February 17, 2011 9:31:05 AM Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! Thanks, ---- Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Mon Feb 21 10:58:19 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:58:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D611C2E.4020305@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <772907E1-6D81-4963-B1B9-AAB07A21C9DD@acm.org> <4D5FB502.7070407@itforchange.net> <4D60DE1B.6060608@itforchange.net> <4D611C2E.4020305@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4D628B9B.3010203@digsys.bg> Some of the comments prompted me to review my memory of various acts the DoC has done in the past and my feeling is that they try to give this (imaginary) power to the GAC in order to get ICANN (board) to behave. Which is pity, because the GAC should be an integral part of the ICANN process along with the other ACs and SOs. There should be in no time confrontation between any of these and the ICANN board. Governments, being as independent as they are (or think they are, or are let to think they are) can act in any (un)reasonable way imaginable. There is no need to formally give them powers, that they believe are already in their hands. Besides, as it was pointed out many times, the GAC is not governments, as it should be. This issue is getting way too complicated for a simple petition. :( By the way, what is wrong with a government requesting veto on any particular new gTLD? 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 Mon Feb 21 11:08:40 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:08:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I can't believe how off-topic and pointless this conversation has become. Sorry if I am offending anyone, but in essence you are quibbling in abstract terms about whether you want the people behind a firing squad to be taking orders from governments or business, and you are missing an opportunity to question whether there should be a firing squad at all! Let's get this clear. Just as it would be unacceptable for a TLD veto "for any reason" to be administered by ICANN the private corporation, so it is unacceptable for one to be administered by the GAC. In both cases, the power to suppress expression would be unregulated by any legitimate form of democratically developed law or liberal norms regarding minimal intrusions into peaceful private affairs. Parminder, I want to see your signature on that petition, or else I want to see some much, much better rationale for why it is not. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:26 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Your support for a petition Hi Avri On Friday 18 February 2011 11:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote: hi, They are quite careful to explain that the required consensus, only requires one country to voice the objection and other countries to keep their silence. And in the collegiality of the GAc, we can expect that most representatives will keep their silence so that others will keep their silence when they object. I understand there are problems. But in relation to the collegiality among gov reps, the collegiality of all those who represents the political interests of big business is many many times more, and so much more solid, and sticky. The GAC does not vote, it mostly just goes along silently behind the lead of a few leaders. So it is questionable what one could take to court on a national basis Both acts of omission and commission are liable to be challenged if the rights of a citizen are affected. And not exercising the right to veto an objection is a clear act of omission, if there ever was one. In any case, with democratic governments there are at least some avenues of checks and balances on which we can work, while one can keep seeking further improvements. As for your comments on the ICC Center of Expertise, that is another problem and many of us agree with you, but the two problems do not cancel each other out. They dont. And in real world which presents real choices, we have to begin with one of the two problem situations. I choose governments over big business. With governments there are ways to work on improvements - as is happening on such a big scale in the middle east, which will no doubt also have a big influence, eventually, on global governance. With big business the logic is simply of profit and accumulation. That is what all economists and business schools also tell us. What is my avenue of seeking accountability from it? And yeah, we know you are not enamored of big business. Nothing against big business it they stick to what they are supposed to do - organize our productive forces more effectively. The problem comes when they want to corner political power as well (which includes distributional issues), which is what often happens in IG arena, evne more than everywhere else. And IMHO the IG civil society has been rather lacking in recognizing and addressing this key global IG issue. Parminder a. someone who signed the petition On 18 Feb 2011, at 00:36, parminder wrote: Milton/ Norbert Excuse my ignorance about complicated ICANN issues. I am still only trying to understand the issue but... Do you think an objection that needs to be supported by *a full consensus in the GAC* is really 'putting GAC in charge of domain name policy. How easy is it to get a consensus among all governments. In fact pursuant to any such consensus it is at present 'legal' to militarily raid and takeover any country. But that really doesn't happen that often, right. Moreover, how does it compare with the present practice where any adjudication regarding 'public interest' issues involved in domain name policy is done by a body of the International Chambers of Commerce. Interestingly, this body of ICC - the ICC International Centre of Expertise - on its website claims expertise in 'every conceivable subject relevant to business operations'. Business operations?? Public interest ?? Am I missing something here. Furthermore, any vote of any country (say, the US) in the GAC on a public interest issue, since its implication will also be produced within that country, should be able to be challenged in the national courts vis a vis its compliance to constitutional and subordinate law. As you would have surmised, I am not too enamored of global political power being exercised by big business, and between that and legitimate political systems, will prefer to work with the latter, and seek reforms to them. And, Milton, if a legitimate transnational political system has to be sought, placing big business in a central position is hardly the right way to go about it. It is best sought as an evolution from existing representative systems. Parminder On Friday 18 February 2011 01:13 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: On 02/17/2011 12:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: I am seeking support for this online petition, which some of us will carry into the IGF Geneva consultation and then the Brussels ICANN meeting. It relates to the U.S. Commerce Department's efforts to put the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in charge of domain name policy. http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto Please sign it if you agree! And redistribute the link widely if you can! Already done. Norbert Klein -- PK ________________________________ ________________________________  ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 -- PK ________________________________ ________________________________  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 21 11:21:22 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:21:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D611C2E.4020305@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <772907E1-6D81-4963-B1B9-AAB07A21C9DD@acm.org> <4D5FB502.7070407@itforchange.net> <4D60DE1B.6060608@itforchange.net> <4D611C2E.4020305@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > I am sure I am unsure :) The DoC proposal attributes to the GAC a power > of representation it does not have -- a government outside of the GAC > and completely beyond the DoC's wishes can do what you say on any > ground. What, if the Doc proposal is approved (by consensus, I imagine?) > this will not be considered because they are not part of the GAC > "tribe"? Carlos, I have no idea what you are getting at here. No idea. > I would like to see this happening in real life... Further, > there was no need of a resolution of this kind for the USG to veto .xxx > in 2005... That is a very instructive example. The proposed GAC veto would institutionalize what happened when the US government abused its special relationship to ICANN to pressure it to kill a TLD because a vocal group within its jurisdiction demanded that it do so. So do you want this to happen routinely? Do you believe that people should be silenced any time an organized interest group mounts a campaign against them? At stake here is a basic principle of human rights. Individuals have a right to expression rehardless of whether it is popular or liked by others. Under no conditions is that right conditional upon the extra-legal opinions of a bunch of government officials. > What if a specific government proposes that it has the right to > *request* veto on a new TLD without litigation if this is done during > the ICANN application processing period? This might be a strong argument > in defence of "less developed" countries' cultural resources, for > example, who might not have the dough to confront a ligitation process. There is already a community objection process built into the Applicant Guidebook which meets those concerns. Also, it is already possible within the proposed process for GAC as a whole to register an objection and trigger an objection process. The difference is that the current objection process, which the US is trying to overthrow, has a defined standard for evaluating objections. The objection must prove that the TLD is contrary to internationally recognized principles of law. You can just object "for any reason." Sometimes in these debates I feel like we have reverted to the 16th century and I have to explain basic principles of democratic and liberal government. Many people seem to think that because it is a transnational medium that national governments can all become like China or the old Egypt, and just rule by decree or the wishes of an absolute authority. National governments have no more legitimacy or authority to make ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 21 11:27:54 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:27:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5ED08D.8030105@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5ED08D.8030105@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF21820@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > I think the document exaggerates a bit: "The GAC represents all the > world's governments, including Iran, the U.S., Russia and China." It > does not. It is a representation of a bunch of governments in a > non-binding forum aggregated to a private organization. As Louis Pouzin > reminds us, a bullet is missing in the petition: This choice of words was careful and deliberate. Any government can join GAC. Thus, it could in principle usurp the role of an intergovernmental organization, and "represent" the views of any and all governments, individually and collectively, even though it would be an unlawful usurpation because there is no treaty or due process requirements underlying the GAC's powers, scope and operations. That lack of grounding in agreed, democratically derived law is precisely what makes the GAC so dangerous. Parminder's musings notwithstanding, anyone who doesn't understand the difference between the powers of a state apparatus with the authority to use guns unregulated by popularly accountable law, and private businesses which don't unless government gives it to them, is suffering from a pretty primitive understanding of politics. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 21 11:28:57 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:28:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D5ED468.2040606@digsys.bg> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5ED08D.8030105@cafonso.ca> <4D5ED468.2040606@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF21821@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> True, but utterly irrelevant to the point being made. > -----Original Message----- > However, I agree that the issue is exagerated a bit. The GAC is nowehere > as representative as it could be. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Feb 21 11:41:26 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:41:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF21820@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5ED08D.8030105@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF21820@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D6295B6.7010201@cafonso.ca> Gosh, is there a vaccine against this suffering? :) --c.a. On 02/21/2011 01:27 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- I think the document exaggerates a bit: >> "The GAC represents all the world's governments, including Iran, >> the U.S., Russia and China." It does not. It is a representation of >> a bunch of governments in a non-binding forum aggregated to a >> private organization. As Louis Pouzin reminds us, a bullet is >> missing in the petition: > > This choice of words was careful and deliberate. Any government can > join GAC. Thus, it could in principle usurp the role of an > intergovernmental organization, and "represent" the views of any and > all governments, individually and collectively, even though it would > be an unlawful usurpation because there is no treaty or due process > requirements underlying the GAC's powers, scope and operations. That > lack of grounding in agreed, democratically derived law is precisely > what makes the GAC so dangerous. Parminder's musings notwithstanding, > anyone who doesn't understand the difference between the powers of a > state apparatus with the authority to use guns unregulated by > popularly accountable law, and private businesses which don't unless > government gives it to them, is suffering from a pretty primitive > understanding of politics. > > --MM > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and > to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Feb 21 11:46:07 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:46:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 21 Feb 2011, at 17:08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > et’s get this clear. Just as it would be unacceptable for a TLD veto “for any reason” to be administered by ICANN the private corporation, for any reason? personally, i am willing to let ICANN veto it because they don't have their technical act together. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Feb 21 12:03:40 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:03:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> Yes, and only on these grounds. Everything else should be outside ICANN's scope, and should only be considered through due process initiated from the outside (be the petitioners gov or non gov). This is what we defended in the "keep the core neutral" campaign... So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other community) to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC. --c.a. On 02/21/2011 01:46 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 21 Feb 2011, at 17:08, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> et’s get this clear. Just as it would be unacceptable for a TLD veto “for any reason” to be administered by ICANN the private corporation, > > > for any reason? personally, i am willing to let ICANN veto it because they don't have their technical act together. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Feb 21 12:26:39 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:26:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:03, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other community) > to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC. I am assuming 'request a veto' == 'file an objection' And that is one of the sticking points at this juncture as I understand it. And what follows is just my understanding, which could be very flawed as we are talking about governments and there is a lot about governments I just don't understand. As the current revision of the new gTLD guidebook is written (AGV5), a government needs to pay a fee to a private corporation in order to raise an objection just like anyone else. Seems fair, but ... Unfortunately for sovereignty reasons i don't fully appreciate, though I am told it is so by many, governments can't pay a fee to a private US corporation in order to participate in an objection process on issues they believe are counter to their national policy, law or culture. Since ICANN did not accept the REC6 recommendation that governments should be able to file an objection for free (with the concomitant ability of the applicant to respond for free) they had to find another mechanism. By operationalizing the GAC and allowing it to veto based on its consensus position, they felt they had a mechanism that achieved their purposes. Of course the idea that a single government or even the consensus of all governments could stifle free expressions with a veto is an outrage from my perspective. That is why I signed the petition. I also think that perhaps there are aspects of this the DOC just did not consider. E.g as one brilliant friend pointed out to me, by having the ability to veto any gTLD application, the GAC gains the responsibility of having given an implicit approval of all gTLDS it did not veto - i.e. the omission of a veto is approval with everything that might entail about national law and citizen attitudes and approval. This policy, if accepted, could be a real mess for the very governments who want it, besides being repugnant. a. PS. as for vaccines against the suffering caused by a pretty primitive understanding of politics, i do not think there is any cure, but there may be palliatives available in places as liberated as California. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 21 12:42:34 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:42:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] "Freedom from poverty" dynamic coalition Message-ID: <20110221174234.3073315C282@quill.bollow.ch> Dear all, It appears to me that much of the internet governance discourse is missing the main points. Among these, as I'm sure most here will agree, the various aspects of freedom are of preeminent experience. I'd like to work towards the creation of a Dynamic Coalition that would focus primarily on the aspect of freedom from poverty, and on how the Internet can effectively be expanded and used towards that goal. I'd want the various other aspects of freedom, including in particular poltical freedoms and the effective enforcability of privacy rights to be kept in mind during this work on addressing the problem of poverty, but I'd like to see a strong forcus on overcoming the various mechanisms that keep people in poverty or make them dependent on crutches like "development aid". Does anyone have advice for someone interested in creating an IGF Dynamic Coalition? Greetings, Norbert P.S. I'll be in Geneva on Wednesday... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Feb 21 12:40:35 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:40:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4D62A393.408@cafonso.ca> I entirely agree on the free expression grounds, but recall that there might be applications whose proposed TLDs might represent a perceived conflict with a community or gov on identification grounds (eg, a cultural heritage space etc). Recall also that 99% of the proposals will be from business (with plenty of $$$ to go over the entire process and take on the risks), and on the other side there might be a completely underpowered community of local gov or... I do not want to close the door on these possibilities. frt rgds --c,a, On 02/21/2011 02:26 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:03, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other community) >> to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC. > > I am assuming 'request a veto' == 'file an objection' > > > And that is one of the sticking points at this juncture as I understand it. And what follows is just my understanding, which could be very flawed as we are talking about governments and there is a lot about governments I just don't understand. > > As the current revision of the new gTLD guidebook is written (AGV5), a government needs to pay a fee to a private corporation in order to raise an objection just like anyone else. > > Seems fair, but ... > > Unfortunately for sovereignty reasons i don't fully appreciate, though I am told it is so by many, governments can't pay a fee to a private US corporation in order to participate in an objection process on issues they believe are counter to their national policy, law or culture. Since ICANN did not accept the REC6 recommendation that governments should be able to file an objection for free (with the concomitant ability of the applicant to respond for free) they had to find another mechanism. By operationalizing the GAC and allowing it to veto based on its consensus position, they felt they had a mechanism that achieved their purposes. > > Of course the idea that a single government or even the consensus of all governments could stifle free expressions with a veto is an outrage from my perspective. That is why I signed the petition. > > I also think that perhaps there are aspects of this the DOC just did not consider. E.g as one brilliant friend pointed out to me, by having the ability to veto any gTLD application, the GAC gains the responsibility of having given an implicit approval of all gTLDS it did not veto - i.e. the omission of a veto is approval with everything that might entail about national law and citizen attitudes and approval. > > This policy, if accepted, could be a real mess for the very governments who want it, besides being repugnant. > > a. > > > PS. as for vaccines against the suffering caused by a pretty primitive understanding of politics, i do not think there is any cure, but there may be palliatives available in places as liberated as California. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Mon Feb 21 13:17:25 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:17:25 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D62A393.408@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> <4D62A393.408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hmmmm, I have signed the Petition but had not throught about the 1% Carlos is talking about. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I entirely agree on the free expression grounds, but recall that there > might be applications whose proposed TLDs might represent a perceived > conflict with a community or gov on identification grounds (eg, a > cultural heritage space etc). Recall also that 99% of the proposals will > be from business (with plenty of $$$ to go over the entire process and > take on the risks), and on the other side there might be a completely > underpowered community of local gov or... > > I do not want to close the door on these possibilities. > > frt rgds > > --c,a, > > On 02/21/2011 02:26 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:03, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > >> So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other community) > >> to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC. > > > > I am assuming 'request a veto' == 'file an objection' > > > > > > And that is one of the sticking points at this juncture as I understand > it. And what follows is just my understanding, which could be very flawed > as we are talking about governments and there is a lot about governments I > just don't understand. > > > > As the current revision of the new gTLD guidebook is written (AGV5), a > government needs to pay a fee to a private corporation in order to raise an > objection just like anyone else. > > > > Seems fair, but ... > > > > Unfortunately for sovereignty reasons i don't fully appreciate, though I > am told it is so by many, governments can't pay a fee to a private US > corporation in order to participate in an objection process on issues they > believe are counter to their national policy, law or culture. Since ICANN > did not accept the REC6 recommendation that governments should be able to > file an objection for free (with the concomitant ability of the applicant to > respond for free) they had to find another mechanism. By operationalizing > the GAC and allowing it to veto based on its consensus position, they felt > they had a mechanism that achieved their purposes. > > > > Of course the idea that a single government or even the consensus of all > governments could stifle free expressions with a veto is an outrage from my > perspective. That is why I signed the petition. > > > > I also think that perhaps there are aspects of this the DOC just did not > consider. E.g as one brilliant friend pointed out to me, by having the > ability to veto any gTLD application, the GAC gains the responsibility of > having given an implicit approval of all gTLDS it did not veto - i.e. the > omission of a veto is approval with everything that might entail about > national law and citizen attitudes and approval. > > > > This policy, if accepted, could be a real mess for the very governments > who want it, besides being repugnant. > > > > a. > > > > > > PS. as for vaccines against the suffering caused by a pretty primitive > understanding of politics, i do not think there is any cure, but there may > be palliatives available in places as liberated as California. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To 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 avri at acm.org Mon Feb 21 13:51:32 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:51:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D62A393.408@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> <4D62A393.408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <8E0FC111-5837-49A4-BA89-8E817D8A7B1E@acm.org> Hi, That is why a. a governement should be able to initiate the objection process on its own. b. the injured community should be able to initiate the 'this harms our community' objection And the fact that the application might be made by someone with indefinitely large bags of power-money is one reason I broke from my NCUC/ALAC Brothers and Sisters (-: NABS) on accepting the role of the Independent Objector, as long as what she did was not done in secret and had to have a named objecting party. I.e I think the IO is a good proposal, it has just been designed badly. Carlos, I thank you for sticking to your corner and allowing all these nuances to be discussed. a. On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:40, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I entirely agree on the free expression grounds, but recall that there > might be applications whose proposed TLDs might represent a perceived > conflict with a community or gov on identification grounds (eg, a > cultural heritage space etc). Recall also that 99% of the proposals will > be from business (with plenty of $$$ to go over the entire process and > take on the risks), and on the other side there might be a completely > underpowered community of local gov or... > > I do not want to close the door on these possibilities. > > frt rgds > > --c,a, > > On 02/21/2011 02:26 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:03, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other community) >>> to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC. >> >> I am assuming 'request a veto' == 'file an objection' >> >> >> And that is one of the sticking points at this juncture as I understand it. And what follows is just my understanding, which could be very flawed as we are talking about governments and there is a lot about governments I just don't understand. >> >> As the current revision of the new gTLD guidebook is written (AGV5), a government needs to pay a fee to a private corporation in order to raise an objection just like anyone else. >> >> Seems fair, but ... >> >> Unfortunately for sovereignty reasons i don't fully appreciate, though I am told it is so by many, governments can't pay a fee to a private US corporation in order to participate in an objection process on issues they believe are counter to their national policy, law or culture. Since ICANN did not accept the REC6 recommendation that governments should be able to file an objection for free (with the concomitant ability of the applicant to respond for free) they had to find another mechanism. By operationalizing the GAC and allowing it to veto based on its consensus position, they felt they had a mechanism that achieved their purposes. >> >> Of course the idea that a single government or even the consensus of all governments could stifle free expressions with a veto is an outrage from my perspective. That is why I signed the petition. >> >> I also think that perhaps there are aspects of this the DOC just did not consider. E.g as one brilliant friend pointed out to me, by having the ability to veto any gTLD application, the GAC gains the responsibility of having given an implicit approval of all gTLDS it did not veto - i.e. the omission of a veto is approval with everything that might entail about national law and citizen attitudes and approval. >> >> This policy, if accepted, could be a real mess for the very governments who want it, besides being repugnant. >> >> a. >> >> >> PS. as for vaccines against the suffering caused by a pretty primitive understanding of politics, i do not think there is any cure, but there may be palliatives available in places as liberated as California. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Feb 21 14:02:39 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:02:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <8E0FC111-5837-49A4-BA89-8E817D8A7B1E@acm.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> <4D62A393.408@cafonso.ca> <8E0FC111-5837-49A4-BA89-8E817D8A7B1E@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D62B6CF.3060407@cafonso.ca> Pretty tight corner actually :) [] frat --c.a. On 02/21/2011 03:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > That is why > > a. a governement should be able to initiate the objection process on its own. > b. the injured community should be able to initiate the 'this harms our community' objection > > And the fact that the application might be made by someone with indefinitely large bags of power-money is one reason I broke from my NCUC/ALAC Brothers and Sisters (-: NABS) on accepting the role of the Independent Objector, as long as what she did was not done in secret and had to have a named objecting party. I.e I think the IO is a good proposal, it has just been designed badly. > > Carlos, I thank you for sticking to your corner and allowing all these nuances to be discussed. > > a. > > On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:40, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> I entirely agree on the free expression grounds, but recall that there >> might be applications whose proposed TLDs might represent a perceived >> conflict with a community or gov on identification grounds (eg, a >> cultural heritage space etc). Recall also that 99% of the proposals will >> be from business (with plenty of $$$ to go over the entire process and >> take on the risks), and on the other side there might be a completely >> underpowered community of local gov or... >> >> I do not want to close the door on these possibilities. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c,a, >> >> On 02/21/2011 02:26 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:03, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other community) >>>> to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC. >>> >>> I am assuming 'request a veto' == 'file an objection' >>> >>> >>> And that is one of the sticking points at this juncture as I understand it. And what follows is just my understanding, which could be very flawed as we are talking about governments and there is a lot about governments I just don't understand. >>> >>> As the current revision of the new gTLD guidebook is written (AGV5), a government needs to pay a fee to a private corporation in order to raise an objection just like anyone else. >>> >>> Seems fair, but ... >>> >>> Unfortunately for sovereignty reasons i don't fully appreciate, though I am told it is so by many, governments can't pay a fee to a private US corporation in order to participate in an objection process on issues they believe are counter to their national policy, law or culture. Since ICANN did not accept the REC6 recommendation that governments should be able to file an objection for free (with the concomitant ability of the applicant to respond for free) they had to find another mechanism. By operationalizing the GAC and allowing it to veto based on its consensus position, they felt they had a mechanism that achieved their purposes. >>> >>> Of course the idea that a single government or even the consensus of all governments could stifle free expressions with a veto is an outrage from my perspective. That is why I signed the petition. >>> >>> I also think that perhaps there are aspects of this the DOC just did not consider. E.g as one brilliant friend pointed out to me, by having the ability to veto any gTLD application, the GAC gains the responsibility of having given an implicit approval of all gTLDS it did not veto - i.e. the omission of a veto is approval with everything that might entail about national law and citizen attitudes and approval. >>> >>> This policy, if accepted, could be a real mess for the very governments who want it, besides being repugnant. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> PS. as for vaccines against the suffering caused by a pretty primitive understanding of politics, i do not think there is any cure, but there may be palliatives available in places as liberated as California. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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 kichango at gmail.com Mon Feb 21 14:12:21 2011 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:12:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D62B6CF.3060407@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> <4D62A393.408@cafonso.ca> <8E0FC111-5837-49A4-BA89-8E817D8A7B1E@acm.org> <4D62B6CF.3060407@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Carlos, I just spat my coffee because of you... OK, then why ICANN cannot make the objection process free of charge for govts, or even nonprofit/ community-based entities of a sort (not business associations.) I'm just thinking out loud here, with no prior vetting. Or maybe GAC members should pay some duties, not to ICANN but to their own treasury and contract their own agent to carry the objection process without paying anything to ICANN directly... Do they need treaties for dues to external entities? Please note: I'm not advocating any solution here... sort of brainstorming. Mawaki On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Pretty tight corner actually :) > > [] frat > > --c.a. > > On 02/21/2011 03:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > That is why > > > > a. a governement should be able to initiate the objection process on its > own. > > b. the injured community should be able to initiate the 'this harms our > community' objection > > > > And the fact that the application might be made by someone with > indefinitely large bags of power-money is one reason I broke from my > NCUC/ALAC Brothers and Sisters (-: NABS) on accepting the role of the > Independent Objector, as long as what she did was not done in secret and had > to have a named objecting party. I.e I think the IO is a good proposal, it > has just been designed badly. > > > > Carlos, I thank you for sticking to your corner and allowing all these > nuances to be discussed. > > > > a. > > > > On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:40, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > >> I entirely agree on the free expression grounds, but recall that there > >> might be applications whose proposed TLDs might represent a perceived > >> conflict with a community or gov on identification grounds (eg, a > >> cultural heritage space etc). Recall also that 99% of the proposals will > >> be from business (with plenty of $$$ to go over the entire process and > >> take on the risks), and on the other side there might be a completely > >> underpowered community of local gov or... > >> > >> I do not want to close the door on these possibilities. > >> > >> frt rgds > >> > >> --c,a, > >> > >> On 02/21/2011 02:26 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> > >>> On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:03, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >>> > >>>> So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other > community) > >>>> to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC. > >>> > >>> I am assuming 'request a veto' == 'file an objection' > >>> > >>> > >>> And that is one of the sticking points at this juncture as I understand > it. And what follows is just my understanding, which could be very flawed > as we are talking about governments and there is a lot about governments I > just don't understand. > >>> > >>> As the current revision of the new gTLD guidebook is written (AGV5), a > government needs to pay a fee to a private corporation in order to raise an > objection just like anyone else. > >>> > >>> Seems fair, but ... > >>> > >>> Unfortunately for sovereignty reasons i don't fully appreciate, though > I am told it is so by many, governments can't pay a fee to a private US > corporation in order to participate in an objection process on issues they > believe are counter to their national policy, law or culture. Since ICANN > did not accept the REC6 recommendation that governments should be able to > file an objection for free (with the concomitant ability of the applicant to > respond for free) they had to find another mechanism. By operationalizing > the GAC and allowing it to veto based on its consensus position, they felt > they had a mechanism that achieved their purposes. > >>> > >>> Of course the idea that a single government or even the consensus of > all governments could stifle free expressions with a veto is an outrage from > my perspective. That is why I signed the petition. > >>> > >>> I also think that perhaps there are aspects of this the DOC just did > not consider. E.g as one brilliant friend pointed out to me, by having the > ability to veto any gTLD application, the GAC gains the responsibility of > having given an implicit approval of all gTLDS it did not veto - i.e. the > omission of a veto is approval with everything that might entail about > national law and citizen attitudes and approval. > >>> > >>> This policy, if accepted, could be a real mess for the very governments > who want it, besides being repugnant. > >>> > >>> a. > >>> > >>> > >>> PS. as for vaccines against the suffering caused by a pretty primitive > understanding of politics, i do not think there is any cure, but there may > be palliatives available in places as liberated as California. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 21 15:38:12 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:38:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29D60@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> But they can do this through national-level blocking, regardless of what ICANN, the USG or we decide now. > -----Original Message----- > > So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other community) > to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC. > > --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 21 15:50:12 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:50:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29D63@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > Unfortunately for sovereignty reasons i don't fully appreciate, though I > am told it is so by many, governments can't pay a fee to a private US > corporation in order to participate in an objection process on issues > they believe are counter to their national policy, law or culture. [Milton L Mueller] Oh, this is made-up nonsense by governments who are all puffed up with their imagined importance. These people assign what is essentially a religious significance to "sovereignty" and use it as a get out of jail free card to do whatever they want to do whenever it's convenient - it's like saying "God made me do it" (or, more appropriately, "the devil made me do it") The DNS is administered by a private corporation, just like, say, the IEEE administers certain technical standards. If you want to participate in IEEE standardization activities as a member, you pay a membership fee. End of story. Governments can and do pay fees to private corporations to dig ditches, receive telecom services, etc. Governments have a sovereign right to block domains at the national level. For them to claim they have a sovereignty interest in exercising a similar power over a global infrastructure, most of which is in private hands outside their jurisdiction, is self-evidently wrong. Only in this confused environment could they even begin to get away with such a claim. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 21 15:56:19 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:56:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> <4D62A393.408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29D64@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> There is already a community objection procedure. It has very specific methods and criteria. Even assuming this procedure is inadequate or needs modification (which I don't - I actually think it is too strong) you don't ask for absolute, arbitrary power to veto "for any reason" if you are seriously concerned with that minor issue. --MM From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 1:17 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition Hmmmm, I have signed the Petition but had not throught about the 1% Carlos is talking about. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: I entirely agree on the free expression grounds, but recall that there might be applications whose proposed TLDs might represent a perceived conflict with a community or gov on identification grounds (eg, a cultural heritage space etc). Recall also that 99% of the proposals will be from business (with plenty of $$$ to go over the entire process and take on the risks), and on the other side there might be a completely underpowered community of local gov or... I do not want to close the door on these possibilities. frt rgds --c,a, On 02/21/2011 02:26 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 21 Feb 2011, at 18:03, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other community) >> to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC. > > I am assuming 'request a veto' == 'file an objection' > > > And that is one of the sticking points at this juncture as I understand it. And what follows is just my understanding, which could be very flawed as we are talking about governments and there is a lot about governments I just don't understand. > > As the current revision of the new gTLD guidebook is written (AGV5), a government needs to pay a fee to a private corporation in order to raise an objection just like anyone else. > > Seems fair, but ... > > Unfortunately for sovereignty reasons i don't fully appreciate, though I am told it is so by many, governments can't pay a fee to a private US corporation in order to participate in an objection process on issues they believe are counter to their national policy, law or culture. Since ICANN did not accept the REC6 recommendation that governments should be able to file an objection for free (with the concomitant ability of the applicant to respond for free) they had to find another mechanism. By operationalizing the GAC and allowing it to veto based on its consensus position, they felt they had a mechanism that achieved their purposes. > > Of course the idea that a single government or even the consensus of all governments could stifle free expressions with a veto is an outrage from my perspective. That is why I signed the petition. > > I also think that perhaps there are aspects of this the DOC just did not consider. E.g as one brilliant friend pointed out to me, by having the ability to veto any gTLD application, the GAC gains the responsibility of having given an implicit approval of all gTLDS it did not veto - i.e. the omission of a veto is approval with everything that might entail about national law and citizen attitudes and approval. > > This policy, if accepted, could be a real mess for the very governments who want it, besides being repugnant. > > a. > > > PS. as for vaccines against the suffering caused by a pretty primitive understanding of politics, i do not think there is any cure, but there may be palliatives available in places as liberated as California. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 21 15:57:23 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:57:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <8E0FC111-5837-49A4-BA89-8E817D8A7B1E@acm.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> <4D62A393.408@cafonso.ca> <8E0FC111-5837-49A4-BA89-8E817D8A7B1E@acm.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29D65@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Agree too. Whatever Carlos says I take seriously. > -----Original Message----- > > Carlos, I thank you for sticking to your corner and allowing all these > nuances to be discussed. > > a. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Feb 21 16:59:51 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:59:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29D60@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29D60@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D62E057.5070805@cafonso.ca> Actually there might be a situation in which the gov does not want to block access to the domain, but dispute the right to it on, say, cultural grounds (as in my example) -- a dispute in which it acts in favor of a local cultural asset, for example. I agree with Avri that "requesting a veto" is equivalent to "filing an objection". --c.a. On 02/21/2011 05:38 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > But they can do this through national-level blocking, regardless of what ICANN, the USG or we decide now. > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> So, as I said, govs will always have the right (as any other community) >> to *request* a veto -- BTW, govs being or not part of the GAC. >> >> --c.a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 21 17:25:26 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:25:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message , at 18:26:39 on Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Avri Doria writes >Of course the idea that a single government or even the consensus of >all governments could stifle free expressions with a veto is an outrage >from my perspective. Isn't this much the same as the adage that "freedom of speech" does not extend to falsely shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater? >I also think that perhaps there are aspects of this the DOC just did >not consider. E.g as one brilliant friend pointed out to me, by having >the ability to veto any gTLD application, the GAC gains the >responsibility of having given an implicit approval of all gTLDS it did >not veto - i.e. the omission of a veto is approval with everything that >might entail about national law and citizen attitudes and approval. Another old canard, much beloved of BBS (Bulletin Board) operators when agonising about whether they are allowed to "moderate" the postings, on the grounds that if they do, then everything they let through becomes their liability. -- 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 Feb 21 17:30:18 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:30:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [goverance] Your support for a petition In-Reply-To: <4D62E057.5070805@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29CD9@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D5E233D.9080008@gmx.net> <4D5E0554.1040605@itforchange.net> <4D5E737D.2070707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF2181E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D629AEC.3080209@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7143AF29D60@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4D62E057.5070805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <4D62E057.5070805 at cafonso.ca>, at 18:59:51 on Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Carlos A. Afonso writes >I agree with Avri that "requesting a veto" is equivalent to "filing an >objection". Yes, and what I seem to have lost track of amongst the noise is who gets to decide if the objection is upheld or not? [Other than the Board, which is the obvious answer]. -- 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 Mon Feb 21 18:01:12 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:01:12 +1200 Subject: [governance] Help me retrieve the email: OECD Message-ID: Dear All, I vaguely recall and can't remember for the life of me the subject matter where someone sent a link showing a manufacturer of laptops/computers for OECD countries. Does anyone remember? Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Mon Feb 21 18:55:38 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:55:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU Message-ID: Dear Friends and colleagues: Since February 14th, I am the Head of the Area Office of ITU in Honduras serving Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. I will be moving to Honduras at the beginning of March. I count on your advice and help to assist these countries in developing their telecommunications and making real the promise of using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development, as you can count with me for anything you think I might be helpful. My email at ITU is miguel.alcaine at itu.int fixed telephone: +504 220-1074 (in Honduras from March 7) Sincerely, Miguel Alcaine ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 21 20:34:56 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:34:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Miguel! I wish you the very best in your new role. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear Friends and colleagues: > > Since February 14th, I am the Head of the Area Office of ITU in > Honduras serving Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, > Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. > > I will be moving to Honduras at the beginning of March. > > I count on your advice and help to assist these countries in > developing their telecommunications and making real the promise of > using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development, as you can count with > me for anything you think I might be helpful. > > My email at ITU is miguel.alcaine at itu.int > fixed telephone: +504 220-1074 (in Honduras from March 7) > > Sincerely, > > Miguel Alcaine > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 carloswatson at gmail.com Mon Feb 21 20:55:34 2011 From: carloswatson at gmail.com (carlos watson) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:55:34 -0600 Subject: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Miguel Un saludo desde Costa Rica, voy a tomar tu mensaje muy en cuenta ya que en Costa Rica, recién formamos el ISOC Chapter y estamos trabajando muy fuerte en algunos tópicos en la mejora y penetración del Internet. cw www.isoc-cr.org 2011/2/21 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Congratulations Miguel! I wish you the very best in your new role. > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Miguel Alcaine > wrote: >> >> Dear Friends and colleagues: >> >> Since February 14th, I am the Head of the Area Office of ITU in >> Honduras serving Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, >> Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. >> >> I will be moving to Honduras at the beginning of March. >> >> I count on your advice and help to assist these countries in >> developing their telecommunications and making real the promise of >> using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development, as you can count with >> me for anything you think I might be helpful. >> >> My email at ITU is miguel.alcaine at itu.int >> fixed telephone: +504 220-1074 (in Honduras from March 7) >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Miguel Alcaine >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 jfcallo at ciencitec.com Mon Feb 21 22:29:23 2011 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:29:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] y en el Peru? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110221222923.92bjodx7sao00kko@www.ciencitec.com> Respetable Miguel: ¿Quien es el jefe de la zona o area donde esta el Peru, mi pais. Gracias Atentamente Jose F. Callo Romero CEO - ciencitec.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Feb 22 03:16:22 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:16:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU In-Reply-To: (message from Miguel Alcaine on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:55:38 +0100) References: Message-ID: <20110222081622.3E1DE15C282@quill.bollow.ch> Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Since February 14th, I am the Head of the Area Office of ITU in > Honduras serving Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, > Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Congratulations!!! > I count on your advice and help to assist these countries in > developing their telecommunications and making real the promise of > using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development, as you can count with > me for anything you think I might be helpful. "making real the promise of using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development" -> that strongly resonates with what I care about! I wonder though, that precisely is the definition of "human development"? 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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Tue Feb 22 05:56:21 2011 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:56:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <374957.8842.qm@web25905.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Congratulations for your new position. Regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Burundi Youth Training Centre www.bytc.bi Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Miguel Alcaine À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Envoyé le : Mar 22 février 2011, 1h 55min 38s Objet : [governance] I have a new positon at ITU Dear Friends and colleagues: Since February 14th, I am the Head of the Area Office of ITU in Honduras serving Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. I will be moving to Honduras at the beginning of March. I count on your advice and help to assist these countries in developing their telecommunications and making real the promise of using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development, as you can count with me for anything you think I might be helpful. My email at ITU is miguel.alcaine at itu.int fixed telephone: +504 220-1074 (in Honduras from March 7) Sincerely, Miguel Alcaine ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Tue Feb 22 06:13:40 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:13:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congrats Miguel! That is good news and I wish you good luck! Fouad Bajwa sent using my iPad On 22 Feb 2011, at 04:55, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear Friends and colleagues: > > Since February 14th, I am the Head of the Area Office of ITU in > Honduras serving Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, > Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. > > I will be moving to Honduras at the beginning of March. > > I count on your advice and help to assist these countries in > developing their telecommunications and making real the promise of > using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development, as you can count with > me for anything you think I might be helpful. > > My email at ITU is miguel.alcaine at itu.int > fixed telephone: +504 220-1074 (in Honduras from March 7) > > Sincerely, > > Miguel Alcaine > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 gorka.orueta at ehu.es Tue Feb 22 06:14:34 2011 From: gorka.orueta at ehu.es (Gorka Orueta) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:14:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congrats for your new position Miguel I wish you the very best! Gorka Orueta El 22/02/2011, a las 0:55, Miguel Alcaine escribió: > Dear Friends and colleagues: > > Since February 14th, I am the Head of the Area Office of ITU in > Honduras serving Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, > Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. > > I will be moving to Honduras at the beginning of March. > > I count on your advice and help to assist these countries in > developing their telecommunications and making real the promise of > using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development, as you can count with > me for anything you think I might be helpful. > > My email at ITU is miguel.alcaine at itu.int > fixed telephone: +504 220-1074 (in Honduras from March 7) > > Sincerely, > > Miguel Alcaine > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Feb 22 06:23:30 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:23:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting Message-ID: Please, disseminate. Tomorrow IGF Open Consultations and the informal MAG meeting (23 and 24 Feb) will be Webcasted and live transcription will be available. The agenda of the open consultations is available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011/programmepapers/IGF.Draft.agenda.feb.2011.pdf For the webcast, VLC player is recommended. Please, install it and test it in advance, if possible. Questions and comments can be made by chat or by e-mail. ( febmeeting at intgovforum.org). I have volunteered to receive and forward your questions. Please, see the links to access the webcast and the transcripts from morning and afternoon sessions in IGF website main page: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ Best wishes, 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 gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Tue Feb 22 11:58:12 2011 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:58:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <597469.85998.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hello Dear Miguel,   Congratulations for your new position and we wish you all the best in ITU.   We are glad that you continue working in ICTs area,   Jean-Yves G.   --- En date de : Mar 22.2.11, Gorka Orueta a écrit : De: Gorka Orueta Objet: Re: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU À: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Miguel Alcaine" Date: Mardi 22 février 2011, 12h14 Congrats for your new position Miguel I wish you the very best! Gorka Orueta El 22/02/2011, a las 0:55, Miguel Alcaine escribió: > Dear Friends and colleagues: > > Since February 14th, I am the Head of the Area Office of ITU in > Honduras serving Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, > Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. > > I will be moving to Honduras at the beginning of March. > > I count on your advice and help to assist these countries in > developing their telecommunications and making real the promise of > using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development, as you can count with > me for anything you think I might be helpful. > > My email at ITU is miguel.alcaine at itu.int > fixed telephone: +504 220-1074 (in Honduras from March 7) > > Sincerely, > > Miguel Alcaine > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Tue Feb 22 12:05:03 2011 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:05:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Miguel Alcaine has a new positon at ITU In-Reply-To: <597469.85998.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <597469.85998.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CF25A19-36B6-40E2-80CB-D7A12D211F52@christopherwilkinson.eu> Congratulations Miguel! CW > > > > > El 22/02/2011, a las 0:55, Miguel Alcaine escribió: > > > Dear Friends and colleagues: > > > > Since February 14th, I am the Head of the Area Office of ITU in > > Honduras serving Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, > Nicaragua, > > Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. > > > > I will be moving to Honduras at the beginning of March. > > > > I count on your advice and help to assist these countries in > > developing their telecommunications and making real the promise of > > using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development, as you can count > with > > me for anything you think I might be helpful. > > > > My email at ITU is miguel.alcaine at itu.int > > fixed telephone: +504 220-1074 (in Honduras from March 7) > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Miguel Alcaine > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > -------------- 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 yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Tue Feb 22 12:15:43 2011 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:15:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Miguel, Thank you for the good cooperation we had during your posting in Geneva! I wish you success and all the best in your new job. ITU needs people like you in implementing the approach they adopted in Guadalajara "to explore ways and means for greater collaboration and coordination between ITU and relevant organizations involved in the development of IP-based networks and the future internet" Best, Yrjö > Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:55:38 +0100 > From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] I have a new positon at ITU > > Dear Friends and colleagues: > > Since February 14th, I am the Head of the Area Office of ITU in > Honduras serving Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, > Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. > > I will be moving to Honduras at the beginning of March. > > I count on your advice and help to assist these countries in > developing their telecommunications and making real the promise of > using ICTs as a catalyzer for human development, as you can count with > me for anything you think I might be helpful. > > My email at ITU is miguel.alcaine at itu.int > fixed telephone: +504 220-1074 (in Honduras from March 7) > > Sincerely, > > Miguel Alcaine > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 iza at anr.org Tue Feb 22 14:48:22 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:48:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Note on Informal Discussion hosted by ISOC on CSTD WG for IGF Message-ID: IGF Geneva Feb Meetings Feb 22 13:50 – 15:45 at ISOC office in Geneva Note on Informal Discussion hosted by ISOC Below is my very sketchy memo on the meeting by the following people on the CSTD WG on IGF Improvement (and MAG) Attendants: Bill Graham, Ayesha Hassan, Martin Boyle, Anriette Esterhuysen, Desiree Miloshevic, Hartmut Glaser, Marilia Maciel, Oskar Robles-Garay, Marylyn Cade, Bill Drake, Mohamed Al Bashir (ICANN), Melani, Patrik Fältström, Sam Dickinson (APNIC), Avri Doria, Teletha Swhinheart, Raul Echeberria, Jeff (AT&T), Parminder Jeet Shin and several more. (#Please add names I missed or mistaken) ------ Bill Graham, Introduction Aeysha Hassan A few words Marylyn Cade Current status: Dec 17 – de ja vue moment states really resumed their traditions of participation of others, IGO – regional governmental Good news – some states who were not CSTD members were supportive Fredrick still consulting – meeting with some states, individually, small groups 5 Latin States and USG met to compare their notes expressed wish of most of states is not to revisit the process India, Iran, South Africa - joined by Sri Lanka and Egypt still refusing non-state actors not to participate - it will look like 17th will be more informal – some states still objecting to the outline, others fully embraced open question – contribution that business proposed ^ Chair’s report and secretary reports be being actively included other states insisting only questionnaire be there there are 10 governmental entities put their names forward UN Economic Commission for Africa League of state, Council of Europe, and EU Sri Lanka, India and South Africa – objecting – joined by Chile they don’t want regional entities to participate Sri Lanka – remaining IGOs – pick 5 UNDP not decided to fight for seat UNDESA included anyway WIPO ? Mongi will use big fight Anriette India, South Africa - Jan 31 sent question – to the Chair- at the day of deadline - being disruptive Governmental members should decide the process Marylyn most states have not submitted comments 3 of 4 do not have instruction from Capital some states have not submitted formal names Anriette MSH – non-negotiable Overall format – not policy making, but dialogue- capacity-building exploring views increase development country participation – be led by developing countries not about format Format of events be changed dramatically – workshops – became token, rather than topic related discussion quality – sloppy, number of speakers proposing – workshops can be fed more effectively key thing – is have more outcome oriented approach messages – need not to be consensus-based, more capacity building Working methods – link with regional and national levels recommendation on Secretary and MAG remote participation Martin Boyle echo with Anriette – policy dialogue other things – most notably is the profile and the visibility of IGF getting IGF - get higher level of engagement from people involved Marilia bottom-line – “openness” - should be guaranteed – no barrier of participation flexibility guidance – from bottom-up, not written anywhere important to write down 2 principles – to be consolidated IGF should be seen as process, taken all around the year there be clear rules of procedure – “public policy dialogue” – should lead into some place where policy making takes place out reach of IGF – regarding developing countries role of MAGs – be changed Patrik from Business secretariat be based in Geneva Financing – funding from wide enough sources so as not one stakeholder can use their funding as a form of control MAG – organizers of the meeting – open meeting evolution of MAG – part of IGF evolution Marylyn MSH – definition of MSH – in the IGF - is unique, be preserved on equal footing, with open, bottom-up participation not be confused by OECD, ITU – I am getting the sense – there was a panel – on MSH at previous meetings certain speakers Aysha Open participation model – other process including CSTD – accreditation is coming back Anriette slippage of Athens – badges – not color-coded since Brazil it has been no color-code be there- unique – uniqueness of MSH model – we have to be more specific there is specific threat – having both technical community and private sector - have two separate groups Theresa Swinehart transparency Merani input from Tech community about the importance – not negotiation, but open exchange remote participation non-binding process, sharing knowledge, inform the discussion national and regional IGF are direct results of openness of IGF Bill Drake I agree with much of what have been said Echo with what Marylyn said – on Dec 17 meeting Same UNCTAD meeting – how folks were trained – not comfortable – that would fundamentally later IGF – to worse anything done by non-governmental folks, try to get codifying language on equal footing etc on Output – still an umbrella for WGs messages from workshops are not interesting to me a more structured, substituted – a year of serious work of dialogue with adequate secretariat support on MAG- not over body of decision making- that be a disaster not that usefull for this kind of process focus on overall coordination on Main session – don’t make centralized power – whole kind of bargaining stay as more open planning process Marylyn I have concern on elevating MAG CSTD will have reports – in May, makes sure to get resolution with right language what to do with Second Committee Fredrick could have resisted, but did not secretariat of CSTD did not put – non-rules of procedures - Marilia we can reach consensus – IGF is a place for policy dialogue – that needs to be connected to policy making body IGF to have formal coordination with policy making First – summary of discussion messages are non-binding Izumi I also share the real danger with CSTD process and UNDESA on EC that demotes the MSH model/principle/practice Need to lobby governments WSIS and WGIG process experience and efforts – was not given automatically, we made a lot of efforts, talking with developing country governments etc. Do we have strategy for active, engaging Secretariat? Much of open, bottom-up, unique exercise were taken care quietly by the Secretariat and their staff, friendly volunteers etc if we have some writings by former Secretariat, endorsed by MAG Oscar Desiree define MSH model Diversity of composition of this group – be kept output – Anriette We have to de-politicize the Chair On message – just beginning to discuss ++ Bill Drake Secretary – can provide research based inputs for dialogue factual information “Coordination” – UN Terms, everybody loves it unless they are being coordinated How does it work at IGF? With WIPO, ICANN Board? There is a risk, because there are vast communities in each of these organizations how coordination works – needs serious thinking some cross-cutting issues – there is room that may work Anriette Bill, you are right – Dynamic coalition has not worked – something between, low-key DC, to profile IGF – hard – political risk – Bill Graham Wrap up Funding Heaviness of IGF Encourage you – 15 of CSTD WG members to exchange views. Ayesha Hassan Thank you and ISOC Report - be May ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 22 22:54:55 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:54:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Cooperation remains the Key to the future of Internetworking Message-ID: An interesting read....... http://www.theipv6experts.net/2011/cooperation-remains-key-future-internetworking/ -- 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 isolatednet at gmail.com Tue Feb 22 23:14:26 2011 From: isolatednet at gmail.com (Isolated Network) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:44:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Some thoughts regarding the selection of the next MAG Chair (possible criteria) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Bertrand, Ian, On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Bertrand, > > Let me put on my requirements ranking hat and respond to your various > criteria by labelling them MANDATORY, HIGHLY DESIRABLE, DESIRABLE, and LESS > IMPORTANT (in line below with some reasoning where it might help)). Hope > that helps in moving the discussion forward. > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE > *Reply-To: *, Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> > *Date: *Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:11:31 +0100 > *To: * > *Subject: *[governance] Some thoughts regarding the selection of the next > MAG Chair (possible criteria) > > > Dear all, > > As we are preparing for the February IGF consultations and the first > (unfortunately closed) meeting of the WGIIGF (or WOGII : WOrking Group on > Improvements to the Igf), there is one element that deserves some attention: > the future selection of the future MAG Chair. > > In order to launch the discussion on this list, I have listed below *some > possible criteria* that could be taken into account and used as input by > CS participants in the WOGII. They are largely based on the reasons why > Nitin Desai has been exemplary in this role and they constitute a useful > benchmark for any successor, albeit a difficult one to match. > > This is only a seed and comments are of course welcome. > > 1) First and foremost, *the new MAG Chair must elicit trust among all > stakeholder groups*, by his/her reputation in terms of neutrality, > patience, understanding of the notion and challenges of multi-stakeholder > dialogue, and capacity to moderate discussions on sensitive topics, foster > consensus and constructively summarize complex exchanges into actionable > items. > MANDATORY > > > 2) Even if in principle it should be possible to choose this person from > any stakeholder group (and in a long-term perspective this should be the > case), the next five year period would probably benefit from *a MAG Chair > with governmental (or international organization) experience*, in order to > facilitate acceptance even by the critical governments. If this is the case, > an additional experience within civil society, the business sector or the > technical community would certainly be a plus. > HIGHLY DESIRABLE > > > 3) During his/her tenure, *the MAG Chair should preferably not be in an > active position within an organization actively involved in the IGF process > *, in order to limit potential conflicts of interests, illustrate > neutrality and ensure time availability for the critical meetings. This > points to people that are retired, or willing to leave their current > function (but the Chair position is not full-time and is not paid) or active > in different domains with schedule flexibility. > MANDATORY > Rather this criterion may be dismissed. We need a MAG chair from within the IGF process, and those who are part of this process are part of one stakeholder group or another. If association with an IGF related organization could cause raise conflict of interests, how is "Governmental of Intergovernmental experience" considered desirable in (2) any different? > > 4) *The MAG Chair should have attended at least one recent IGF* (and > hopefully more than one), to have a concrete experience of the unique format > of the event and its dynamics. This is necessary because the working methods > of the IGF have evolved through time and they are not formalized and > documented yet. Knowledge of the existing good practices is therefore > essential. Having sponsored, participated in or organized workshops or > moderated panels would be a plus. > HIGHLY DESIRABLE > > > 5) Additionally, *the MAG Chair should preferably have himself/herself > been a member of the MAG, at least for one year*: this is where the role > of the Chair is the most important and firsthand understanding of the > potential and limits of this particular structure could prove critical in > fulfilling this role. > NOT IMPORTANT. I think this narrows the field too much and could lead to a > more incestuous future rather than the capacity to invoke new directions and > possibilities > Criterion 4 calls for some basic familiarity with the IGF process, but Criterion 5 requires the candidate to be an insider. Limits the choice to a very small group. > > > 6) Finally, and ideally, *the MAG Chair should have participated in the > WSIS, at least its second phase*, to have a holistic understanding of the > history and the delicate balance that allowed consensus around the creation > of the IGF in the first place. > DESIRABLE > Why WSIS, why "at least its second phase" ? Further short lists the small number of choices (from 5 above) to an even smaller group. Unless there is a worthy and proper candidate who fits into Criteria 1 though 6, the criteria should be relaxed. Thank you Sivasubramanian M > > These criteria are not absolute requirements and are more or less listed in > order of importance. However, the first one (eliciting trust among all > stakeholder groups) should be considered an absolute must. The other > criteria are contributing to this essential trust-building in the second > mandate of the IGF. > > I hope this helps foster a useful discussion on this list and - hopefully - > in the Working Group. > > > Looking forward to more discussion. > > > Best > > > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 iza at anr.org Wed Feb 23 03:54:32 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:54:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation - Day 1 Message-ID: In 10 minutes, the IGF open consultation will begin (in theory). I plan to read out our statement on themes (in summary). Now, Parminder, Anriette, Marilia, Betamcourt and myself are discussing about the IGF format, outcome, etc. We may suggest today that iGF will become more of a "process", not ending at the final day of Kenya meeting, may propose to have working group on main themes to come to produce "Outcome" reports, say two month after Kenya meeting, etc. We will not claim this as CS consensus, but will try to articulate. Any comments or suggestions are very much welcome. izumi --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 23 04:28:12 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:28:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open consultation inputs Message-ID: For remote participation and comments: http://bit.ly/S6Nsn Send email to - febmeeting at internetgov.org Twitter: #igf11 izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 23 04:33:20 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:33:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] quick draft for IGC comment today on new democracy movement Message-ID: Dear list, While we have not really discussed about how to express our positions in the event of democracy in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries, I thought it is as shame if we do not make any comments at all as Civil Society at this IGF meeting. So Here I prepared a quick, crude sentences. I plan to read this in the beginning of the open discussion, maybe in 30 minutes or so. But please make any comments if at all possible. izumi Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus would like to congratulate the recent citizens movement started in Tunisia and Egypt, achieving the new form of democracy though their creative use of the Internet and mobile communications. We take note that Tunisia hosted the WSIS in 2005 and Egypt hosted the IGF in 2009, both indicate the great potential of the innovative use of the Internet for democracy. While we are very much encouraged that these movements are now expanding into other parts of the world, Middle East and Africa in particular, we are also very concerned that some governments are not listening to the real voices of the people and instead trying to suppress them by the use of brutal forces. We express our sincere condolences for those who lost their precious lives and their families. We hope that people here supporting the IGF will take special consideration to these new developments and consider the role of Internet and its governance. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 23 04:40:57 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:40:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] quick draft for IGC comment today on new democracy movement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Maybe we should state more clearly what we want. A main session? What were the issues under this main session? Role that internet plays in democratic practices, regarding free speech and political resistence as well as approximation between gov and society, e-gov, e-participation. Better to look on both sides, the last one interests governments and may garner more support from them. On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > While we have not really discussed about how to express our positions in > the event of democracy in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries, I thought it > is as shame if we do not make any comments at all as Civil Society > at this IGF meeting. So Here I prepared a quick, crude sentences. > > I plan to read this in the beginning of the open discussion, maybe in > 30 minutes or so. But please make any comments if at all possible. > > izumi > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus would like to congratulate > the recent citizens movement started in Tunisia and Egypt, achieving > the new form of democracy though their creative use of the Internet > and mobile communications. We take note that Tunisia hosted the WSIS > in 2005 and Egypt hosted the IGF in 2009, both indicate the great > potential of the innovative use of the Internet for democracy. > > While we are very much encouraged that these movements are now > expanding into other parts of the world, Middle East and Africa in > particular, we are also very concerned that some governments are not > listening to the real voices of the people and instead trying to > suppress them by the use of brutal forces. We express our sincere > condolences for those who lost their precious lives and their > families. > > We hope that people here supporting the IGF will take special > consideration to these new developments and consider the role of > Internet and its governance. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Wed Feb 23 04:48:29 2011 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:48:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] quick draft for IGC comment today on new democracy movement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50CC8D09-6F36-4736-964C-D5EB69E0AA77@christopherwilkinson.eu> +1 CW On 23 Feb 2011, at 10:33, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > While we have not really discussed about how to express our > positions in > the event of democracy in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries, I > thought it > is as shame if we do not make any comments at all as Civil Society > at this IGF meeting. So Here I prepared a quick, crude sentences. > > I plan to read this in the beginning of the open discussion, maybe in > 30 minutes or so. But please make any comments if at all possible. > > izumi > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus would like to congratulate > the recent citizens movement started in Tunisia and Egypt, achieving > the new form of democracy though their creative use of the Internet > and mobile communications. We take note that Tunisia hosted the WSIS > in 2005 and Egypt hosted the IGF in 2009, both indicate the great > potential of the innovative use of the Internet for democracy. > > While we are very much encouraged that these movements are now > expanding into other parts of the world, Middle East and Africa in > particular, we are also very concerned that some governments are not > listening to the real voices of the people and instead trying to > suppress them by the use of brutal forces. We express our sincere > condolences for those who lost their precious lives and their > families. > > We hope that people here supporting the IGF will take special > consideration to these new developments and consider the role of > Internet and its governance. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 iza at anr.org Wed Feb 23 04:50:50 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:50:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] quick draft for IGC comment today on new democracy movement In-Reply-To: <50CC8D09-6F36-4736-964C-D5EB69E0AA77@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <50CC8D09-6F36-4736-964C-D5EB69E0AA77@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus would like to congratulate the recent citizens movement started in Tunisia and Egypt, achieving the new form of democracy though their creative use of the Internet and mobile communications. We take note that Tunisia hosted the WSIS in 2005 and Egypt hosted the IGF in 2009, both indicate the great potential of the innovative use of the Internet for democracy. While we are very much encouraged that these movements are now expanding into other parts of the world, Middle East and Africa in particular, we are also very concerned that some governments are not listening to the real voices of the people and instead trying to suppress them by the use of brutal forces including censorship and control of Internet traffic. We express our sincere condolences for those who lost their precious lives and their families. We hope that people here supporting the IGF will take special consideration to these new developments and consider the role of Internet and its governance for democracy. We like to propose that Internet for Democracy be one of the themes of main sessions. And Chair, Alice responded: The role of Internet for Democracy is important issue and we should discuss it. izumi 2011/2/23 CW Mail : > +1 > > CW > > On 23 Feb 2011, at 10:33, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Dear list, >> >> While we have not really discussed about how to express our positions in >> the event of democracy in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries, I thought it >> is as shame if we do not make any comments at all as Civil Society >> at this IGF meeting. So Here I prepared a quick, crude sentences. >> >> I plan to read this in the beginning of the open discussion, maybe in >> 30 minutes or so. But please make any comments if at all possible. >> >> izumi >> >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus would like to congratulate >> the recent citizens movement started in Tunisia and Egypt, achieving >> the new form of democracy though their creative use of the Internet >> and mobile communications. We take note that Tunisia hosted the WSIS >> in 2005 and Egypt hosted the IGF in 2009, both indicate the great >> potential of the innovative use of the Internet for democracy. >> >> While we are very much encouraged that these movements are now >> expanding into other parts of the world, Middle East and Africa in >> particular, we are also very concerned that some governments are not >> listening to the real voices of the people and instead trying to >> suppress them by the use of brutal forces. We express our sincere >> condolences for those who lost their precious lives and their >> families. >> >> We hope that people here supporting the IGF will take special >> consideration to these new developments and consider the role of >> Internet and its governance. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 23 05:17:31 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:17:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=96_on_the_s?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?tructure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= Message-ID: Here is another comment I plan to make later on the structure. izumi --- Some of CS members feel that IGF should not be an annual event ending at the last day of its meeting – but rather a continuum process – and we like to see some innovation in this regard. We also have some thinking that IGF should become more outcome oriented, in preserving its basic nature of forum on policy dialogue, not policy making per se. So what if we make good connection between workshops and main themes, there are many good ideas for these we can see. But also how about appointing or soliciting Working Groups who are perhaps selected or endorsed by MAG, with open slots of volunteers, who will work AFTER the IGF to produce outcome paper/document, say in 10 pages, on each of major themes, to digest the discussions taken place during IGF meetings, present major points of agreements, as well as divergent views, and make suggestions where appropriate and where some kind of consensus is recognized. There will be open comment period on the draft Report, may have one more “wrap-up” meeting say 2 months after IGF meeting. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 23 05:33:04 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:33:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] quick draft for IGC comment today on new democracy movement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: though their creative use of the Internet > and mobile communications I would prefer this to be qualified as "facilitated by" rather than "through". I do not think we should buy into the popular impression of the "Facebook and Twitter revolutions". The movement is about people NOT about tools, although the tools proved themselves to be useful :-) We take note that Tunisia hosted the WSIS > in 2005 and Egypt hosted the IGF in 2009, both indicate the great > potential of the innovative use of the Internet for democracy. I'm not happy about this sentence for similar reasons. It also could be seen as a threat to Kenya. Leave out the countries and keep the second half of the sentence - about "the great potential ..." Deirdre On 23 February 2011 05:33, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > While we have not really discussed about how to express our positions in > the event of democracy in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries, I thought it > is as shame if we do not make any comments at all as Civil Society > at this IGF meeting. So Here I prepared a quick, crude sentences. > > I plan to read this in the beginning of the open discussion, maybe in > 30 minutes or so. But please make any comments if at all possible. > > izumi > > > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus would like to congratulate > the recent citizens movement started in Tunisia and Egypt, achieving > the new form of democracy though their creative use of the Internet > and mobile communications. We take note that Tunisia hosted the WSIS > in 2005 and Egypt hosted the IGF in 2009, both indicate the great > potential of the innovative use of the Internet for democracy. > > While we are very much encouraged that these movements are now > expanding into other parts of the world, Middle East and Africa in > particular, we are also very concerned that some governments are not > listening to the real voices of the people and instead trying to > suppress them by the use of brutal forces. We express our sincere > condolences for those who lost their precious lives and their > families. > > We hope that people here supporting the IGF will take special > consideration to these new developments and consider the role of > Internet and its governance. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 23 05:36:55 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:36:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] quick draft for IGC comment today on new democracy movement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Deirdre, Unfortunately, the timing came earlier than expected and I already took the floor and read the one I posted on this list. Well, for the record, I might ask some modification taking account your comments, but it is already in the transcription etc. Hope you could understand this. izumi 2011/2/23 Deirdre Williams : > though their creative use of the Internet >> and mobile communications > I would prefer this to be qualified as "facilitated by" rather than > "through". I do not think we should buy into the popular impression of > the "Facebook and Twitter revolutions". The movement is about people > NOT about tools, although the tools proved themselves to be useful :-) > > We take note that Tunisia hosted the WSIS >> in 2005 and Egypt hosted the IGF in 2009, both indicate the great >> potential of the innovative use of the Internet for democracy. > > I'm not happy about this sentence for similar reasons. It also could > be seen as a threat to Kenya. Leave out the countries and keep the > second half of the sentence - about "the great potential ..." > Deirdre > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 23 05:41:14 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:41:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=96_on_t?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?he_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The way things seem to work these days you might draw more attention by using a different medium - not a paper but perhaps a short film, even if the film presents a sequence of interviews. There seems to be a popular preference to watch and listen rather than to read. The BBC's Jonathan Charles has attended several IGFs; could he or someone like him not be co-opted to help persuade the "big media" to put their money (ie their expertise) where their mouth is? Deirdre On 23 February 2011 06:17, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Here is another comment I plan to make later on the structure. > > izumi > --- > > Some of CS members feel that IGF should not be an annual event ending > at the last day of its meeting – but rather a continuum process – and > we like to see some innovation in this regard. > We also have some thinking that IGF should become more outcome > oriented, in preserving its basic nature of forum on policy dialogue, > not policy making per se. > > So what if we make good connection between workshops and main themes, > there are many good ideas for these we can see. But also how about > appointing or soliciting Working Groups who are perhaps selected or > endorsed by MAG, with open slots of volunteers, who will work AFTER > the IGF to produce outcome paper/document, say in 10 pages, on each of > major themes, to digest the discussions taken place during IGF > meetings, present major points of agreements, as well as divergent > views, and make suggestions where appropriate and where some kind of > consensus is recognized. There will be open comment period on the > draft Report, may have one more “wrap-up” meeting say 2 months after > IGF meeting. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 06:33:06 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:33:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=E2=80=93_on_th?= =?UTF-8?Q?e_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 19:17:31 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes >Some of CS members feel that IGF should not be an annual event ending >at the last day of its meeting – but rather a continuum process – and >we like to see some innovation in this regard. Wasn't that the role of Dynamic Coalitions? Do you think that concept failed, and if so why? What would be different, if a new type of ongoing process was introduced? -- 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 iza at anr.org Wed Feb 23 06:56:58 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:56:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=96_on_t?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?he_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, most of us joined the discussion here yesterday felt that Dynamic Coalition in general (not all of them) were not successful. One reason we thought was it was just decentralized and have no link with the main organizing of IGF back. That's why we came up to suggest linking it to MAG as organizer of the IGF. izumi 2011/2/23 Roland Perry : > In message , > at 19:17:31 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes >> >> Some of CS members feel that IGF should not be an annual event ending >> at the last day of its meeting – but rather a continuum process – and >> we like to see some innovation in this regard. > > Wasn't that the role of Dynamic Coalitions? Do you think that concept > failed, and if so why? What would be different, if a new type of ongoing > process was introduced? > -- > 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 Wed Feb 23 07:06:07 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:06:07 +0800 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=E2=80=93_on_th?= =?UTF-8?Q?e_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:33 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 19:17:31 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes > >Some of CS members feel that IGF should not be an annual event ending > >at the last day of its meeting – but rather a continuum process – and > >we like to see some innovation in this regard. > > Wasn't that the role of Dynamic Coalitions? Do you think that concept > failed, and if so why? What would be different, if a new type of ongoing > process was introduced? It failed because the Dynamic Coalitions were left too loose to be effective, because [elements of] the MAG feared institutionalising them too strongly or (shock!) creating working groups. They therefore because a mish-mash of advocacy cells, contact groups for people who organised or attended a workshop, or vanity groups. None of them (save maybe one) were really the focussed multi-stakeholder working groups of the IGF that it needs. In one of my personal submissions, I wrote: "Under whatever name, the IGF requires formal subcommittees in which intensive democratic deliberation can take place, both in person and online, and which have a clearly defined process by which their outputs are presented to the IGF's plenary body for approval by consensus as assessed by its bureau." Also see my blog post "The Underpants Gnomes of the IGF" at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/the-underpants-gnomes-of-the-igf. It's worth reading just for the title alone. If the server is down (that happens, sorry), it's also in Google Cache. -- 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 for Fair Financial Services World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and competitive markets in financial services for all. http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Feb 23 07:20:47 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:20:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=E2=80=93_on_th?= =?UTF-8?Q?e_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20F0fYKfuPZNFADk@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 20:56:58 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes >Yes, most of us joined the discussion here yesterday felt that Dynamic >Coalition in general (not all of them) were not successful. > >One reason we thought was it was just decentralized and have no link with >the main organizing of IGF back. > >That's why we came up to suggest linking it to MAG as organizer of the IGF. Are you suggesting that the MAG organises some sub-committees to carry on work intersessionaly? Or that the secretariat organises it... Not sure what your proposition is. -- 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 LisaH at global-partners.co.uk Wed Feb 23 07:59:04 2011 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:59:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=E2=80=93_on_th?= =?UTF-8?Q?e_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97DBB04C@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Hey Just a quick response... The IRP coalition is still alive and fairly well, but is more of an informal collaborative network that works outside of the IGF, rather than something that is part of the formal IGF process. I think a lack of formal role and links into the organization and running of the IGF is a major reason for this. Also, and partly because of this, they aren't really seen as useful structures by the private and government sectors, and so mainly become civil society hubs. They lack formal structures and funding, meaning that everything is done on an ad hoc basis in people's spare time. It takes a lot of energy and resources to make a network or working group work, especially when there's a lack of formal structures for influencing discussions or outcomes (e.g. at the IGF). I think some kind of continuum process/subcommittees would be a good idea. But I can't see one being formed around "human rights and internet governance" (thinking of the IRP). So it'd actually involve a lot more leg work on behalf of rights advocates to make sure that human rights are considered in all subcommittee processes, rather than simply participating in one mailing list/DC meeting. Which is something we've all been trying to do (e.g. not just go to rights-focused workshops, but try and raise rights issues in all sessions), but haven't managed to as strategically or in as joined up a way as we perhaps need to. All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: 23 February 2011 12:06 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Provisional suggestion – on the structure of IGF (meeting) On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:33 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 19:17:31 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes > >Some of CS members feel that IGF should not be an annual event ending > >at the last day of its meeting – but rather a continuum process – and > >we like to see some innovation in this regard. > > Wasn't that the role of Dynamic Coalitions? Do you think that concept > failed, and if so why? What would be different, if a new type of ongoing > process was introduced? It failed because the Dynamic Coalitions were left too loose to be effective, because [elements of] the MAG feared institutionalising them too strongly or (shock!) creating working groups. They therefore because a mish-mash of advocacy cells, contact groups for people who organised or attended a workshop, or vanity groups. None of them (save maybe one) were really the focussed multi-stakeholder working groups of the IGF that it needs. In one of my personal submissions, I wrote: "Under whatever name, the IGF requires formal subcommittees in which intensive democratic deliberation can take place, both in person and online, and which have a clearly defined process by which their outputs are presented to the IGF's plenary body for approval by consensus as assessed by its bureau." Also see my blog post "The Underpants Gnomes of the IGF" at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/the-underpants-gnomes-of-the-igf. It's worth reading just for the title alone. If the server is down (that happens, sorry), it's also in Google Cache. -- 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 for Fair Financial Services World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and competitive markets in financial services for all. http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Feb 23 08:19:21 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:19:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=96_on_t?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?he_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: <20F0fYKfuPZNFADk@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <20F0fYKfuPZNFADk@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: The WG idea is not "inter-sessionaly", rather it is the wrap-up process of one cycle of IGF, say Kenya's one be not concluded completely at the Nairobi meeting, but designated members of WGS, will work after Nairobi to produce a document/product that is the formal outcome of the IGF, subject to defined open process including the online feedback and open physical meeting, perhaps. izumi 2011/2/23 Roland Perry : > In message , > at 20:56:58 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes > >> Yes, most of us joined the discussion here yesterday felt that Dynamic >> Coalition in general (not all of them) were not successful. >> >> One reason we thought was it was just decentralized and have no link with >> the main organizing of IGF back. >> >> That's why we came up to suggest linking it to MAG as organizer of the >> IGF. > > Are you suggesting that the MAG organises some sub-committees to carry on > work intersessionaly? Or that the secretariat organises it... > > Not sure what your proposition is. > > -- > 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 > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 08:44:26 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:44:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=E2=80=93_o?= =?UTF-8?Q?n_the_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <20F0fYKfuPZNFADk@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 22:19:21 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes >The WG idea is not "inter-sessionaly", rather it is the wrap-up process >of one cycle of IGF, say Kenya's one be not concluded completely >at the Nairobi meeting, but designated members of WGS, will work >after Nairobi to produce a document/product that is the formal outcome >of the IGF, subject to defined open process including the online feedback >and open physical meeting, perhaps. That's what I meant by "inter-sessional". In other words, anything substantial (rather than planning) happening in the 51 weeks between one IGF main session ending and the next one starting. Producing a formal outcome sounds a bit like a negotiated text to me. (Not arguing whether that's good or bad, but it's a big change). Of course, everyone's workshops reports they filed after Vilnius is a rather different form of document/product from the meeting. http://intgovforum.org/cms/2010-igf-vilnius/workshop-proposal/reports Quite a short list, and if filing a report is once again a qualification for proposing a workshop (in Nairobi) that'll thin it out quite nicely! -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Feb 23 09:04:11 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:04:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for the introduction of new gTLDs I propose to consider the estabishment of a "Working Group on the Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD Introduction (WKIPngTLDI). The new Working Group could get a mandate for five years with the option of renewal. The group could have two sub-working groups on "fast postponement" and "slow postponement". The two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. Have fun 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 23 09:15:49 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:15:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=96_on_t?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?he_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97DBB04C@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>,<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97DBB04C@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I want to second Lisa's comment that the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition is - we hope - accomplishing some things of significance. How significant of course remains to be seen, but the draft Charter and its iterative refinement has been something that needed a mechanism like the Dynamic Coalition to bring the loose group together to push the thing along. And the Charter that results could be of some significance, well beyond IGF. We all hope. So it's too simplistic/inaccurate to say Dynamic Coalitions have failed; better to phrase it as MOST Dc's etc...; and we dn't want to go to other extreme and ban or discourage dc's from forming/doing things, when they can. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Horner [LisaH at global-partners.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:59 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; Roland Perry Subject: RE: [governance] Provisional suggestion – on the structure of IGF (meeting) Hey Just a quick response... The IRP coalition is still alive and fairly well, but is more of an informal collaborative network that works outside of the IGF, rather than something that is part of the formal IGF process. I think a lack of formal role and links into the organization and running of the IGF is a major reason for this. Also, and partly because of this, they aren't really seen as useful structures by the private and government sectors, and so mainly become civil society hubs. They lack formal structures and funding, meaning that everything is done on an ad hoc basis in people's spare time. It takes a lot of energy and resources to make a network or working group work, especially when there's a lack of formal structures for influencing discussions or outcomes (e.g. at the IGF). I think some kind of continuum process/subcommittees would be a good idea. But I can't see one being formed around "human rights and internet governance" (thinking of the IRP). So it'd actually involve a lot more leg work on behalf of rights advocates to make sure that human rights are considered in all subcommittee processes, rather than simply participating in one mailing list/DC meeting. Which is something we've all been trying to do (e.g. not just go to rights-focused workshops, but try and raise rights issues in all sessions), but haven't managed to as strategically or in as joined up a way as we perhaps need to. All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: 23 February 2011 12:06 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Provisional suggestion – on the structure of IGF (meeting) On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:33 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 19:17:31 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes > >Some of CS members feel that IGF should not be an annual event ending > >at the last day of its meeting – but rather a continuum process – and > >we like to see some innovation in this regard. > > Wasn't that the role of Dynamic Coalitions? Do you think that concept > failed, and if so why? What would be different, if a new type of ongoing > process was introduced? It failed because the Dynamic Coalitions were left too loose to be effective, because [elements of] the MAG feared institutionalising them too strongly or (shock!) creating working groups. They therefore because a mish-mash of advocacy cells, contact groups for people who organised or attended a workshop, or vanity groups. None of them (save maybe one) were really the focussed multi-stakeholder working groups of the IGF that it needs. In one of my personal submissions, I wrote: "Under whatever name, the IGF requires formal subcommittees in which intensive democratic deliberation can take place, both in person and online, and which have a clearly defined process by which their outputs are presented to the IGF's plenary body for approval by consensus as assessed by its bureau." Also see my blog post "The Underpants Gnomes of the IGF" at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/the-underpants-gnomes-of-the-igf. It's worth reading just for the title alone. If the server is down (that happens, sorry), it's also in Google Cache. -- 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 for Fair Financial Services World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and competitive markets in financial services for all. http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 23 09:15:59 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:15:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Kenya moving to November? Message-ID: I heard from multiple sources here in Geneva that IGF in Kenya may be moved to November, but need final confirmation. There is also no confirmation of new Executive Coordinator yet and it may take a while to resolve that. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 23 09:34:35 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:34:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=96_on_t?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?he_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97DBB04C@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Yes, I agree and that's why I wrote: "Dynamic Coalition in general (not all of them) were not successful". izumi 2011/2/23 Lee W McKnight : > So it's too simplistic/inaccurate to say Dynamic Coalitions have failed; better to phrase it as MOST Dc's etc...; and we dn't want to go to other extreme and ban or discourage dc's from forming/doing things, when they can. > > Lee > ________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Feb 23 09:39:21 2011 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:39:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: love it :-))) 2011/2/23 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for the > introduction of new gTLDs > I propose to consider the estabishment of a "Working Group on the > Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD Introduction (WKIPngTLDI). The > new Working Group could get a mandate for five years with the option of > renewal. The group could have two sub-working groups on "fast postponement" > and "slow postponement". The two sub-working groups should create an interim > Ad Hoc Committee for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim > Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for the > position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. > > Have fun > > wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Wed Feb 23 09:45:39 2011 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:45:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D651D93.5000808@cgi.br> Sehr gut ...! Are you looking for any of these new positions? rgds Hartmut =============================== On 23/02/11 11:04, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for the introduction of new gTLDs > I propose to consider the estabishment of a "Working Group on the Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD Introduction (WKIPngTLDI). The new Working Group could get a mandate for five years with the option of renewal. The group could have two sub-working groups on "fast postponement" and "slow postponement". The two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. > > Have fun > > 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Feb 23 10:08:04 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:08:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Kenya moving to November? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+eHW1sUULSZNFAwm@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 23:15:59 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes >I heard from multiple sources here in Geneva that IGF in Kenya may be moved to >November, but need final confirmation. Just from a logistical point of view, I would not be surprised. Don't forget that last year's September date was an exception, and needed an extra effort to achieve (with much work taking place in the "dead" Summer months of July and August). The "average date" previously, was around the third week of November. -- 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 avri at acm.org Wed Feb 23 10:33:18 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:33:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang: I can't think of a better candidate for the Executive Secretary of IDIOT than your illustrious self. a. On 23 Feb 2011, at 15:04, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for the introduction of new gTLDs > I propose to consider the estabishment of a "Working Group on the Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD Introduction (WKIPngTLDI). The new Working Group could get a mandate for five years with the option of renewal. The group could have two sub-working groups on "fast postponement" and "slow postponement". The two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. > > Have fun > > 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 avri at acm.org Wed Feb 23 10:34:14 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:34:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Provisional_suggestion_=96_on_t?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?he_structure_of_IGF_=28meeting=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FD22CAC-8444-482A-97EE-17975F44487F@acm.org> On 23 Feb 2011, at 12:56, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Yes, most of us joined the discussion here yesterday felt that Dynamic > Coalition in general (not all of them) were not successful. i was at the yesterday's meeting listening, and I did not understand why anyone thought that a WG would be any more successful than a DC. DCs are anything anyone wanted them to be, being as active as or as passive as they chose to be. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From krischenowski at dotberlin.de Wed Feb 23 11:12:12 2011 From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (Dirk Krischenowski) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:12:12 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <00d601cbd374$6f21bc20$4d653460$@dotberlin.de> Wolfgang, all, I would consider to work for the "Working Group on the Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD Introduction" but after the announcement of the publication of the Applicant Guidebook on April 14, 2011 I have my doubt about the lifetime of the working group. On the other side the "publication of the Applicant Guidebook" could mean: - it is the final Applicant Guidebook - but it is not approved by the ICANN-Board which could mean anything between 7 days (next Board meeting on April 21) and 7 months - it is the proposed final or it the tentative one - if it is not the final, is it the 6th version followed by a 7th one Dirk (.berlin) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2011 15:04 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] new gTLDs After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for the introduction of new gTLDs I propose to consider the estabishment of a "Working Group on the Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD Introduction (WKIPngTLDI). The new Working Group could get a mandate for five years with the option of renewal. The group could have two sub-working groups on "fast postponement" and "slow postponement". The two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. Have fun 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 23 13:11:56 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Since this is all my (and Milton's) fault....sort of ; ) - for our early work arguing for reforming ICANN procedures towards objective and transparent - procedures; and oh yeah gTLD additions as the object case of at the time -no procedures - I will volunteer for the fast postponement working group. Since we need transparent and objective procedures -fast - to consider postponing....appointing Wolfgang as IDIOT exec director. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:33 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] new gTLDs Wolfgang: I can't think of a better candidate for the Executive Secretary of IDIOT than your illustrious self. a. On 23 Feb 2011, at 15:04, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for the introduction of new gTLDs > I propose to consider the estabishment of a "Working Group on the Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD Introduction (WKIPngTLDI). The new Working Group could get a mandate for five years with the option of renewal. The group could have two sub-working groups on "fast postponement" and "slow postponement". The two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. > > Have fun > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Feb 23 13:35:24 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:35:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: not so fast we need more time to think about that postponement and to make sure that the stakeholders were able to go back to their constituencies and get a read on their view on the issue. we may not want to postpone, we may, but we just don't know yet. a. On 23 Feb 2011, at 19:11, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Since this is all my (and Milton's) fault....sort of ; ) - for our early work arguing for reforming ICANN procedures towards objective and transparent - procedures; and oh yeah gTLD additions as the object case of at the time -no procedures - I will volunteer for the fast postponement working group. > > Since we need transparent and objective procedures -fast - to consider postponing....appointing Wolfgang as IDIOT exec director. > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:33 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] new gTLDs > > Wolfgang: I can't think of a better candidate for the Executive Secretary of IDIOT than your illustrious self. > > a. > > On 23 Feb 2011, at 15:04, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for the introduction of new gTLDs >> I propose to consider the estabishment of a "Working Group on the Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD Introduction (WKIPngTLDI). The new Working Group could get a mandate for five years with the option of renewal. The group could have two sub-working groups on "fast postponement" and "slow postponement". The two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. >> >> Have fun >> >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Wed Feb 23 13:45:50 2011 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:45:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6A5F094A-B8CA-429E-85CE-4808D19516A1@christopherwilkinson.eu> Good evening: I think we all took Wolfgang's post as a piece of brilliant if not facetious irony, which we all enjoyed ... Now, if we want to discuss these issues seriously, perhaps we need a new thread. Regards to you all, CW On 23 Feb 2011, at 19:35, Avri Doria wrote: > not so fast we need more time to think about that postponement and > to make sure that the stakeholders were able to go back to their > constituencies and get a read on their view on the issue. we may not > want to postpone, we may, but we just don't know yet. > > a. > > On 23 Feb 2011, at 19:11, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Since this is all my (and Milton's) fault....sort of ; ) - for our >> early work arguing for reforming ICANN procedures towards objective >> and transparent - procedures; and oh yeah gTLD additions as the >> object case of at the time -no procedures - I will volunteer for >> the fast postponement working group. >> >> Since we need transparent and objective procedures -fast - to >> consider postponing....appointing Wolfgang as IDIOT exec director. >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:33 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] new gTLDs >> >> Wolfgang: I can't think of a better candidate for the Executive >> Secretary of IDIOT than your illustrious self. >> >> a. >> >> On 23 Feb 2011, at 15:04, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> >>> After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for >>> the introduction of new gTLDs >>> I propose to consider the estabishment of a "Working Group on the >>> Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD Introduction >>> (WKIPngTLDI). The new Working Group could get a mandate for five >>> years with the option of renewal. The group could have two sub- >>> working groups on "fast postponement" and "slow postponement". The >>> two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee >>> for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim >>> Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for >>> the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. >>> >>> Have fun >>> >>> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 Feb 23 13:47:47 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:47:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <53D2540789714EA498ECAD228377D661@userPC> I guess that the postponement of a postponement doesn't translate into doing something? M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:35 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] new gTLDs not so fast we need more time to think about that postponement and to make sure that the stakeholders were able to go back to their constituencies and get a read on their view on the issue. we may not want to postpone, we may, but we just don't know yet. a. On 23 Feb 2011, at 19:11, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Since this is all my (and Milton's) fault....sort of ; ) - for our > early work arguing for reforming ICANN procedures towards objective > and transparent - procedures; and oh yeah gTLD additions as the object > case of at the time -no procedures - I will volunteer for the fast > postponement working group. > > Since we need transparent and objective procedures -fast - to consider > postponing....appointing Wolfgang as IDIOT exec director. > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:33 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] new gTLDs > > Wolfgang: I can't think of a better candidate for the Executive > Secretary of IDIOT than your illustrious self. > > a. > > On 23 Feb 2011, at 15:04, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for the >> introduction of new gTLDs I propose to consider the estabishment of a >> "Working Group on the Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD >> Introduction (WKIPngTLDI). The new Working Group could get a mandate >> for five years with the option of renewal. The group could have two >> sub-working groups on "fast postponement" and "slow postponement". >> The two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee >> for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim >> Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for >> the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. >> >> Have fun >> >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Wed Feb 23 13:55:50 2011 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:55:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <53D2540789714EA498ECAD228377D661@userPC> References: <53D2540789714EA498ECAD228377D661@userPC> Message-ID: <670D5179-657C-4028-A4BC-19BE97BCDBA6@christopherwilkinson.eu> Well, this would seem to be one occasion when two negatives do not make a positive. More qualified mathematicians and philosophers than I am, may wish to comment ... CW On 23 Feb 2011, at 19:47, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I guess that the postponement of a postponement doesn't translate > into doing > something? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:35 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] new gTLDs > > > not so fast we need more time to think about that postponement and > to make > sure that the stakeholders were able to go back to their > constituencies and > get a read on their view on the issue. we may not want to postpone, > we may, > but we just don't know yet. > > a. > > On 23 Feb 2011, at 19:11, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Since this is all my (and Milton's) fault....sort of ; ) - for our >> early work arguing for reforming ICANN procedures towards objective >> and transparent - procedures; and oh yeah gTLD additions as the >> object >> case of at the time -no procedures - I will volunteer for the fast >> postponement working group. >> >> Since we need transparent and objective procedures -fast - to >> consider >> postponing....appointing Wolfgang as IDIOT exec director. >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org > ] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:33 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] new gTLDs >> >> Wolfgang: I can't think of a better candidate for the Executive >> Secretary of IDIOT than your illustrious self. >> >> a. >> >> On 23 Feb 2011, at 15:04, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> >>> After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for the >>> introduction of new gTLDs I propose to consider the estabishment >>> of a >>> "Working Group on the Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD >>> Introduction (WKIPngTLDI). The new Working Group could get a mandate >>> for five years with the option of renewal. The group could have two >>> sub-working groups on "fast postponement" and "slow postponement". >>> The two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee >>> for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim >>> Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for >>> the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. >>> >>> Have fun >>> >>> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Wed Feb 23 14:20:29 2011 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:20:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> Good evening: As I understand it there will be an important meeting early next week in Brussels which may influence what ICANN does with the new gTLD process. For those of you who will be present, I would recommend the following line: 1. To disaggregate the process. First, to give priority to the IDN applications. Secondly to separate the public interest, linguistic/ cultural and geographical/city proposals from all the rest. Thirdly to address the <.brand> issues as an entirely distinct process where, with WIPO, the related competition and trademark issues can be considered; i.e. postpone. Fourth, to address the <.generic> proposals: these may be supported provided that they are associated with a rigorous registration policy, subject to public consultation .i.e. not to postpone, but they will take longer. 2. Regarding Vertical Integration, I have seen nothing which would lead me to amend the posting which I made last August, and which for some reason has not been cited in any of the ICANN Briefing Papers: http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf In short, the attempt last year within GNSO to associate the new gTLD process with backward integration between Registrars and Registries has (a) caused a breakdown in the bottom-up consensus process (b) been a cause of further delay and (c) flies in the face of ICANN's mandate as the custodian of competition policy in the DNS. No. I shall post this message to the Lists with which I am associated: Governance, At Large, ISOC. With regards to you all, CW ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Wed Feb 23 14:24:03 2011 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:24:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D655ED3.1090700@cavebear.com> On 02/23/2011 06:04 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > The two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee > for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim > Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for > the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. It could to be structured like ICANN's ALAC with a Russion-doll of nested layers of IDIOT - from grand poh-bah level to Village IDIOTs. It'll need a nominating/selecting committee backed by a committee to select the nominating committee that is itself formed from a committee of the ICANN board that is itself filled by a committee of nominators ... and so on on the back a great turtle swimming through the endless cosmic sea. All hail the Idiocracy. (I assume you saw the movie of that title?) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 23 15:43:45 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:43:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> ,<82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993AF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Chris, Your suggested approach makes a lot of sense to me; back in the day we had suggested something similar but less nuanced originally ie a 2-track process. The challenge in tracks is that comemrcial interests will seek to masquerade as public interest-type gtld applications, to avoid fees/accelerate market entry; but some safeguards can be put in place. With regard to the vertical integration issue snuck in by...special interests; or should I say added by the expert judgment of omniscient/incorruptible ICANN staff working with the GNSO....smells like the good old non-transparent/non-objective ICANN is still at work. And what a shock, those same folks didn't find your comments worthy of even a footnote. Anyway, good luck, have fun and make some noise. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of CW Mail [mail at christopherwilkinson.eu] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:20 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: CW Mail Subject: Re: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now Good evening: As I understand it there will be an important meeting early next week in Brussels which may influence what ICANN does with the new gTLD process. For those of you who will be present, I would recommend the following line: 1. To disaggregate the process. First, to give priority to the IDN applications. Secondly to separate the public interest, linguistic/ cultural and geographical/city proposals from all the rest. Thirdly to address the <.brand> issues as an entirely distinct process where, with WIPO, the related competition and trademark issues can be considered; i.e. postpone. Fourth, to address the <.generic> proposals: these may be supported provided that they are associated with a rigorous registration policy, subject to public consultation .i.e. not to postpone, but they will take longer. 2. Regarding Vertical Integration, I have seen nothing which would lead me to amend the posting which I made last August, and which for some reason has not been cited in any of the ICANN Briefing Papers: http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf In short, the attempt last year within GNSO to associate the new gTLD process with backward integration between Registrars and Registries has (a) caused a breakdown in the bottom-up consensus process (b) been a cause of further delay and (c) flies in the face of ICANN's mandate as the custodian of competition policy in the DNS. No. I shall post this message to the Lists with which I am associated: Governance, At Large, ISOC. With regards to you all, CW ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 toml at communisphere.com Wed Feb 23 17:27:35 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:27:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <4D6589D7.40400@communisphere.com> I agree with CW and firmly believe that the ICANN's admirable but unworkable one-application-fits-all approach for new TLDs be discarded. And I see CW's proposal presenting a reasonable prioritization. However... I'd like to suggest that group 2, "the public interest, linguistic/cultural and geographical/city proposals" be divided into public interest city-TLDs and linguistic/cultural TLDs. As a proponent of city-TLDs, such a call can reasonably be seen as self serving, so let me explain the split and the prioritization in favor of cities. 1. Both city-TLDs and linguistic/cultural TLDs are long overdue. Had the Net's inventors known the scope the Net would take, they'd certainly have taken greater care in issuing a more robust DNS taxonomy. But with cities being the hope for a sustainable future (if you believe in that sort of stuff) I suggest they get first priority. 2. If one were to weight the two categories for a degree of disruption caused by not having a TLD, I'd again go with cities for sheer number of people who will benefit, with more than 1/2 the world's population living in urban areas. (Now urban is not necessarily city, and I'll not focus on that now, other than to note that we see the .nyc TLD facilitating regional consolidation.) 3. The linguistic/cultural TLDs are potentially a can of worms for nation-states with .kurd and .kashmir being two examples of where some nation-states will strongly object. In many instances Nation-States were created to meliorate problems of culture clashes and we should not advocate taking that role from them lightly. Some, like those for native cultures in North America, can be more easily processed than others, but some degree of caution is warranted. 4. A minor issue, the city and cultural/linguistic are different enough that they should be handled by different ICANN examiners. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt http://bit.ly/OurWiki On 2/23/2011 2:20 PM, CW Mail wrote: > Good evening: > > As I understand it there will be an important meeting early next week > in Brussels which may influence what ICANN does with the new gTLD > process. > For those of you who will be present, I would recommend the following > line: > > 1. To disaggregate the process. First, to give priority to the IDN > applications. Secondly to separate the public interest, > linguistic/cultural and geographical/city proposals from all the rest. > Thirdly to address the <.brand> issues as an entirely distinct > process where, with WIPO, the related competition and trademark issues > can be considered; i.e. postpone. > Fourth, to address the <.generic> proposals: these may be > supported provided that they are associated with a rigorous > registration policy, subject to public consultation .i.e. not to > postpone, but they will take longer. > > 2. Regarding Vertical Integration, I have seen nothing which would > lead me to amend the posting which I made last August, and which for > some reason has not been cited in any of the ICANN Briefing Papers: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf > > In short, the attempt last year within GNSO to associate the new > gTLD process with backward integration between Registrars and > Registries has (a) caused a breakdown in the bottom-up consensus > process (b) been a cause of further delay and (c) flies in the face of > ICANN's mandate as the custodian of competition policy in the DNS. No. > > I shall post this message to the Lists with which I am associated: > Governance, At Large, ISOC. > > With regards to you all, > > CW > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de Wed Feb 23 17:39:11 2011 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:39:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] EuroDIG - planning meeting tomorrow 24.02.2011 14:00 - 16:00 Message-ID: <000001cbd3aa$7dd233e0$79769ba0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> Dear all (please apologise in case of double posting), the planning meeting will take place in the room E 1008, a small meeting room in the ground floor next to sale XVII were the open consultation is taking place. (please enter the dark glass door, various smaller rooms are behind) Everybody not present in Geneva is welcome to participate remotely. Please find the dial in detail here again: Topic: EuroDIG – 2nd planning meeting Date: Thursday, February 24, 2011 Time: 2:00 pm, Europe Time (Berlin, GMT+01:00) Meeting Number: 841 245 281 Meeting Password: euro.dig ——————————————————- To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) ——————————————————- 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=164032692&UID=0&PW=NZTZhN WM1NjVm&RT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: euro.dig 4. Click “Join”. To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=164032692&UID=0&PW=NZTZhN WM1NjVm&ORT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D ——————————————————- To join the audio conference only ——————————————————- Call-in toll number (UK): (0)20 700 51000 Global call-in numbers: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED =164032692&tollFree=0 Access code:841 245 281 ——————————————————- For assistance ——————————————————- 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click “Support”. You can contact me at: info at hoferichter.eu To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=164032692&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD =1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=ihaS61nK-m95rtgEYQ4ntEqCPRqlPE/dkL6952e1nEw=&RT=MiMyNQ%3D% 3D The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in the meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your computer by going to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/systemdiagnosis.php Sign up for a free trial of WebEx http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial http://www.webex.com CCP:+02070051000×841245281# IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. _______________________________________________________________ Logo_EuroDIG_email S a n d r a H o f e r i c h t e r Management and Communication European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) Medienstadt Leipzig e.v. / Netcom Institute PF 650 107 D-04189 Leipzig Fon: +49.341.301 28 27 Fax: +49.341.945 60 11 Mobile: +49.163.380 87 85 office at eurodig.org www.eurodig.org This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intendet recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6587 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 avri at acm.org Wed Feb 23 18:01:45 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:01:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: Hi, I have a resoundingly strong disagreement with both of these points. No need to start separating out the crowd into who goes first and who goes next - a lottery will take care of that. Also there are already nearly as many IDN (of the cc persuasion) as there are gTLDs. No need to give them special preference. As soon as we start talking about separating applications, someone starts claiming that of course their type of application should go first and everyone else should just get out of their way. And the Vertical Integration policy has just the right amount of competition authority in it to be safe for consumers. the plan that the board accepted was well thought out, had the support com economist expereince in comptetions authorities and was hated by almost everyone in the GNSO. Also there are plenty of safe guards in the process now, though some need tweaking perhaps to please the GAC. sure it isn't perfect. But a lot of work has been done to cover as much as could be thought of. I think some of the stuff was poorly designed, but by and large the program is ready to go. And except for those for whom no program will ever be good enough it isn't going to get all that much better. Of course being human, I think it could be a little better. The only changes I hope they make are: - to allow governments to enter the objection process for free, and to allow applicants who must respond to them to respond for free - to make the independent objector transparent and require a real named external objection. This process should be free for both the person bringing the objection and the respondent. - to drop the fee for those meeting the need criteria being established by the WG working on it. The GNSO policy recommendations that this process is built upon said that different applications could pay different fee levels as long as overall the applications process was self funding. And while the idea of padding the cost of applications with possible legal risk funding is wrong in any case, it is a moral outrage in the case of applicants from developing economies. thee is not reason the people from developing countries should be paying for the fact that ICANN is located in litigious USA, a country full of very very expensive lawyers. the new gTLD program does not need to fund its lawyer security fund on the backs of applicants from developing economies. cheers, a. On 23 Feb 2011, at 20:20, CW Mail wrote: > Good evening: > > As I understand it there will be an important meeting early next week in Brussels which may influence what ICANN does with the new gTLD process. > For those of you who will be present, I would recommend the following line: > > 1. To disaggregate the process. First, to give priority to the IDN applications. Secondly to separate the public interest, linguistic/cultural and geographical/city proposals from all the rest. > Thirdly to address the <.brand> issues as an entirely distinct process where, with WIPO, the related competition and trademark issues can be considered; i.e. postpone. > Fourth, to address the <.generic> proposals: these may be supported provided that they are associated with a rigorous registration policy, subject to public consultation .i.e. not to postpone, but they will take longer. > > 2. Regarding Vertical Integration, I have seen nothing which would lead me to amend the posting which I made last August, and which for some reason has not been cited in any of the ICANN Briefing Papers: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf > > In short, the attempt last year within GNSO to associate the new gTLD process with backward integration between Registrars and Registries has (a) caused a breakdown in the bottom-up consensus process (b) been a cause of further delay and (c) flies in the face of ICANN's mandate as the custodian of competition policy in the DNS. No. > > I shall post this message to the Lists with which I am associated: Governance, At Large, ISOC. > > With regards to you all, > > CW > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Wed Feb 23 18:58:10 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:58:10 +1200 Subject: [governance] Genkiosk Message-ID: Dear All, Has anyone heard of Genkiosk or used Genkiosk, please email me privately? Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at edmon.asia Wed Feb 23 19:31:11 2011 From: mail at edmon.asia (Edmon) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:31:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <103701cbd3ba$2598f4b0$70cade10$@asia> Hi Avri, I agree with most of what you said. However, it seems to me that the characterization of "their type of application should go first and everyone else should just get out of their way" may not be the best argument for IDN gTLDs. And just because we have IDN ccTLDs does not mean the same thing as IDN gTLDs. In fact, on the contrary, because of the introduction of IDN ccTLDs, there is growing user expectation that there be IDN gTLDs. What seems to me to be at the forefront of the issue (of whether we can give IDN gTLDs some priority) are 2 items: 1. There are people who worry that if IDN gTLDs were released, it would release the pressure on ICANN to release the full new gTLD process. That is an anxiety we need to dissipate. I think regardless, the full new gTLD process should be introduced asap. 2. I wonder if can get a sense of those who have reservations about the current proposed new gTLD implementation, including those pointing to the "cost-benefit" analysis argument, and ask the question of IDN gTLDs could be introduced now based on what is already in place, and see what the answers would be... Again, the above being said, I still believe that the top priority would be to launch the full new gTLD process. Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 7:02 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now > > Hi, > > I have a resoundingly strong disagreement with both of these points. > > No need to start separating out the crowd into who goes first and who goes next - a > lottery will take care of that. Also there are already nearly as many IDN (of the cc > persuasion) as there are gTLDs. No need to give them special preference. As soon > as we start talking about separating applications, someone starts claiming that of > course their type of application should go first and everyone else should just get out > of their way. > > And the Vertical Integration policy has just the right amount of competition authority > in it to be safe for consumers. the plan that the board accepted was well thought > out, had the support com economist expereince in comptetions authorities and was > hated by almost everyone in the GNSO. > > Also there are plenty of safe guards in the process now, though some need > tweaking perhaps to please the GAC. sure it isn't perfect. But a lot of work has > been done to cover as much as could be thought of. I think some of the stuff was > poorly designed, but by and large the program is ready to go. And except for those > for whom no program will ever be good enough it isn't going to get all that much > better. > > Of course being human, I think it could be a little better. The only changes I hope > they make are: > > - to allow governments to enter the objection process for free, and to allow > applicants who must respond to them to respond for free > > - to make the independent objector transparent and require a real named external > objection. This process should be free for both the person bringing the objection > and the respondent. > > - to drop the fee for those meeting the need criteria being established by the WG > working on it. The GNSO policy recommendations that this process is built upon > said that different applications could pay different fee levels as long as overall the > applications process was self funding. And while the idea of padding the cost of > applications with possible legal risk funding is wrong in any case, it is a moral > outrage in the case of applicants from developing economies. thee is not reason > the people from developing countries should be paying for the fact that ICANN is > located in litigious USA, a country full of very very expensive lawyers. the new > gTLD program does not need to fund its lawyer security fund on the backs of > applicants from developing economies. > > cheers, > > a. > > On 23 Feb 2011, at 20:20, CW Mail wrote: > > > Good evening: > > > > As I understand it there will be an important meeting early next week in Brussels > which may influence what ICANN does with the new gTLD process. > > For those of you who will be present, I would recommend the following line: > > > > 1. To disaggregate the process. First, to give priority to the IDN applications. > Secondly to separate the public interest, linguistic/cultural and geographical/city > proposals from all the rest. > > Thirdly to address the <.brand> issues as an entirely distinct process where, > with WIPO, the related competition and trademark issues can be considered; i.e. > postpone. > > Fourth, to address the <.generic> proposals: these may be supported > provided that they are associated with a rigorous registration policy, subject to > public consultation .i.e. not to postpone, but they will take longer. > > > > 2. Regarding Vertical Integration, I have seen nothing which would lead me to > amend the posting which I made last August, and which for some reason has not > been cited in any of the ICANN Briefing Papers: > > > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf > > > > In short, the attempt last year within GNSO to associate the new gTLD > process with backward integration between Registrars and Registries has (a) > caused a breakdown in the bottom-up consensus process (b) been a cause of > further delay and (c) flies in the face of ICANN's mandate as the custodian of > competition policy in the DNS. No. > > > > I shall post this message to the Lists with which I am associated: Governance, At > Large, ISOC. > > > > With regards to you all, > > > > CW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Feb 23 19:40:36 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:40:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Last Crack Progress xTLDs. References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110223161841.05d58df8@jefsey.com> At 15:04 23/02/2011, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >After reading ICANNs recent announcement of a new timetable for the >introduction of new gTLDs >I propose to consider the estabishment of a "Working Group on the >Improvement of the Postponement of new gTLD Introduction >(WKIPngTLDI). The new Working Group could get a mandate for five >years with the option of renewal. The group could have two >sub-working groups on "fast postponement" and "slow postponement". >The two sub-working groups should create an interim Ad Hoc Committee >for the establishmnet of an "Interagency Dialog on Interim >Objections and Themes (IDIOT). Volunteers are welcome to apply for >the position of an Excecutive Secretary of IDIOT. On behalf of the Initiative for the Deployment of the Internet Operations by Connecting Yourself (IDIOCY) I whish to announce a response to this ICANN IDIOT project through "the Last Crack Progress". LCP consists in an Internet Community Project to experiment a few hundred xTLDs (experimental TLDs) fully respecting ICANN ICP-3 rules. Our initial plan was to wait for the introduction of the new ICANN gTLDs, in order to avoid possible naming conflicts. Due to this IDIOT postponement indetermination, we cannot wait anymore. We will therefore consider using ".icann", ".idiot", ".idiocy", "gac", "ccnso" as probably not planned gTLDs that we can use as xTLDs for experimentation purposes in line with IAB recent RFC 6055 on IDN encoding by John Klensin, Microsoft and Apple. The IAB is concerned by the use of Non-DNS protocols. Last Crack is to particularly experiment: - the ML-DNS I documented here several times already - the ICANNS (Indefinite caching accreditation for new names system) that works on a CTL (Centuries to live) basis. What actually concerns me is that the whole ICANN gTLD rigmarole (sorry Avri) is totally outside the world digital ecosystem reality, as even some at the IETF progressively start accepting it. My worry is not about ICANN the NewGAG (new gTLD application Guidebook) will most probably kill, but the USG driven replacement, because they will come with real authority in an area they totally ignore and will badly blunder. A very good point was recently made by John Klensin and Vint Cerf, IDNA2008 and many other things are not table dependent but technical rule dependent. Setting TLD protected tables as the USG plans discussing is technically meaningless. What need to be digested, accepted, worked on and decided upon are "meta-tables", a dynamic underlaying semantic based function set that will have to be built in the protocols to accept or protect or do whatsoever with TM names, logos, etc. We are very far from that (we still are unable to curb the spam and only a few have identified the retro-meta-spam [what you imply in terms of metadata when you respond/access a document, ex. if you respond a French mail, the coming back langtag tells that you speak French]). Before we can technically protect what the USG people wants to discuss with ICANN, there will be a lot of time. And during all this time the USG will look fool and will lose credibility. If ICANN and GAC lose credibility, who will replace them? Vint Cerf and Google for identification naming, people for designating and denominative naming. Are we ready for that? I do not know. We will see that in a few weeks. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Feb 24 01:16:44 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:16:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: <103701cbd3ba$2598f4b0$70cade10$@asia> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> <103701cbd3ba$2598f4b0$70cade10$@asia> Message-ID: H Edmon, As you know I very much support the introduction of IDN gGTLDs and was pushing for them to come out at the same time as the IDN ccTLDS, until we lost that battle. And I know that for the most part gTLDs and ccTLDs are different - though if you look as some ccTLDs you would be hard pressed to find that difference (clue: its that gTLDs have at least some regulation). I have just not found a convincing reason why IDN gTLDS should go first to the detriment of other gTLDS. And anything that goes first, does push back everything else. As for cost-benefit analysis of introducing new gTDLs, I look more for social utility of the new gTLDs and the plans people have for them in terms of building community, than I look at how much money someone somewhere may make and someone somewhere else will lose. And yes, I realize that for many, new gTDS is all about money. Perhaps I should be favoring that those with community support should come first, but then in true ICANN tradition that would be played and there is always the problem that one person's social utility is another person's silliness or worse. But I will admit, my characterization of _everyone_ who supports prioritization of one type of gTLD over others as someone in a race pushing everyone else out of their way was a bit of a generalization and somewhat rude. And I apologize to you for that. a. On 24 Feb 2011, at 01:31, Edmon wrote: > Hi Avri, > > I agree with most of what you said. However, it seems to me that the > characterization of "their type of application should go first and everyone > else should just get out of their way" may not be the best argument for IDN > gTLDs. And just because we have IDN ccTLDs does not mean the same thing as > IDN gTLDs. In fact, on the contrary, because of the introduction of IDN > ccTLDs, there is growing user expectation that there be IDN gTLDs. > > What seems to me to be at the forefront of the issue (of whether we can give > IDN gTLDs some priority) are 2 items: > > 1. There are people who worry that if IDN gTLDs were released, it would > release the pressure on ICANN to release the full new gTLD process. That is > an anxiety we need to dissipate. I think regardless, the full new gTLD > process should be introduced asap. > > > > 2. I wonder if can get a sense of those who have reservations about the > current proposed new gTLD implementation, including those pointing to the > "cost-benefit" analysis argument, and ask the question of IDN gTLDs could be > introduced now based on what is already in place, and see what the answers > would be... > > > Again, the above being said, I still believe that the top priority would be > to launch the full new gTLD process. > > Edmon > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 7:02 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now >> >> Hi, >> >> I have a resoundingly strong disagreement with both of these points. >> >> No need to start separating out the crowd into who goes first and who goes > next - a >> lottery will take care of that. Also there are already nearly as many IDN > (of the cc >> persuasion) as there are gTLDs. No need to give them special preference. > As soon >> as we start talking about separating applications, someone starts claiming > that of >> course their type of application should go first and everyone else should > just get out >> of their way. >> >> And the Vertical Integration policy has just the right amount of > competition authority >> in it to be safe for consumers. the plan that the board accepted was well > thought >> out, had the support com economist expereince in comptetions authorities > and was >> hated by almost everyone in the GNSO. >> >> Also there are plenty of safe guards in the process now, though some need >> tweaking perhaps to please the GAC. sure it isn't perfect. But a lot of > work has >> been done to cover as much as could be thought of. I think some of the > stuff was >> poorly designed, but by and large the program is ready to go. And except > for those >> for whom no program will ever be good enough it isn't going to get all > that much >> better. >> >> Of course being human, I think it could be a little better. The only > changes I hope >> they make are: >> >> - to allow governments to enter the objection process for free, and to > allow >> applicants who must respond to them to respond for free >> >> - to make the independent objector transparent and require a real named > external >> objection. This process should be free for both the person bringing the > objection >> and the respondent. >> >> - to drop the fee for those meeting the need criteria being established by > the WG >> working on it. The GNSO policy recommendations that this process is built > upon >> said that different applications could pay different fee levels as long as > overall the >> applications process was self funding. And while the idea of padding the > cost of >> applications with possible legal risk funding is wrong in any case, it is > a moral >> outrage in the case of applicants from developing economies. thee is not > reason >> the people from developing countries should be paying for the fact that > ICANN is >> located in litigious USA, a country full of very very expensive lawyers. > the new >> gTLD program does not need to fund its lawyer security fund on the backs > of >> applicants from developing economies. >> >> cheers, >> >> a. >> >> On 23 Feb 2011, at 20:20, CW Mail wrote: >> >>> Good evening: >>> >>> As I understand it there will be an important meeting early next week in > Brussels >> which may influence what ICANN does with the new gTLD process. >>> For those of you who will be present, I would recommend the following > line: >>> >>> 1. To disaggregate the process. First, to give priority to the IDN > applications. >> Secondly to separate the public interest, linguistic/cultural and > geographical/city >> proposals from all the rest. >>> Thirdly to address the <.brand> issues as an entirely distinct > process where, >> with WIPO, the related competition and trademark issues can be considered; > i.e. >> postpone. >>> Fourth, to address the <.generic> proposals: these may be supported >> provided that they are associated with a rigorous registration policy, > subject to >> public consultation .i.e. not to postpone, but they will take longer. >>> >>> 2. Regarding Vertical Integration, I have seen nothing which would lead > me to >> amend the posting which I made last August, and which for some reason has > not >> been cited in any of the ICANN Briefing Papers: >>> >>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf >>> >>> In short, the attempt last year within GNSO to associate the new > gTLD >> process with backward integration between Registrars and Registries has > (a) >> caused a breakdown in the bottom-up consensus process (b) been a cause of >> further delay and (c) flies in the face of ICANN's mandate as the > custodian of >> competition policy in the DNS. No. >>> >>> I shall post this message to the Lists with which I am associated: > Governance, At >> Large, ISOC. >>> >>> With regards to you all, >>> >>> CW >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 04:33:53 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:33:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is webcast and options for remote participation in today's MAG meeting. Please see instructions to join in IGF website. The records of yesterday's open consultations are online: http://media.lscube.org/IGF/2011/Feb_23 Best wishes, Marilia On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Please, disseminate. > > > > Tomorrow IGF Open Consultations and the informal MAG meeting (23 and 24 > Feb) will be Webcasted and live transcription will be available. > > The agenda of the open consultations is available here: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011/programmepapers/IGF.Draft.agenda.feb.2011.pdf > > > > For the webcast, VLC player is recommended. Please, install it and test it > in advance, if possible. > > > > Questions and comments can be made by chat or by e-mail. ( > febmeeting at intgovforum.org). I have volunteered to receive and forward > your questions. > > > > Please, see the links to access the webcast and the transcripts from > morning and afternoon sessions in IGF website main page: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Marília > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Thu Feb 24 04:40:36 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:40:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Marilia, Now I am inside the MAG informal meeting. IT looks like the observers are not given floor in general. I am raising my hand and name plate (IGC), but they don't give any sign. Do you think that remote participants can make comments,while observers in the room cannot? We may need clarification as to the status of observer. izumi 2011/2/24 Marilia Maciel : > There is webcast and options for remote participation in today's MAG > meeting. Please see instructions to join in IGF website. > The records of yesterday's open consultations are > online: http://media.lscube.org/IGF/2011/Feb_23 > Best wishes, > Marilia > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: >> >> Please, disseminate. >> >> >> >> Tomorrow IGF Open Consultations and the informal MAG meeting (23 and 24 >> Feb) will be Webcasted and live transcription will be available. >> >> The agenda of the open consultations is available >> here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011/programmepapers/IGF.Draft.agenda.feb.2011.pdf >> >> >> >> For the webcast, VLC player is recommended. Please, install it and test it >> in advance, if possible. >> >> >> >> Questions and comments can be made by chat or by e-mail. >> (febmeeting at intgovforum.org). I have volunteered to receive and forward your >> questions. >> >> >> >> Please, see the links to access the webcast and the transcripts from >> morning and afternoon sessions in IGF website main page: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Marília >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 04:46:46 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:46:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ops, sorry. Only MAG members and IGOs can raise comments. Observers here and online cannot. On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > There is webcast and options for remote participation in today's MAG > meeting. Please see instructions to join in IGF website. > > The records of yesterday's open consultations are online: > http://media.lscube.org/IGF/2011/Feb_23 > > Best wishes, > > Marilia > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Please, disseminate. >> >> >> >> Tomorrow IGF Open Consultations and the informal MAG meeting (23 and 24 >> Feb) will be Webcasted and live transcription will be available. >> >> The agenda of the open consultations is available here: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011/programmepapers/IGF.Draft.agenda.feb.2011.pdf >> >> >> >> For the webcast, VLC player is recommended. Please, install it and test it >> in advance, if possible. >> >> >> >> Questions and comments can be made by chat or by e-mail. ( >> febmeeting at intgovforum.org). I have volunteered to receive and forward >> your questions. >> >> >> >> Please, see the links to access the webcast and the transcripts from >> morning and afternoon sessions in IGF website main page: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Marília >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 24 04:59:11 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:59:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Ops, sorry. Only MAG members and IGOs can raise comments. Observers here and > online cannot. > That would seem to be the case. I think there has been a mistake. The precedent of all in the room being able to speak when the MAG's mandate has not been renewed goes back 3 or 4 years. What I find concerning is that the IGO observers are allowed to speak, but the rest are not. This takes us back to the earliest days of the MAG. As for discussion in the room, an hour has been spent atalking about the name of the meeting :-) Adam > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: >> >> There is webcast and options for remote participation in today's MAG >> meeting. Please see instructions to join in IGF website. >> The records of yesterday's open consultations are >> online: http://media.lscube.org/IGF/2011/Feb_23 >> Best wishes, >> Marilia >> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Marilia Maciel >> wrote: >>> >>> Please, disseminate. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tomorrow IGF Open Consultations and the informal MAG meeting (23 and 24 >>> Feb) will be Webcasted and live transcription will be available. >>> >>> The agenda of the open consultations is available >>> here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011/programmepapers/IGF.Draft.agenda.feb.2011.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> For the webcast, VLC player is recommended. Please, install it and test >>> it in advance, if possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> Questions and comments can be made by chat or by e-mail. >>> (febmeeting at intgovforum.org). I have volunteered to receive and forward your >>> questions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please, see the links to access the webcast and the transcripts from >>> morning and afternoon sessions in IGF website main page: >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> -- >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >>> FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Center for Technology and Society >>> Getulio Vargas Foundation >>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Feb 24 05:01:11 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:01:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1298541671.15938.91.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 06:46 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Ops, sorry. Only MAG members and IGOs can raise comments. Observers > here and online cannot. Given that the current MAG's mandate has expired, this is unacceptable in my opinion. There ought to be a new MAG in place by now, and since there is not, the MAG meeting should be open to participation by all. Could one of our IGC MAG members make this point, or at least direct the discussion towards when the MAG renewal will take place? -- 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 for Fair Financial Services World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and competitive markets in financial services for all. http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 24 05:04:51 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:04:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <1298541671.15938.91.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1298541671.15938.91.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: A little disappointing that the CS members of the "MAG" did not speak up for the rights of observers to speak. This is something we argued strongly for some years ago. Thanks however to Chris Disspain for trying to give us the right to speak. Adam On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 06:46 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Ops, sorry. Only MAG members and IGOs can raise comments. Observers >> here and online cannot. > > Given that the current MAG's mandate has expired, this is unacceptable > in my opinion.  There ought to be a new MAG in place by now, and since > there is not, the MAG meeting should be open to participation by all. > Could one of our IGC MAG members make this point, or at least direct the > discussion towards when the MAG renewal will take place? > > -- > 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 for Fair Financial Services > World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 > > Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and > competitive markets in financial services for all. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 > > 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 iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 05:05:44 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:05:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <1298541671.15938.91.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1298541671.15938.91.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: I strongly agree with what Jeremy wrote. Can the MAG members recommended by CS who are allowed to speak up support this reasonable request? I actually handed a memo to the Chair asking this question, "can't observers make comments when the Chair sees it appropriate?" and then they said only MAG members could speak, while Crhis, MAG member, said he has no problem. NO other members supported Crhis. TO me it's a shame. izumi 2011/2/24 Jeremy Malcolm : > On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 06:46 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Ops, sorry. Only MAG members and IGOs can raise comments. Observers >> here and online cannot. > > Given that the current MAG's mandate has expired, this is unacceptable > in my opinion.  There ought to be a new MAG in place by now, and since > there is not, the MAG meeting should be open to participation by all. > Could one of our IGC MAG members make this point, or at least direct the > discussion towards when the MAG renewal will take place? > > -- > 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 for Fair Financial Services > World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 > > Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and > competitive markets in financial services for all. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 05:13:23 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:13:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1298541671.15938.91.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: For overall theme, I wanted to suggest something like Internet as catalyst for change: Access, Development, Democracy and Innovation. I have problem with "driver" - since it is people, not Internet that leads the change, and Internet only plays a catalyst role, so to speak. If they have problem with "democratization" in the political context, then "democracy" is an agreed upon word (however they interpret). BUT, we lost the opportunity which should not be that controversial. And given that I am going to participate in the CLOSED CSTD WG meeting from tomorrow, I really wanted this MAG "informal" meeting to be more flexible. Say, at least CS-based MAG members, if you open up Skype channel, you can still liaise with us. izumi 2011/2/24 Adam Peake : > A little disappointing that the CS members of the "MAG" did not speak > up for the rights of observers to speak.  This is something we argued > strongly for some years ago. > > Thanks however to Chris Disspain for trying to give us the right to speak. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 06:46 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> Ops, sorry. Only MAG members and IGOs can raise comments. Observers >>> here and online cannot. >> >> Given that the current MAG's mandate has expired, this is unacceptable >> in my opinion.  There ought to be a new MAG in place by now, and since >> there is not, the MAG meeting should be open to participation by all. >> Could one of our IGC MAG members make this point, or at least direct the >> discussion towards when the MAG renewal will take place? >> >> -- >> 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 for Fair Financial Services >> World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 >> >> Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and >> competitive markets in financial services for all. >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless >> necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 24 05:14:23 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:14:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: <4D6589D7.40400@communisphere.com> References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4D6589D7.40400@communisphere.com> Message-ID: In message <4D6589D7.40400 at communisphere.com>, at 17:27:35 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Thomas Lowenhaupt writes >1.  Both city-TLDs and linguistic/cultural TLDs are long overdue. Had >the Net's inventors known the scope the Net would take, they'd >certainly have taken greater care in issuing a more robust DNS >taxonomy. But with cities being the hope for a sustainable future (if >you believe in that sort of stuff)  I suggest they get first priority Issues with the DNS taxonomy have been evident for a very long time (it was one of the things some colleagues and I struggled with when we set up an ISP in 1994). But adding on extra layer only solves some of the problems, because even for cities there are duplicates (eg "Lincoln" is a regional capital in both UK and USA, "Cambridge" is a well known University and regional capital in the UK, as well as a university town in USA). -- 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 Thu Feb 24 05:16:18 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:46:18 +0530 (IST) Subject: [governance] MAG meeting Message-ID: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> When the MAG assembled in the morning today, the secretariat asked MAG members to sit in the middle and observers on the sides, so that they knew who is who. Normally, MAG members have been liberally interpreted to include Special Advisors. And special advisors have till now largely meant that there were a few more civil society members in the room. At this point, Adam pointedly asked the status of Special Advisors in regard of who sits where, which was obviously to be connected to speaking rights during the meeting. The secretariat, in the form of Chengetai, answered that since there is no chair there are no advisors to the chair. Which may be a little unsure interpretation. In fact there is even no MAG today, as even Chris Disspain said during the meeting without being challenged by the secretariat or the chair. Things are rather informal. BTW, Chair advisors are like all other positions attached to a position not a person, in the same way that MAG may not disappear simply if for some reason the UN secretary general remits his position suddenly. These kind of things can be very disruptive and that is why things continue till alternative arrangements are made. So, in the same way, since there was some kind of chair-ship of today's meeting, there would informally continue to the special advisors doing the same role as earlier. As i said, everything is more than a bit fuzzy and a bit informal at present. So, Adam, I really do not understand what made you put Hartmut, Wolfgang and me (and Jovan if he is to come in) out of circulation during the meeting today. Any specific reason or strategy behind it? I understand that all these are political events and situations, and our responses are always political (and not just 'technical) and contextual. So I was wondering what prompted you to do what you did (esp when some of IGC members have actually been seeking that CSTD WGIGF should allow CS reps also to take in advisors, basically the effort is to get into the room and participate in all ways one can) I dont mind it too much though personally:). Kind of used to it. Happens in political work but one knows that this kind of thing goes with a civil society advocacy role.. Just in the last meeting I was told by Markus that this was primarily a discussion among MAG members, and therefore , well, to be blunt, to basically shut up. I may remind you, Adam, and others in the IGC, that before I accepted the Advisor's position, I wrote to Nitin and Markus giving my understanding of the Advisor role, which including speaking up, and I was specifically told that my understanding was right. I did share my letter, and also if I remember right, Markus's response to my letter, with the IGC, since at that time I was IGC co-coordinator, before I accepted the position. I have also, at least once, been told off by a technical community MAG member on the MAG list that it is MAG members views that count (and by implication special advisor's doesnt). But I wasnt expecting a CS member to do something like this, in a context where he clearly knew the exact and specific outcomes - that three or four of the very few CS members in the room will not be able to speak in the MAG meeting. Any explanations, Adam? Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 05:17:23 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:17:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1298541671.15938.91.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <697670.52291.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Izumi AIZU, I think that Mr Fouad Bajwa will be there in MAG meeting and most probably he will be able to submit your query and IGC concern being a MAG member as well as IGC member.   Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Izumi AIZU To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Marilia Maciel ; alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org Sent: Thu, 24 February, 2011 15:05:44 Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting I strongly agree with what Jeremy wrote. Can the MAG members recommended by CS who are allowed to speak up support this reasonable request? I actually handed a memo to the Chair asking this question, "can't observers make comments when the Chair sees it appropriate?" and then they said only MAG members could speak, while Crhis, MAG member, said he has no problem. NO other members supported Crhis. TO me it's a shame. izumi 2011/2/24 Jeremy Malcolm : > On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 06:46 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Ops, sorry. Only MAG members and IGOs can raise comments. Observers >> here and online cannot. > > Given that the current MAG's mandate has expired, this is unacceptable > in my opinion.  There ought to be a new MAG in place by now, and since > there is not, the MAG meeting should be open to participation by all. > Could one of our IGC MAG members make this point, or at least direct the > discussion towards when the MAG renewal will take place? > > -- > 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 for Fair Financial Services > World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 > > Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and > competitive markets in financial services for all. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 05:19:24 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:19:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <697670.52291.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1298541671.15938.91.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <697670.52291.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yes, that's what i am doing with Fouad now via Skype, thanks, BUT, still it makes a whole difference that we can only rely on MAG members, while observers are just dumb sitting. izumi 2011/2/24 Imran Ahmed Shah : > Dear Izumi AIZU, > > I think that Mr Fouad Bajwa will be there in MAG meeting and most probably > he will be able to submit your query and IGC concern being a MAG member as > well as IGC member. > > > > Thanks > > > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > ________________________________ > From: Izumi AIZU > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: Marilia Maciel ; alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org > Sent: Thu, 24 February, 2011 15:05:44 > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open > consultations and MAG meeting > > I strongly agree with what Jeremy wrote. > Can the MAG members recommended by CS who are allowed to speak up > support this reasonable request? > > I actually handed a memo to the Chair asking this question, "can't observers > make comments when the Chair sees it appropriate?" and then they said > only MAG members could speak, while Crhis, MAG member, said he > has no problem. NO other members supported Crhis. TO me it's a shame. > > izumi > > > 2011/2/24 Jeremy Malcolm : >> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 06:46 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> Ops, sorry. Only MAG members and IGOs can raise comments. Observers >>> here and online cannot. >> >> Given that the current MAG's mandate has expired, this is unacceptable >> in my opinion.  There ought to be a new MAG in place by now, and since >> there is not, the MAG meeting should be open to participation by all. >> Could one of our IGC MAG members make this point, or at least direct the >> discussion towards when the MAG renewal will take place? >> >> -- >> 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 for Fair Financial Services >> World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 >> >> Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and >> competitive markets in financial services for all. >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless >> necessary. >> > > > > -- >                         >> Izumi Aizu << > >           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >                                   Japan >                                  * * * * * >            << Writing the Future of the History >> >                                 www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Feb 24 05:33:27 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:33:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, there is no chair, how can there be chair's advisors? Not everything is about you, relax please. We should be in an open MAG meeting. The first time the MAG met without its mandate being renewed was 3 or 4 years ago (I was still a member, or "non-member" depending on how we can confusingly refer to the title :-)) and I remember all in the room were able to speak. You were there and you spoke and it was an important precedent for the evolution of the MAG and process. That openness is what we should be enjoying this morning. That we are not is a problem, the process has moved back to how we started in 2005. Adam On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM, wrote: > When the MAG assembled in the morning today, the secretariat asked MAG > members to sit in the middle and observers on the sides, so that they knew > who is who. > > Normally, MAG members have been liberally interpreted to include Special > Advisors. And special advisors have till now largely meant that there were > a few more civil society members in the room. At this point, Adam > pointedly asked the status of Special Advisors in regard of who sits > where, which was obviously to be connected to speaking rights during the > meeting. The secretariat, in the form of Chengetai, answered that since > there is no chair there are no advisors to the chair. Which may be a > little unsure interpretation. In fact there is even no MAG  today, as even > Chris Disspain said during the meeting without being challenged by the > secretariat or the chair. Things are rather informal. BTW, Chair advisors > are like all other positions attached to a position not a person, in the > same way that MAG may not disappear simply if for some reason the UN > secretary general remits his position suddenly. These kind of things can > be very disruptive and that is why things continue till alternative > arrangements are made. So, in the same way, since there was some kind of > chair-ship of today's meeting, there would informally continue to the > special advisors doing the same role as earlier. As i said, everything is > more than a bit fuzzy and a bit informal at present. > > So, Adam, I really do not understand what made you put Hartmut, Wolfgang > and me (and Jovan if he is to come in) out of circulation during the > meeting today. Any specific reason or strategy behind it? I understand > that all these are political events and situations, and our responses are > always political (and not just 'technical) and contextual. So I was > wondering what prompted you to do what you did (esp when some of IGC > members have actually been seeking that CSTD WGIGF should allow CS reps > also to take in advisors, basically the effort is to get into the room and > participate in all ways one can) > > I dont mind it too much though personally:).  Kind of used to it. Happens > in political work but one knows that this kind of thing goes with a civil > society advocacy role.. Just in the last meeting I was told by Markus that > this was primarily a discussion among MAG members, and therefore , well, > to be blunt,  to basically shut up. I may remind you, Adam, and others in > the IGC, that before I accepted the Advisor's position, I wrote to Nitin > and Markus giving my understanding of the Advisor role, which including > speaking up, and I was specifically told that my understanding was right. > I did share my letter, and also if I remember right, Markus's response to > my letter, with the IGC, since at that time I was IGC co-coordinator, > before I accepted the position. I have also, at least once, been told off > by a technical community MAG member on the MAG list that it is MAG members > views that count (and by implication special advisor's doesnt). > > But I wasnt expecting a CS member to do something like this, in a context > where he clearly knew the exact and specific outcomes - that three or four > of the very few CS members in the room will not be able to speak in the > MAG meeting. Any explanations, Adam? > > Parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 05:57:43 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:57:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: I was ready to confine myself as "observer" meaning giving more role to the MAG members, but still wanted to make "minimal" comments when we feel appropriate and Chair also recognizes so. Same goes true for remote participation - as the transcription is fed live globally, why can't we take comments from online participants in a similar manner, being coordinated by coordinator. I can also stay here and submit comments online, and let the Secretariat or Chair to pick-up these online comments as appropriate. Just making f2f meeting and not taking other means is bit hard to accept. izumi 2011/2/24 Adam Peake : > Parminder, there is no chair, how can there be chair's advisors? Not > everything is about you, relax please. > > We should be in an open MAG meeting.  The first time the MAG met > without its mandate being renewed  was 3  or 4 years ago (I was still > a member, or "non-member" depending on how we can confusingly refer to > the title :-)) and I remember all in the room were able to speak. You > were there and you spoke and it was an important precedent for the > evolution of the MAG and process.  That openness is what we should be > enjoying this morning. That we are not is a problem, the process has > moved back to how we started in 2005. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM,   wrote: >> When the MAG assembled in the morning today, the secretariat asked MAG >> members to sit in the middle and observers on the sides, so that they knew >> who is who. >> >> Normally, MAG members have been liberally interpreted to include Special >> Advisors. And special advisors have till now largely meant that there were >> a few more civil society members in the room. At this point, Adam >> pointedly asked the status of Special Advisors in regard of who sits >> where, which was obviously to be connected to speaking rights during the >> meeting. The secretariat, in the form of Chengetai, answered that since >> there is no chair there are no advisors to the chair. Which may be a >> little unsure interpretation. In fact there is even no MAG  today, as even >> Chris Disspain said during the meeting without being challenged by the >> secretariat or the chair. Things are rather informal. BTW, Chair advisors >> are like all other positions attached to a position not a person, in the >> same way that MAG may not disappear simply if for some reason the UN >> secretary general remits his position suddenly. These kind of things can >> be very disruptive and that is why things continue till alternative >> arrangements are made. So, in the same way, since there was some kind of >> chair-ship of today's meeting, there would informally continue to the >> special advisors doing the same role as earlier. As i said, everything is >> more than a bit fuzzy and a bit informal at present. >> >> So, Adam, I really do not understand what made you put Hartmut, Wolfgang >> and me (and Jovan if he is to come in) out of circulation during the >> meeting today. Any specific reason or strategy behind it? I understand >> that all these are political events and situations, and our responses are >> always political (and not just 'technical) and contextual. So I was >> wondering what prompted you to do what you did (esp when some of IGC >> members have actually been seeking that CSTD WGIGF should allow CS reps >> also to take in advisors, basically the effort is to get into the room and >> participate in all ways one can) >> >> I dont mind it too much though personally:).  Kind of used to it. Happens >> in political work but one knows that this kind of thing goes with a civil >> society advocacy role.. Just in the last meeting I was told by Markus that >> this was primarily a discussion among MAG members, and therefore , well, >> to be blunt,  to basically shut up. I may remind you, Adam, and others in >> the IGC, that before I accepted the Advisor's position, I wrote to Nitin >> and Markus giving my understanding of the Advisor role, which including >> speaking up, and I was specifically told that my understanding was right. >> I did share my letter, and also if I remember right, Markus's response to >> my letter, with the IGC, since at that time I was IGC co-coordinator, >> before I accepted the position. I have also, at least once, been told off >> by a technical community MAG member on the MAG list that it is MAG members >> views that count (and by implication special advisor's doesnt). >> >> But I wasnt expecting a CS member to do something like this, in a context >> where he clearly knew the exact and specific outcomes - that three or four >> of the very few CS members in the room will not be able to speak in the >> MAG meeting. Any explanations, Adam? >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 24 05:59:42 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:29:42 +0530 (IST) Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > Parminder, there is no chair, how can there be chair's advisors? Not > everything is about you, relax please. Of course not about me, but I asked you what was it about... because there is a certain impact a few of us are suffering here, and you havent answered that question. When secretariat asked observers to move to the sides, it obviously was to do with differential speaking status, and you immediately got us - special advisors - moved out as well. How did it help openness, or CS participation. Of course I am cheesed off, dont you expect me to. and you are not telling why did you do it - with what end in mind. I just have this hypothesis that reasonable people act with some end in mind, so what were you trying to achieve here today. > > We should be in an open MAG meeting. But that is not the point we are discussing here, are we. We shd be open, but how did getting some of us shut up through your intervention help that cause is what i am wondering. The first time the MAG met > without its mandate being renewed was 3 or 4 years ago (I was still > a member, or "non-member" depending on how we can confusingly refer to > the title :-)) and I remember all in the room were able to speak. You > were there and you spoke and it was an important precedent for the > evolution of the MAG and process. That openness is what we should be > enjoying this morning. That we are not is a problem, the process has > moved back to how we started in 2005. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM, wrote: >> When the MAG assembled in the morning today, the secretariat asked MAG >> members to sit in the middle and observers on the sides, so that they >> knew >> who is who. >> >> Normally, MAG members have been liberally interpreted to include Special >> Advisors. And special advisors have till now largely meant that there >> were >> a few more civil society members in the room. At this point, Adam >> pointedly asked the status of Special Advisors in regard of who sits >> where, which was obviously to be connected to speaking rights during the >> meeting. The secretariat, in the form of Chengetai, answered that since >> there is no chair there are no advisors to the chair. Which may be a >> little unsure interpretation. In fact there is even no MAG  today, as >> even >> Chris Disspain said during the meeting without being challenged by the >> secretariat or the chair. Things are rather informal. BTW, Chair >> advisors >> are like all other positions attached to a position not a person, in the >> same way that MAG may not disappear simply if for some reason the UN >> secretary general remits his position suddenly. These kind of things can >> be very disruptive and that is why things continue till alternative >> arrangements are made. So, in the same way, since there was some kind of >> chair-ship of today's meeting, there would informally continue to the >> special advisors doing the same role as earlier. As i said, everything >> is >> more than a bit fuzzy and a bit informal at present. >> >> So, Adam, I really do not understand what made you put Hartmut, Wolfgang >> and me (and Jovan if he is to come in) out of circulation during the >> meeting today. Any specific reason or strategy behind it? I understand >> that all these are political events and situations, and our responses >> are >> always political (and not just 'technical) and contextual. So I was >> wondering what prompted you to do what you did (esp when some of IGC >> members have actually been seeking that CSTD WGIGF should allow CS reps >> also to take in advisors, basically the effort is to get into the room >> and >> participate in all ways one can) >> >> I dont mind it too much though personally:).  Kind of used to it. >> Happens >> in political work but one knows that this kind of thing goes with a >> civil >> society advocacy role.. Just in the last meeting I was told by Markus >> that >> this was primarily a discussion among MAG members, and therefore , well, >> to be blunt,  to basically shut up. I may remind you, Adam, and others >> in >> the IGC, that before I accepted the Advisor's position, I wrote to Nitin >> and Markus giving my understanding of the Advisor role, which including >> speaking up, and I was specifically told that my understanding was >> right. >> I did share my letter, and also if I remember right, Markus's response >> to >> my letter, with the IGC, since at that time I was IGC co-coordinator, >> before I accepted the position. I have also, at least once, been told >> off >> by a technical community MAG member on the MAG list that it is MAG >> members >> views that count (and by implication special advisor's doesnt). >> >> But I wasnt expecting a CS member to do something like this, in a >> context >> where he clearly knew the exact and specific outcomes - that three or >> four >> of the very few CS members in the room will not be able to speak in the >> MAG meeting. Any explanations, Adam? >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 24 06:29:22 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:29:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation for the open consultations and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1298541671.15938.91.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: Hi there, It was not clear that a meeting was going to be held so I've got other commitments, and wasn't able to go once the MAG meeting was announced. Too late for me, especially funding-wise thought I was in Strasbourg yesterday. Now in San Francisco. In any case, I am following the meeting remotely, and happy to liaise with Izumi and others as requested. On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:13:23 +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote: > For overall theme, I wanted to suggest something like > > Internet as catalyst for change: Access, Development, Democracy and > Innovation. > > I have problem with "driver" - since it is people, not Internet that > leads the change, > and Internet only plays a catalyst role, so to speak. > > If they have problem with "democratization" in the political context, > then "democracy" > is an agreed upon word (however they interpret). > > BUT, we lost the opportunity which should not be that controversial. > > And given that I am going to participate in the CLOSED CSTD WG meeting > from tomorrow, I really wanted this MAG "informal" meeting to be more > flexible. > > Say, at least CS-based MAG members, if you open up Skype channel, you can > still liaise with us. > > izumi > > > 2011/2/24 Adam Peake : >> A little disappointing that the CS members of the "MAG" did not speak >> up for the rights of observers to speak.  This is something we argued >> strongly for some years ago. >> >> Thanks however to Chris Disspain for trying to give us the right to speak. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 06:46 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> Ops, sorry. Only MAG members and IGOs can raise comments. Observers >>>> here and online cannot. >>> >>> Given that the current MAG's mandate has expired, this is unacceptable >>> in my opinion.  There ought to be a new MAG in place by now, and since >>> there is not, the MAG meeting should be open to participation by all. >>> Could one of our IGC MAG members make this point, or at least direct the >>> discussion towards when the MAG renewal will take place? >>> >>> -- >>> 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 for Fair Financial Services >>> World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 >>> >>> Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and >>> competitive markets in financial services for all. >>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless >>> necessary. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 24 06:41:50 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:41:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <517c3bda7bf8676523fb9dffad7939ba@eff.org> Hi there, I am joining the meeting remotely after lunch. I have been flying back from Strasbourg to SF in an airplane, and I wasn't able to join the conference remotely. I am now coordinating with Seitti and I am able to make the point. FYI: It was not clear that a MAG meeting was going to be held. I made other commitments and I wasn't able to work around funding and work commitments once the informal MAG meeting was announced. Katitza On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:33:27 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, there is no chair, how can there be chair's advisors? Not > everything is about you, relax please. > > We should be in an open MAG meeting. The first time the MAG met > without its mandate being renewed was 3 or 4 years ago (I was still > a member, or "non-member" depending on how we can confusingly refer to > the title :-)) and I remember all in the room were able to speak. You > were there and you spoke and it was an important precedent for the > evolution of the MAG and process. That openness is what we should be > enjoying this morning. That we are not is a problem, the process has > moved back to how we started in 2005. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM, wrote: >> When the MAG assembled in the morning today, the secretariat asked MAG >> members to sit in the middle and observers on the sides, so that they knew >> who is who. >> >> Normally, MAG members have been liberally interpreted to include Special >> Advisors. And special advisors have till now largely meant that there were >> a few more civil society members in the room. At this point, Adam >> pointedly asked the status of Special Advisors in regard of who sits >> where, which was obviously to be connected to speaking rights during the >> meeting. The secretariat, in the form of Chengetai, answered that since >> there is no chair there are no advisors to the chair. Which may be a >> little unsure interpretation. In fact there is even no MAG  today, as even >> Chris Disspain said during the meeting without being challenged by the >> secretariat or the chair. Things are rather informal. BTW, Chair advisors >> are like all other positions attached to a position not a person, in the >> same way that MAG may not disappear simply if for some reason the UN >> secretary general remits his position suddenly. These kind of things can >> be very disruptive and that is why things continue till alternative >> arrangements are made. So, in the same way, since there was some kind of >> chair-ship of today's meeting, there would informally continue to the >> special advisors doing the same role as earlier. As i said, everything is >> more than a bit fuzzy and a bit informal at present. >> >> So, Adam, I really do not understand what made you put Hartmut, Wolfgang >> and me (and Jovan if he is to come in) out of circulation during the >> meeting today. Any specific reason or strategy behind it? I understand >> that all these are political events and situations, and our responses are >> always political (and not just 'technical) and contextual. So I was >> wondering what prompted you to do what you did (esp when some of IGC >> members have actually been seeking that CSTD WGIGF should allow CS reps >> also to take in advisors, basically the effort is to get into the room and >> participate in all ways one can) >> >> I dont mind it too much though personally:).  Kind of used to it. Happens >> in political work but one knows that this kind of thing goes with a civil >> society advocacy role.. Just in the last meeting I was told by Markus that >> this was primarily a discussion among MAG members, and therefore , well, >> to be blunt,  to basically shut up. I may remind you, Adam, and others in >> the IGC, that before I accepted the Advisor's position, I wrote to Nitin >> and Markus giving my understanding of the Advisor role, which including >> speaking up, and I was specifically told that my understanding was right. >> I did share my letter, and also if I remember right, Markus's response to >> my letter, with the IGC, since at that time I was IGC co-coordinator, >> before I accepted the position. I have also, at least once, been told off >> by a technical community MAG member on the MAG list that it is MAG members >> views that count (and by implication special advisor's doesnt). >> >> But I wasnt expecting a CS member to do something like this, in a context >> where he clearly knew the exact and specific outcomes - that three or four >> of the very few CS members in the room will not be able to speak in the >> MAG meeting. Any explanations, Adam? >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Feb 24 07:02:56 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:02:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: (message from Adam Peake on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:33:27 +0900) References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110224120256.BE0B715C0E6@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, there is no chair, how can there be chair's advisors? If I were appointed tomorrow to chair the MAG (which isn't going to happen -- so I am absolutely free to speak about this quite frankly) I would be extremely upset that today the "chair's advisors" have been dismissed or otherwise rendered voiceless, and thereby rendered much less willing and able to perform their role of chair's advisors in helping me to get up to speed in my new responsibility. I would strongly desire the freedom to make my own choices of advisors before long, but for the initial phase of getting starting, I would definitely want for the old chair's advisors to be still around and willing to advise. So in my view, the logic that in the absence of a chairperson, there can be no "chair's advisors", is totally flawed -- quite independently of the political effect that this line of thinking has in the current situation. 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 gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Thu Feb 24 07:15:57 2011 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:15:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] MAG meeting Message-ID: <429739.21514.qm@web27805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hi there,   Even me , I got some travel troubles but tried to follow the meeting remotely . I find anyways the yesterday and today meetings very fruitfully promising...It seems there is some changes ( eg:the presence of chairs'advisers,.. ) on the structure the meeting is being held . The Secretariat asked 15' for MAG members before the PM meeting, and hope they will fix and give consideration of the wellness of the meeting.     Regards Jean-Yves G.   --- En date de : Jeu 24.2.11, Katitza Rodriguez a écrit : De: Katitza Rodriguez Objet: Re: [governance] MAG meeting À: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" Date: Jeudi 24 février 2011, 12h41 Hi there, I am joining the meeting remotely after lunch. I have been flying back from Strasbourg to SF in an airplane, and I wasn't able to join the conference remotely. I am now coordinating with Seitti and I am able to make the point. FYI: It was not clear that a MAG meeting was going to be held. I made other commitments and I wasn't able to work around funding and work commitments once the informal MAG meeting was announced. Katitza On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:33:27 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, there is no chair, how can there be chair's advisors? Not > everything is about you, relax please. > > We should be in an open MAG meeting.  The first time the MAG met > without its mandate being renewed  was 3  or 4 years ago (I was still > a member, or "non-member" depending on how we can confusingly refer to > the title :-)) and I remember all in the room were able to speak. You > were there and you spoke and it was an important precedent for the > evolution of the MAG and process.  That openness is what we should be > enjoying this morning. That we are not is a problem, the process has > moved back to how we started in 2005. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM,  wrote: >> When the MAG assembled in the morning today, the secretariat asked MAG >> members to sit in the middle and observers on the sides, so that they knew >> who is who. >> >> Normally, MAG members have been liberally interpreted to include Special >> Advisors. And special advisors have till now largely meant that there were >> a few more civil society members in the room. At this point, Adam >> pointedly asked the status of Special Advisors in regard of who sits >> where, which was obviously to be connected to speaking rights during the >> meeting. The secretariat, in the form of Chengetai, answered that since >> there is no chair there are no advisors to the chair. Which may be a >> little unsure interpretation. In fact there is even no MAG  today, as even >> Chris Disspain said during the meeting without being challenged by the >> secretariat or the chair. Things are rather informal. BTW, Chair advisors >> are like all other positions attached to a position not a person, in the >> same way that MAG may not disappear simply if for some reason the UN >> secretary general remits his position suddenly. These kind of things can >> be very disruptive and that is why things continue till alternative >> arrangements are made. So, in the same way, since there was some kind of >> chair-ship of today's meeting, there would informally continue to the >> special advisors doing the same role as earlier. As i said, everything is >> more than a bit fuzzy and a bit informal at present. >> >> So, Adam, I really do not understand what made you put Hartmut, Wolfgang >> and me (and Jovan if he is to come in) out of circulation during the >> meeting today. Any specific reason or strategy behind it? I understand >> that all these are political events and situations, and our responses are >> always political (and not just 'technical) and contextual. So I was >> wondering what prompted you to do what you did (esp when some of IGC >> members have actually been seeking that CSTD WGIGF should allow CS reps >> also to take in advisors, basically the effort is to get into the room and >> participate in all ways one can) >> >> I dont mind it too much though personally:).  Kind of used to it. Happens >> in political work but one knows that this kind of thing goes with a civil >> society advocacy role.. Just in the last meeting I was told by Markus that >> this was primarily a discussion among MAG members, and therefore , well, >> to be blunt,  to basically shut up. I may remind you, Adam, and others in >> the IGC, that before I accepted the Advisor's position, I wrote to Nitin >> and Markus giving my understanding of the Advisor role, which including >> speaking up, and I was specifically told that my understanding was right. >> I did share my letter, and also if I remember right, Markus's response to >> my letter, with the IGC, since at that time I was IGC co-coordinator, >> before I accepted the position. I have also, at least once, been told off >> by a technical community MAG member on the MAG list that it is MAG members >> views that count (and by implication special advisor's doesnt). >> >> But I wasnt expecting a CS member to do something like this, in a context >> where he clearly knew the exact and specific outcomes - that three or four >> of the very few CS members in the room will not be able to speak in the >> MAG meeting. Any explanations, Adam? >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 08:42:30 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:42:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting Message-ID: The Chair just said: The MAG members concluded on the observer status, "If we do have time, we will call upon a discussion of the soft" Agreement - speaking is restricted to MAG members only. izumi -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 08:48:11 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:48:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Quick wrap-up meeting today, 6 pm (or as soon as MAG meeting is over) in Geneva Message-ID: Hi, Several CS members expressed their concern that we are not doing as much as we could during the 2-day IGF consultation meeting. To improve that, well it is bit late, I admit, I like to ask for a short meeting today for those of us in Geneva, to just quickly exchange each views on the way forward, including, but not limited to, CSTD WG meeting starting tomorrow. Place - Cafeteria. Duration max 15 min. (for those who will stay, fine). I am aware some of us have got their own business already this afternoon and evening, but for those who have some time available, please. For those who are not here, but want to give inputs, you are most welcome. I also ask for CSTD WG member to have morning meeting tomorrow and the day after, at Hotel Majestic, the meeting venue. Can we start at 8 am? best, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 08:51:23 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 05:51:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Do we IGC have official representation in IGF MAG? Is there any member of MAG who's membership was assigned on the basis of IGC? Imran ________________________________ From: Izumi AIZU To: Governance List Sent: Thu, 24 February, 2011 18:42:30 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting The Chair just said: The MAG members concluded on the observer status, "If we do have time, we will call upon a discussion of the soft" Agreement - speaking is restricted to MAG members only. izumi -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 24 09:02:43 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:02:43 -0800 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I am there, and I am happy to offer support. Just ping me and I am able to speak. Even if I am remote participant, I will make my point come through. I just volunteer to consolidate the main session on SOP. I will take into account the consensus IGC Statement http://www.igcaucus.org/main-session-themes-2011-nairobi-meeting-igf for the questions. At least the A2K, NN, and the cross border issues as those issues fits perfect for the SOP session. We need also a "reactive agenda" re: law enforcement agenda at the intersection of fundamental rights and freedoms (as well as due process, legal safeguards, rule of law). This is something will pop up as you can read from the draft paper published on IGC site (and that we haven't promote:). The SOP session is fairly unbalance right now and as you can imagine, it is not good. I am not in the meeting so I am not sure which questions they are talking about re: each session. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to hear the discussion of the observers. It was not streamed. Sorry for those who are in the meeting and have no speak rights. On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 05:51:23 -0800 (PST), Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Do we IGC have official representation in IGF MAG? > Is there any member of MAG who's membership was assigned on the basis > of IGC? > Imran > > ------------------------- > Izumi AIZU > Governance List > Thu, 24 February, 2011 18:42:30 > [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting > > The Chair just said: > > The MAG members concluded on the observer status, > "If we do have time, we will call upon a discussion of the soft" > > Agreement - speaking is restricted to MAG members only. > > izumi > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > Translate this email: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 09:03:24 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:03:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I don't think we have "official" MAG members from IGC. There are, however, members of MAG who were nominated by IGC and appointed by UN SG as MAG members. So we feel they are sort of our members. I think MAG members are supposed to work on their own capacity, not "representing" any organization/afficilation per se. The announcement says: "All Advisory Group members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups" http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2010/pi1936.doc.htm izumi 2011/2/24 Imran Ahmed Shah : > Do we IGC have official representation in IGF MAG? > Is there any member of MAG who's membership was assigned on the basis of > IGC? > Imran > ________________________________ > From: Izumi AIZU > To: Governance List > Sent: Thu, 24 February, 2011 18:42:30 > Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting > > The Chair just said: > > The MAG members concluded on the observer status, > "If we do have time, we will call upon a discussion of the soft" > > Agreement - speaking is restricted to MAG members only. > > izumi > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 09:35:35 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:35:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] now observer speaks Message-ID: With MAG member, Chris, asked the Chair to allow an observer to make a comment on the structure of Main session and Workshops, the Chair agreed to let Bertrand speak. He is suggesting more organized likes between workshops and main sessions. Getting some support. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 24 09:38:46 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:38:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] now observer speaks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9abbf692eb0548a037efa17b7d958968@eff.org> Hi Izumi, You have never asked me at least to make the point for you to speak. If you need that please let us know so we can do the same that Chris did for Bertrand. Best, K On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:35:35 +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote: > With MAG member, Chris, asked the Chair to allow an observer to make > a comment > on the structure of Main session and Workshops, the Chair agreed to > let Bertrand > speak. > > He is suggesting more organized likes between workshops and main sessions. > Getting some support. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 09:41:21 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:41:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] now observer speaks In-Reply-To: <9abbf692eb0548a037efa17b7d958968@eff.org> References: <9abbf692eb0548a037efa17b7d958968@eff.org> Message-ID: Thanks Katitza, Yes, so far I have not come to any urgent need to make comments. I may. 2011/2/24 Katitza Rodriguez : > Hi Izumi, > > You have never asked me at least to make the point for you to speak. If > you need that please let us know so we can do the same that Chris did > for Bertrand. > > Best, K ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 09:51:49 2011 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:51:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4D6589D7.40400@communisphere.com> Message-ID: I was initially very much in favor of some sort of taxonomy, but ended up accepting that the TLD "categories" would progressively emerge rather than be pre-determined. This is what has actually happened as the respective rules for geoTLDs, brandTLDs, and communiTLDs were developed, and I have no doubt that grouping of registries of a similar type will spontaneously form after the launch. As for duplicates, I never understood why a .cambridge could not be used jointly by the various Cambridges in the world, ideally as a joint coordinated effort, but even if uncoordinated (after all, the .la - the ccTLD for Laos - is de facto used as a proxy for Los Angeles). Likewise for many types of names. Best Bertrand On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <4D6589D7.40400 at communisphere.com>, at 17:27:35 on Wed, 23 Feb > 2011, Thomas Lowenhaupt writes > > > 1. Both city-TLDs and linguistic/cultural TLDs are long overdue. Had the >> Net's inventors known the scope the Net would take, they'd certainly have >> taken greater care in issuing a more robust DNS taxonomy. But with cities >> being the hope for a sustainable future (if you believe in that sort of >> stuff) I suggest they get first priority >> > > Issues with the DNS taxonomy have been evident for a very long time (it was > one of the things some colleagues and I struggled with when we set up an ISP > in 1994). > > But adding on extra layer only solves some of the problems, because even > for cities there are duplicates (eg "Lincoln" is a regional capital in both > UK and USA, "Cambridge" is a well known University and regional capital in > the UK, as well as a university town in USA). > -- > 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 > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 10:19:39 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:19:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF dates Message-ID: Alice just said on dates of IGF "Give us a few more days to decide - but it is not going to be before September, but not over Christmas" izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 10:34:18 2011 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:34:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: References: , <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu>,<4D6589D7.40400@communisphere.com> , Message-ID: The name of the Finnish capital Helsinki offers an example of joint use, sort of, of a geographic name on the 2nd level. It was registered early on by the University of Helsinki while the city was still sleeping (and subsequently had to settle for hel.fi) but at least www.helsinki.fi brings you to a joint page from where you can go either way http://www.helsinki.fi/en/index.html Best Yrjö From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:51:49 +0100 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; roland at internetpolicyagency.com Subject: Re: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now I was initially very much in favor of some sort of taxonomy, but ended up accepting that the TLD "categories" would progressively emerge rather than be pre-determined. This is what has actually happened as the respective rules for geoTLDs, brandTLDs, and communiTLDs were developed, and I have no doubt that grouping of registries of a similar type will spontaneously form after the launch. As for duplicates, I never understood why a .cambridge could not be used jointly by the various Cambridges in the world, ideally as a joint coordinated effort, but even if uncoordinated (after all, the .la - the ccTLD for Laos - is de facto used as a proxy for Los Angeles). Likewise for many types of names. Best Bertrand On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Roland Perry wrote: In message <4D6589D7.40400 at communisphere.com>, at 17:27:35 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Thomas Lowenhaupt writes 1. Both city-TLDs and linguistic/cultural TLDs are long overdue. Had the Net's inventors known the scope the Net would take, they'd certainly have taken greater care in issuing a more robust DNS taxonomy. But with cities being the hope for a sustainable future (if you believe in that sort of stuff) I suggest they get first priority Issues with the DNS taxonomy have been evident for a very long time (it was one of the things some colleagues and I struggled with when we set up an ISP in 1994). But adding on extra layer only solves some of the problems, because even for cities there are duplicates (eg "Lincoln" is a regional capital in both UK and USA, "Cambridge" is a well known University and regional capital in the UK, as well as a university town in USA). -- 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 -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 10:35:36 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:35:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor Message-ID: UN DESA said, it will make public announcement, go through official recruitment for the Executive Coordinator. Special Adviser will be solely appointed by the Secretary General. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 24 10:37:42 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:37:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] meet at Cafeteria now? Message-ID: Now that MAG meeting is finished. Could you come to the cafeteria shortly, and just quick wrap up? I will wait there, say till 5 pm. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Feb 24 11:00:06 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:00:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D668086.90106@apc.org> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written submissions, and the open consultation. I am not quite sure that is what happened today. My other observations, as an observer, are: * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most influential group by far in the MAG. * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective participation in the meeting. * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they there? * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect on their strategies... they work in the short term, but will they work in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, regulation, openness etc. issues. * I think civil society in the MAG should plan, plan plan and prepare, prepare, prepare. Beforehand, but also on site. Not easy though.. I do realise that... Anriette (in my individual capacity as an observer for about 3/4 of the meeting) On 24/02/11 16:03, Izumi AIZU wrote: > I don't think we have "official" MAG members from IGC. > There are, however, members of MAG who were nominated > by IGC and appointed by UN SG as MAG members. > So we feel they are sort of our members. > > I think MAG members are supposed to work on their own capacity, not > "representing" any organization/afficilation per se. > > The announcement says: > > "All Advisory Group members serve in their personal capacity, but are > expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder > groups" > > http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2010/pi1936.doc.htm > > izumi > > > 2011/2/24 Imran Ahmed Shah : >> Do we IGC have official representation in IGF MAG? >> Is there any member of MAG who's membership was assigned on the basis of >> IGC? >> Imran >> ________________________________ >> From: Izumi AIZU >> To: Governance List >> Sent: Thu, 24 February, 2011 18:42:30 >> Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting >> >> The Chair just said: >> >> The MAG members concluded on the observer status, >> "If we do have time, we will call upon a discussion of the soft" >> >> Agreement - speaking is restricted to MAG members only. >> >> izumi >> >> -- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 11:13:32 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:43:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] New Thread on New gTLDs Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: CW Mail Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [governance] new gTLDs To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: CW Mail Good evening: I think we all took Wolfgang's post as a piece of brilliant if not facetious irony, which we all enjoyed ... Now, if we want to discuss these issues seriously, perhaps we need a new thread. Regards to you all, CW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 11:19:33 2011 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:19:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC Message-ID: <781EE08F-05E8-448E-8544-353D1FF79E9A@post.harvard.edu> At the WSIS Forum open consultation this afternoon (in parallel time- wise of course with the MAG discussion): The Russian Federation has proposed to begin discussion on merging the WSIS Forum and IGF, to save resources. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gitanjali.sah at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 11:22:52 2011 From: gitanjali.sah at gmail.com (Gitanjali Sah) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:22:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC In-Reply-To: <781EE08F-05E8-448E-8544-353D1FF79E9A@post.harvard.edu> References: <781EE08F-05E8-448E-8544-353D1FF79E9A@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, You are most welcome to follow the WSIS Forum 2011 Review Meeting by way of Remote Participation. http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/OpenConsultations/OpenConsultationonThematicAspects/ReviewMeeting/RemoteParticipation.aspx This like provides you with a live blog and a webcast. Best, Gitanjali On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:19 PM, David Allen < David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > At the WSIS Forum open consultation this afternoon (in parallel time-wise > of course with the MAG discussion): > > The Russian Federation has proposed to begin discussion on merging the WSIS > Forum and IGF, to save resources. > > David > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- 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 Feb 24 11:28:04 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:28:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4D6589D7.40400@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <4D668714.1070508@communisphere.com> Roland, Great that you bring up the example of Cambridge as it provides the opportunity for me to mention the April 8 presentation I'm making at the Planning Tech Conference in Cambridge (US) entitled "City-TLDs as Urban Infrastructure" - http://web.mit.edu/rgoodspe/www/planningtech/. It provides the opportunity for me to imagine the question being thrown at me and to here begin to prepare my response: First. Is this a situation where every conceivable instance must be resolved before moving forward? I see too many opportunities wasted by awaiting final answers to every conceivable problem. The complexity of cities (big cities with say a million or more people, and there are less than 500 of these) require a TLD to address the breadth of issues they face. If cities are the hope for a sustainable planet (or anything remotely near that), why are we putting them on the same plane with .shop? How damaging is it that we can't find and talk to one another is cities? What's the cost in quality-of-life that our decision making processes don't have access to the full realm of Internet resources, resulting in a digital diaspora? Second. So Paris, Texas is in contention with Paris? No way. One is Paris, Texas and the other is Paris. Third. Where there are no clear "winners" one might hope that a "play nice or you can't play" reminder would suffice. And I think a U/X designer could come up with a reasonable framework in about 10 minutes - e.g., blue borders are UK Cambridge sites, green border are US Cambridge. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 2/24/2011 5:14 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4D6589D7.40400 at communisphere.com>, at 17:27:35 on Wed, 23 > Feb 2011, Thomas Lowenhaupt writes > >> 1. Both city-TLDs and linguistic/cultural TLDs are long overdue. Had >> the Net's inventors known the scope the Net would take, they'd >> certainly have taken greater care in issuing a more robust DNS >> taxonomy. But with cities being the hope for a sustainable future (if >> you believe in that sort of stuff) I suggest they get first priority > > Issues with the DNS taxonomy have been evident for a very long time > (it was one of the things some colleagues and I struggled with when we > set up an ISP in 1994). > > But adding on extra layer only solves some of the problems, because > even for cities there are duplicates (eg "Lincoln" is a regional > capital in both UK and USA, "Cambridge" is a well known University and > regional capital in the UK, as well as a university town in USA). -------------- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Feb 24 11:54:05 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:54:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4D6589D7.40400@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110224170420.05b24db0@jefsey.com> >1. Both city-TLDs and linguistic/cultural TLDs are long overdue. >Had the Net's inventors known the scope the Net would take, they'd >certainly have taken greater care in issuing a more robust DNS >taxonomy. But with cities being the hope for a sustainable future >(if you believe in that sort of stuff) I suggest they get first priority I am sorry but, Robert Tréhin introduced the root name concept (TLDs) and I was the one who established the country code taxonomy (ISO 3166) and imposed a hierarchical naming structure (in 1978 by logical pure technical mistake as the code was not planned for it). I am sure we both regret the scope the Nets have been limited to by the temporary change in nature of names from belonging to a universal user naming plan of the digital ecosystem, to a limited identification business and political tool. Temporary, because: - the gTLD delayed saga will necessarily be the end of the ICANN's house of cards, needing too many lawyers to manage a technical incongruity (introducing legal rigidity while demonstrating systemic flexibility). - ICANN having refused to cooperate to a post-IDNA2008 implications strategy nothing has been prepared to match their "opportunities" as the IESG phrased them. At 15:51 24/02/2011, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >As for duplicates, I never understood why a .cambridge could not be >used jointly by the various Cambridges in the world, ideally as a >joint coordinated effort, but even if uncoordinated (after all, the >.la - the ccTLD for Laos - is de facto used as a proxy for Los >Angeles). Likewise for many types of names. Money. Domain Names do not belong to their owner but to the TLD managers. In a taxonomy a name is related to a stable concept. In the ICANN system it is a yearly bill of an ICANN franchisee Your name DNS syntax is "bertrand.la-chapelle". Should ICANN grant me ".la-chapellle" for $ 250.000 all included plus $ 500 yearly operations costs, every "xyz.la-chapelle" in the world should pay me $ 25 per year, with GAC support for IDNs becoming international ID. Since there are 402 (de) La Chapelle in Paris alone, I can get $ 10.000 per annum from Paris, and 15.000 from the North department. Probably something similar in Quebec. Would it be a good business? I do not know, but good or bad it would make me a good ICANN defender with a lot of "(de) La Chapelle" demanding my stability, hence ICANN stability, hence the US influence. stability. jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 13:33:43 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:33:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4D668086.90106@apc.org> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written > submissions, and the open consultation. > > I am not quite sure that is what happened today. > > My other observations, as an observer, are: > > * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals > on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary > > * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most > influential group by far in the MAG. > > * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. > > * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and > ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective > participation in the meeting. > > * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from > Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. > > * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they > there? > > * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. > > * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect > on their strategies What is their strategy(ies)? ... they work in the short term, but will they work > in the long term?  They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain > governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to > making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process > makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to > work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, > regulation, openness etc. issues. How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most influential group by far in the MAG." ?? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 24 13:45:14 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:45:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] GAC veto - some small progress Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409179DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> If anyone on this list has not signed the petition against the GAC veto yet, let me inform you that we are only a few names away from 300, a nice milestone. http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/nogacveto And it is having an effect! The final "GAC scorecard" issued last night backs off from a direct GAC veto. But it still would give GAC too much arbitrary power and would still constitute a potential heckler's veto over free expression. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Feb 24 13:47:04 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:47:04 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC References: <781EE08F-05E8-448E-8544-353D1FF79E9A@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> David do you have a statement from the Russians? Thanks wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von David Allen Gesendet: Do 24.02.2011 17:19 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC At the WSIS Forum open consultation this afternoon (in parallel time- wise of course with the MAG discussion): The Russian Federation has proposed to begin discussion on merging the WSIS Forum and IGF, to save resources. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 13:59:09 2011 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:59:09 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <781EE08F-05E8-448E-8544-353D1FF79E9A@post.harvard.edu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Merging IGF to the WSIS Forum was one of the Russian proposals at the ITU Plenipot in Guadalajara (Oct. 2010) but they were told that ITU is not the place for such a decision...Apparently they are still pushing it. Yrjö > Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:47:04 +0100 > From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC > > David do you have a statement from the Russians? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von David Allen > Gesendet: Do 24.02.2011 17:19 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC > > > > At the WSIS Forum open consultation this afternoon (in parallel time- > wise of course with the MAG discussion): > > The Russian Federation has proposed to begin discussion on merging the > WSIS Forum and IGF, to save resources. > > David > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Feb 24 14:47:46 2011 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:47:46 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <781EE08F-05E8-448E-8544-353D1FF79E9A@post.harvard.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <83710B93-FB7B-4C23-9661-8A1E594B0D6B@post.harvard.edu> Marilyn Cade was onsite. I report from a computer, remote. Having now closed the browser window - and the materials from the meeting not yet posted online, so not yet available longer term - I no longer have the 'summary' that was put up on the 'live blog.' The summary in that blog was not intended to be a transcript; it was one person's excerpts during the meeting. In fact, the statement was as originally reported below, coming at the end of a longer intervention. The individual was introduced as presenting for the Russian Federation, including also being introduced as such in the blog 'summary.' Accompanying, there were some sentences devoted to how 'resources could be saved.' There was a comment from a remote participant 'supporting the view of the Russian Federation.' Though, since there were several elements in that Russian Federation presentation, it was unclear exactly what was meant to be supported. There were also a live comment to the effect of 'following up the Russian Federation suggestion(s).' Apparently there will be fairly voluminous materials put up post the meeting - likely the video and audio also. To find it: the intervention came soon before my time-and-date stamp below, in other words a few minutes after 5 PM there. As to the PleniPot, the informed summary I was fortunate to read suggests that the outcomes in Guadalajara were the result of large amounts of arm-twisting. While some proposals there did not carry the day, then, the sentiments and the intents remained bright, to be seen going forward. As this illustrates, and as surely will be seen, ongoing. David On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > David do you have a statement from the Russians? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von David Allen > Gesendet: Do 24.02.2011 17:19 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC > > > > At the WSIS Forum open consultation this afternoon (in parallel time- > wise of course with the MAG discussion): > > The Russian Federation has proposed to begin discussion on merging the > WSIS Forum and IGF, to save resources. > > David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu Feb 24 16:44:14 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:44:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> Message-ID: <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> Clarification below McTim: On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written >> submissions, and the open consultation. >> >> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. >> >> My other observations, as an observer, are: >> >> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals >> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary >> >> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most >> influential group by far in the MAG. >> >> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. >> >> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and >> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective >> participation in the meeting. >> >> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from >> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. >> >> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they >> there? >> >> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. >> >> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect >> on their strategies > > > What is their strategy(ies)? Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond themselves. > > > ... they work in the short term, but will they work >> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain >> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to >> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process >> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to >> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, >> regulation, openness etc. issues. > > > How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the > most influential group by far in the MAG." > Two different 'theys'. It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech community. Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort to comment on the IGF programme. I believe they should work inside the IGF space. But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's legitimacy and impact. My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? What do MAG members think? Anriette > ?? > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 17:08:45 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:08:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> Message-ID: I am not sure I understood your comment: Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? I have been to many open consultations but this is my first MAG meeting and although I believe it is odd that people who are there with ideas could not speak their minds, I wonder if allowing observers to speak would not bring prejudice to multistakeholder equilibrium in the MAG. It would give the ones that have more facility to be in geneva more voice and more power. Of course, people who had the status of advisers are a different story. But anyway the fact that observers could not speak on the mic today did not mean they stayed quiet. There were Skype and Gtalk messages flying all around and some ideas from observers came through and were spoken by MAG members. This silent presence did have an impact. I would like to hear MAG members opinions on this question as well, but my logic tells me that transparency and increased chance for accountability puts pressure for MAG members to work better... Doesn't it? Marilia On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Clarification below McTim: > > On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written > >> submissions, and the open consultation. > >> > >> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. > >> > >> My other observations, as an observer, are: > >> > >> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals > >> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary > >> > >> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well > >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most > >> influential group by far in the MAG. > >> > >> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. > >> > >> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and > >> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective > >> participation in the meeting. > >> > >> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from > >> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. > >> > >> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they > >> there? > >> > >> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. > >> > >> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect > >> on their strategies > > > > > > What is their strategy(ies)? > > Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond > themselves. > > > > > > ... they work in the short term, but will they work > >> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain > >> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to > >> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process > >> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to > >> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, > >> regulation, openness etc. issues. > > > > > > How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well > > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the > > most influential group by far in the MAG." > > > Two different 'theys'. > > It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have > never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech > community. > > Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. > Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort > to comment on the IGF programme. > > I believe they should work inside the IGF space. > > But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's > legitimacy and impact. > > My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with > developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or > get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you > don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. > > Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > What do MAG members think? > > Anriette > > > > ?? > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 17:29:41 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:29:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> Message-ID: Personally speaking, I benefitted a lot with your and others benefit as i could request some breaks during the discussion from the chair and seek clarity and suggestions that were important....i must say the presence of observers compliments the mags work and though many in other stakeholder groups stood divided on the participation in terms of inputs, i still found the presence of many of you very useful and in fact i will continue to push for open mag meetings.... I would like to personally thank those present today for your valuable inputs and contributions....this was missing in previous mag meetings but i see a new path towards improvements and transparency opening up! Fouad Bajwa sent using my iPad On 25 Feb 2011, at 02:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Clarification below McTim: > > On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written >>> submissions, and the open consultation. >>> >>> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. >>> >>> My other observations, as an observer, are: >>> >>> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals >>> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary >>> >>> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well >>> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most >>> influential group by far in the MAG. >>> >>> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. >>> >>> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and >>> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective >>> participation in the meeting. >>> >>> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from >>> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. >>> >>> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they >>> there? >>> >>> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. >>> >>> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect >>> on their strategies >> >> >> What is their strategy(ies)? > > Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond > themselves. >> >> >> ... they work in the short term, but will they work >>> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain >>> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to >>> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process >>> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to >>> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, >>> regulation, openness etc. issues. >> >> >> How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the >> most influential group by far in the MAG." >> > Two different 'theys'. > > It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have > never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech > community. > > Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. > Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort > to comment on the IGF programme. > > I believe they should work inside the IGF space. > > But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's > legitimacy and impact. > > My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with > developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or > get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you > don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. > > Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > What do MAG members think? > > Anriette > > >> ?? >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 17:49:27 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:49:27 +0500 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4D668086.90106@apc.org> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> Message-ID: My responses...these are personal thoughts and i cannot speak about the perceptions of other mag members as i am responding only in my personal capacity as a mag member.. On 24 Feb 2011, at 21:00, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written > submissions, and the open consultation. There was an artificial amount of speed being put in by chair and secretariat to cover the agenda but i believe we tried to get some of the points in and more will be done through the working groups created.....the IG4D wg will be revived in the next one or two days and i will inform the email link again.... > > I am not quite sure that is what happened today. The mag did carry a certain level of confusion to the meeting regarding their status and the chairing of the meeting...furthermore, the secretary was extra careful and diplomatic that further added to the confusion....still the CS members are not coordinated....i have always wanted igc to help its nominated MAG members to prepare on certain important aspects as you have pointed out....i guess the ability to observe has revived this need that is a positive sign. > > My other observations, as an observer, are: > > * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals > on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary > I have always felt this need and if the archive of the Igc list is revisited from the past, we will find messages by me near to the dates of he oc and mag meetings requesting input from Igc....so far at least i was referring to the the igc statements made to the previous ocs. > * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most > influential group by far in the MAG. This remains a fact and is indeed a call to look at the fact that mag members like myself benefit greatly from Igc inputs and contributions and at least the ground for ig4d is struggled for despite strong resistance from other groups.. > > * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. This was very true and i am sure you also observed why....but i did attempt the breaks requests for having discussions with stakeholders and observers > > * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and > ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective > participation in the meeting. > We really did not have any proposals except the Igc statement and with the approach to a traditional format, though i did not like it, there wasn't much preparation to counter that..... > * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from > Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. Yes as you shares the govts have been supportive but we could achieve much more cooperation certain areas of mutual concern...such as democratization, freedom of expression, human rights, development etc... > > * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they > there? > I can only speak for myself and we raised this concerns during november mag meeting but the issue has to be revisited and maybe request rotation of membership to allow new faces and voices to step in... > * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. Very true but we should still not shy away, stand and protect our ground and be more coordinated.... > > * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect > on their strategies... they work in the short term, but will they work > in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain > governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to > making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process > makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to > work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, > regulation, openness etc. issues. Lets see in the near future how we can find strategies to at least touch the issue... > > * I think civil society in the MAG should plan, plan plan and prepare, > prepare, prepare. Beforehand, but also on site. Not easy though.. I do > realise that... > I totally agree to this and will draw attention to this point well before the may mag meetings.... > Anriette > (in my individual capacity as an observer for about 3/4 of the meeting) thank you for being there! to all..... I won't be able to further debate on my sharing above and i hope that will be respected for the moment...Take care all. > > > On 24/02/11 16:03, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> I don't think we have "official" MAG members from IGC. >> There are, however, members of MAG who were nominated >> by IGC and appointed by UN SG as MAG members. >> So we feel they are sort of our members. >> >> I think MAG members are supposed to work on their own capacity, not >> "representing" any organization/afficilation per se. >> >> The announcement says: >> >> "All Advisory Group members serve in their personal capacity, but are >> expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder >> groups" >> >> http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2010/pi1936.doc.htm >> >> izumi >> >> >> 2011/2/24 Imran Ahmed Shah : >>> Do we IGC have official representation in IGF MAG? >>> Is there any member of MAG who's membership was assigned on the basis of >>> IGC? >>> Imran >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Izumi AIZU >>> To: Governance List >>> Sent: Thu, 24 February, 2011 18:42:30 >>> Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting >>> >>> The Chair just said: >>> >>> The MAG members concluded on the observer status, >>> "If we do have time, we will call upon a discussion of the soft" >>> >>> Agreement - speaking is restricted to MAG members only. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 17:51:43 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:51:43 +0500 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> Message-ID: <21C41803-CEDA-41AD-AB44-6AE04E07F598@gmail.com> Hi Marilia, I feel that yours as well as participation of others from igc was very useful and complemented our interventions......thank you all... Fouad Bajwa sent using my iPad On 25 Feb 2011, at 03:08, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I am not sure I understood your comment: > Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > > I have been to many open consultations but this is my first MAG meeting and although I believe it is odd that people who are there with ideas could not speak their minds, I wonder if allowing observers to speak would not bring prejudice to multistakeholder equilibrium in the MAG. It would give the ones that have more facility to be in geneva more voice and more power. Of course, people who had the status of advisers are a different story. > > But anyway the fact that observers could not speak on the mic today did not mean they stayed quiet. There were Skype and Gtalk messages flying all around and some ideas from observers came through and were spoken by MAG members. This silent presence did have an impact. > > I would like to hear MAG members opinions on this question as well, but my logic tells me that transparency and increased chance for accountability puts pressure for MAG members to work better... Doesn't it? > > Marilia > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Clarification below McTim: > > On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written > >> submissions, and the open consultation. > >> > >> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. > >> > >> My other observations, as an observer, are: > >> > >> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals > >> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary > >> > >> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well > >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most > >> influential group by far in the MAG. > >> > >> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. > >> > >> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and > >> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective > >> participation in the meeting. > >> > >> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from > >> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. > >> > >> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they > >> there? > >> > >> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. > >> > >> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect > >> on their strategies > > > > > > What is their strategy(ies)? > > Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond > themselves. > > > > > > ... they work in the short term, but will they work > >> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain > >> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to > >> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process > >> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to > >> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, > >> regulation, openness etc. issues. > > > > > > How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well > > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the > > most influential group by far in the MAG." > > > Two different 'theys'. > > It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have > never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech > community. > > Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. > Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort > to comment on the IGF programme. > > I believe they should work inside the IGF space. > > But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's > legitimacy and impact. > > My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with > developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or > get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you > don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. > > Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > What do MAG members think? > > Anriette > > > > ?? > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at edmon.asia Thu Feb 24 18:13:05 2011 From: mail at edmon.asia (Edmon) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:13:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now In-Reply-To: References: <1298462767.15938.46.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993A3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4D6589D7.40400@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <143601cbd478$67962bd0$36c28370$@asia> Hi Bertrand, I agree very much with your observation. What would be interesting to explore however, in the case that we recognize that we do not have consensus on certain areas for the full new gTLD program, is to ask if we can live with the solutions for the same issues for IDN gTLDs. Because the cost-benefit balance for IDN gTLDs may be very different, we may find different answers... and not because IDN gTLD is any special category of new gTLD. Of course, I believe that the top priority is to have the full new gTLD process launched. Edmon From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 10:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now I was initially very much in favor of some sort of taxonomy, but ended up accepting that the TLD "categories" would progressively emerge rather than be pre-determined. This is what has actually happened as the respective rules for geoTLDs, brandTLDs, and communiTLDs were developed, and I have no doubt that grouping of registries of a similar type will spontaneously form after the launch. As for duplicates, I never understood why a .cambridge could not be used jointly by the various Cambridges in the world, ideally as a joint coordinated effort, but even if uncoordinated (after all, the .la - the ccTLD for Laos - is de facto used as a proxy for Los Angeles). Likewise for many types of names. Best Bertrand On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Roland Perry wrote: In message <4D6589D7.40400 at communisphere.com>, at 17:27:35 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Thomas Lowenhaupt writes 1. Both city-TLDs and linguistic/cultural TLDs are long overdue. Had the Net's inventors known the scope the Net would take, they'd certainly have taken greater care in issuing a more robust DNS taxonomy. But with cities being the hope for a sustainable future (if you believe in that sort of stuff) I suggest they get first priority Issues with the DNS taxonomy have been evident for a very long time (it was one of the things some colleagues and I struggled with when we set up an ISP in 1994). But adding on extra layer only solves some of the problems, because even for cities there are duplicates (eg "Lincoln" is a regional capital in both UK and USA, "Cambridge" is a well known University and regional capital in the UK, as well as a university town in USA). -- 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 -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 24 18:27:28 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:27:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> Message-ID: <6DC27241-DED6-460C-9F5E-4B326A2907CA@eff.org> Hola, I agree that there is a need for civil society to organize ourselves in a strategic way, to ensure that we can participate most effectively in this process. In particular, it would be beneficial for civil society to have a meeting - in private among civil society (which this list is not) - to discuss our strategy, goals and proposals before the next MAG meeting. We should ensure that we have a virtual meeting just before the next MAG to coordinate among us, and to make sure that we know what are our common positions. This will enable MAG civil society members who are present at the meeting to be most effective - both at presenting common positions, and also at picking up and running with suggestions of the members at large that are put forward during the meeting. While I appreciate the efforts that the Secretariat made to help those of us trying to participate remotely today, it is clear to me that it is simply not possible to rely completely on the live-time remote participation facilities for ensuring effective civil society input for several reasons. First, there were ongoing technical glitches with the video stream today. The video and audio tracks disappeared or were not working properly during long periods of time today, and unfortunately at key moments of the discussion. I spent time coordinating with tech support. There were a need to scroll down the transcripts which was also uncomfortable. Second, there was a significant time lag, or latency, between the actual discussion on situ and when you were able to raise your hands and speak. This made it impossible to add comments at the right time, in the flow of the conversation, as the discussion on that topic was taking place. Several times, I found myself giving my comment after the topic of discussion had changed. Obviously it is hard for civil society to shape the discussion if we are having to add our comments only *after* the discussion has moved on or be able to make a second intervention as soon after other stakeholder put forward their message. Third, decisions were taken today at times when the video and sound and transcript were not working; (ie. when the right of observers to speak was discussed) all of a sudden it would come back, and only then I would discover that something had been decided and concluded. Taken together, these problems made effective remote participation frustrating and difficult. But my sense is that there are strategies that we could use to better address this next time, if we can have a private meeting to coordinate before hand. Finally, I want to apologize for not being able to attend the meeting in person and explain why I was not able to do so. First and foremost, there was no funding support for civil society to attend. I work for a member-supported non profit organization. We do not have a travel budget. Second, the confirmation that a MAG meeting would actually take place came so late that I could not change my existing commitments and travel schedule. Like all of you, I have multiple commitments and my schedule is set in advance. I arrived back in San Francisco a few hours before the meeting started. I joined the meeting at 3am my time, after close to 20 hours of travel the day before. With more time and notice, I might have been able to scrounge up funds or flying points to do so, but it was not possible in the time that we were given. In short, we need to have more notice of these meetings if we are going to ensure more civil society participation. I would therefore like to suggest that we ask the Secretariat to set the dates for the next MAG meeting with sufficient time to allow those of us in civil society to make affordable travel arrangements so that we can attend. We know it is in May but no dates have been given so far. I would also like to suggest that civil society should have a virtual meeting(s) to coordinate among ourselves as soon as the next MAG meeting dates are announced. gracias, Katitza On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I am not sure I understood your comment: > Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > > I have been to many open consultations but this is my first MAG > meeting and although I believe it is odd that people who are there > with ideas could not speak their minds, I wonder if allowing > observers to speak would not bring prejudice to multistakeholder > equilibrium in the MAG. It would give the ones that have more > facility to be in geneva more voice and more power. Of course, > people who had the status of advisers are a different story. > > But anyway the fact that observers could not speak on the mic today > did not mean they stayed quiet. There were Skype and Gtalk messages > flying all around and some ideas from observers came through and > were spoken by MAG members. This silent presence did have an impact. > > I would like to hear MAG members opinions on this question as well, > but my logic tells me that transparency and increased chance for > accountability puts pressure for MAG members to work better... > Doesn't it? > > Marilia > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > Clarification below McTim: > > On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the > written > >> submissions, and the open consultation. > >> > >> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. > >> > >> My other observations, as an observer, are: > >> > >> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make > proposals > >> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into > plenary > >> > >> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well > >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are > the most > >> influential group by far in the MAG. > >> > >> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but > battling. > >> > >> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and > >> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for > effective > >> participation in the meeting. > >> > >> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts > from > >> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. > >> > >> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why > are they > >> there? > >> > >> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly > space. > >> > >> * I think the private sector and the technical community should > reflect > >> on their strategies > > > > > > What is their strategy(ies)? > > Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond > themselves. > > > > > > ... they work in the short term, but will they work > >> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from > certain > >> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not > conducive to > >> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the > process > >> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and > want to > >> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet > access, > >> regulation, openness etc. issues. > > > > > > How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well > > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the > > most influential group by far in the MAG." > > > Two different 'theys'. > > It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have > never really participated. I was not referring to the business and > tech > community. > > Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. > Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an > effort > to comment on the IGF programme. > > I believe they should work inside the IGF space. > > But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's > legitimacy and impact. > > My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with > developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or > get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you > don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. > > Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > What do MAG members think? > > Anriette > > > > ?? > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Feb 25 00:39:06 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:39:06 -0300 Subject: AW: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <781EE08F-05E8-448E-8544-353D1FF79E9A@post.harvard.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D67407A.2060303@cafonso.ca> And, are they funding anything?? --c.a. On 02/24/2011 03:47 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > David do you have a statement from the Russians? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von David Allen > Gesendet: Do 24.02.2011 17:19 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] at the WSIS Forum OC > > > > At the WSIS Forum open consultation this afternoon (in parallel time- > wise of course with the MAG discussion): > > The Russian Federation has proposed to begin discussion on merging the > WSIS Forum and IGF, to save resources. > > David > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Feb 25 03:15:54 2011 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:15:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> Message-ID: <4D67653A.6070707@wzb.eu> Hi, Anriette is right, participation of governments has gone down over the years. I think there are several reasons for this. Not all of them are negative. For example, some governments probably did not come anymore when the preparatory process proved stable enough to bear no further political risks (for example, of repeating the WSIS paralysis on CIR-related topics). Also, the last two years were clearly overshadowed by the upcoming evaluation. Political attention shifted from the IGF itself to all the maneuvers in New York surrounding the report on the IGF. The tasks and operation of the MAG meetings suit stakeholders more than governments because we focused more and more on the substance of the program, and to some degree on improving the format. Such issues activate the competences of practitioners and conference goers more than people with a public administration background. I agree with Anriette that the declining participation of governments is bad for both the MAG and the IGF but part of this is probably due to the MAG's role as a program committee. Anriette is also right about the very good coordination of all ISOC-related members. We have noticed this many times, also on this list. Civil society cannot compete in this respect, neither can governments btw. CS and governments have the same problem: we simply do not agree to the extent that ISOC folks do. We disagree not only in terms of substance, we also disagree in terms of political style. The latter might even be more divisive. Speaking personally, at least for the last two years I preferred negotiating program issues with people "from the other political camp" simply because I did not have to defend myself all the time. While we may have disagreed on political positions, we accepted each other as individuals who put a lot of effort into this process. jeanette On 24.02.2011 23:08, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I am not sure I understood your comment: > Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > > I have been to many open consultations but this is my first MAG meeting > and although I believe it is odd that people who are there with ideas > could not speak their minds, I wonder if allowing observers to speak > would not bring prejudice to multistakeholder equilibrium in the MAG. It > would give the ones that have more facility to be in geneva more voice > and more power. Of course, people who had the status of advisers are a > different story. > > But anyway the fact that observers could not speak on the mic today did > not mean they stayed quiet. There were Skype and Gtalk messages flying > all around and some ideas from observers came through and were spoken by > MAG members. This silent presence did have an impact. > > I would like to hear MAG members opinions on this question as well, but > my logic tells me that transparency and increased chance for > accountability puts pressure for MAG members to work better... Doesn't it? > > Marilia > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Clarification below McTim: > > On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > >> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the > written > >> submissions, and the open consultation. > >> > >> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. > >> > >> My other observations, as an observer, are: > >> > >> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make > proposals > >> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into > plenary > >> > >> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well > >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are > the most > >> influential group by far in the MAG. > >> > >> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but > battling. > >> > >> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and > >> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for > effective > >> participation in the meeting. > >> > >> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from > >> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. > >> > >> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why > are they > >> there? > >> > >> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly > space. > >> > >> * I think the private sector and the technical community should > reflect > >> on their strategies > > > > > > What is their strategy(ies)? > > Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond > themselves. > > > > > > ... they work in the short term, but will they work > >> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from > certain > >> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not > conducive to > >> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the > process > >> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and > want to > >> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet > access, > >> regulation, openness etc. issues. > > > > > > How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well > > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the > > most influential group by far in the MAG." > > > Two different 'theys'. > > It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have > never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech > community. > > Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. > Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort > to comment on the IGF programme. > > I believe they should work inside the IGF space. > > But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's > legitimacy and impact. > > My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with > developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or > get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you > don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. > > Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > What do MAG members think? > > Anriette > > > > ?? > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Feb 25 03:52:02 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:52:02 +0800 Subject: [governance] Compilation of contributions to first meeting of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF Message-ID: <1298623923.15938.572.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> I have received an input document given to members of the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF. You can download it from here: http://igfwatch.org/uploads/Db/YT/DbYT6ww4uNwVXneSieCFlA/compilation-of-contributions-WGIGF_1stmeeting.doc IT for Change's contribution, as well as Marilia's and the APC's, come through strongly for me, but otherwise, there are very few in favour of making significant changes to business as usual. Hopefully though, there will be some vigorous discussion in the meeting itself. If I can get any news out of the meeting (it's closed, even to other governments and IGOs), I'll post back here. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers for Fair Financial Services World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and competitive markets in financial services for all. http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: compilation of contributions WGIGF_1stmeeting.doc Type: application/msword Size: 145408 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anriette at apc.org Fri Feb 25 04:33:39 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:33:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4D67653A.6070707@wzb.eu> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> <4D67653A.6070707@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4D677773.1080707@apc.org> Hi all (from Montreux) Jeanette thanks for your reflections.. they make sense and I share them. Marilia.. what I meant is that, in a muli-stakeholder group such as the MAG, one might find a more productive work pattern emerge when it is a group of people who are there as individuals (but reflecting the interest of different stakeholder groups) working together as a team, in a more closed space (such as was the case with the WGIG). It felt to me as if the observers, and their efforts to participate indirectly via Skype chats, might have distracted MAG members from the process, as much as it contributed. It could perhaps make it more difficult for the MAG time to 'gel' as a working group, and for people to follow internal group dynamics. The seating arrangement (auditorium) is REALLY not a good idea for a working group. People should be able to see one another's faces. The chair (Alice) did her best to create an inclusive atmosphere and be respectful of all inputs... but she was out there on the stage, which distanced her from the group, and this must have made her task much more difficult. I think that if observers are allowed, they should also be able to speak. Otherwise, it might be better for the MAG to meet on its own... but to really take the mandate given them by the Open Consultation and written inputs seriously. Anriette On 25/02/11 10:15, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > Anriette is right, participation of governments has gone down over the > years. I think there are several reasons for this. Not all of them are > negative. For example, some governments probably did not come anymore > when the preparatory process proved stable enough to bear no further > political risks (for example, of repeating the WSIS paralysis on > CIR-related topics). > > Also, the last two years were clearly overshadowed by the upcoming > evaluation. Political attention shifted from the IGF itself to all the > maneuvers in New York surrounding the report on the IGF. > > The tasks and operation of the MAG meetings suit stakeholders more than > governments because we focused more and more on the substance of the > program, and to some degree on improving the format. Such issues > activate the competences of practitioners and conference goers more than > people with a public administration background. > > I agree with Anriette that the declining participation of governments is > bad for both the MAG and the IGF but part of this is probably due to the > MAG's role as a program committee. > > Anriette is also right about the very good coordination of all > ISOC-related members. We have noticed this many times, also on this > list. Civil society cannot compete in this respect, neither can > governments btw. CS and governments have the same problem: we simply do > not agree to the extent that ISOC folks do. We disagree not only in > terms of substance, we also disagree in terms of political style. The > latter might even be more divisive. > > Speaking personally, at least for the last two years I preferred > negotiating program issues with people "from the other political camp" > simply because I did not have to defend myself all the time. While we > may have disagreed on political positions, we accepted each other as > individuals who put a lot of effort into this process. > > jeanette > > > On 24.02.2011 23:08, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> I am not sure I understood your comment: >> Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? >> >> I have been to many open consultations but this is my first MAG meeting >> and although I believe it is odd that people who are there with ideas >> could not speak their minds, I wonder if allowing observers to speak >> would not bring prejudice to multistakeholder equilibrium in the MAG. It >> would give the ones that have more facility to be in geneva more voice >> and more power. Of course, people who had the status of advisers are a >> different story. >> >> But anyway the fact that observers could not speak on the mic today did >> not mean they stayed quiet. There were Skype and Gtalk messages flying >> all around and some ideas from observers came through and were spoken by >> MAG members. This silent presence did have an impact. >> >> I would like to hear MAG members opinions on this question as well, but >> my logic tells me that transparency and increased chance for >> accountability puts pressure for MAG members to work better... Doesn't >> it? >> >> Marilia >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: >> >> Clarification below McTim: >> >> On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the >> written >> >> submissions, and the open consultation. >> >> >> >> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. >> >> >> >> My other observations, as an observer, are: >> >> >> >> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make >> proposals >> >> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into >> plenary >> >> >> >> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely >> well >> >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are >> the most >> >> influential group by far in the MAG. >> >> >> >> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but >> battling. >> >> >> >> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, >> text and >> >> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for >> effective >> >> participation in the meeting. >> >> >> >> * Government participation is very limited... with good >> efforts from >> >> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. >> >> >> >> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why >> are they >> >> there? >> >> >> >> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly >> space. >> >> >> >> * I think the private sector and the technical community should >> reflect >> >> on their strategies >> > >> > >> > What is their strategy(ies)? >> >> Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond >> themselves. >> > >> > >> > ... they work in the short term, but will they work >> >> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from >> certain >> >> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not >> conducive to >> >> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the >> process >> >> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and >> want to >> >> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet >> access, >> >> regulation, openness etc. issues. >> > >> > >> > How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well >> > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are >> the >> > most influential group by far in the MAG." >> > >> Two different 'theys'. >> >> It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have >> never really participated. I was not referring to the business and >> tech >> community. >> >> Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. >> Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an >> effort >> to comment on the IGF programme. >> >> I believe they should work inside the IGF space. >> >> But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's >> legitimacy and impact. >> >> My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with >> developing country governments... it is not easy to make an >> impact, or >> get your points across. If English is not your first language, and >> you >> don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. >> >> Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many >> observers? >> What do MAG members think? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> > ?? >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director >> association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Feb 25 04:56:22 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:56:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG meeting started Message-ID: Dear list, Since it is a closed meeting, I don't plan to make live reports as I did at Dec 17 CSTD meeting. Please understand this. But, when I feel appropriate, I can try to share some points, maybe at lunch time. We need to see how the agenda/modality/procedure things are sorted out - that is what we/they are discussing. All members, governments and other stakeholders, are sitting on the same table, no seat assignment, seems everyone has equal speaking right. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Fri Feb 25 05:10:29 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:10:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, Governments are not aware of the reasons why they should actively participate in IGF, particularly many developing countries which are not aware even of the reasons why they should participate in anything regarding IG. There are a few Governments involved, but they have remained the same since the beginning and the majority do not care. It is a challenge to explain to them, when there is an opportunity to do so. We need to show them the link between IG - Development - Socio Economic Impact. Finally, I agree that this treat might have an impact on IGF sooner thant later, although I consider IGF to be a necessary part on the IG ecosystem. Best, Miguel On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Clarification below McTim: > > On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written >>> submissions, and the open consultation. >>> >>> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. >>> >>> My other observations, as an observer, are: >>> >>> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals >>> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary >>> >>> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well >>> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most >>> influential group by far in the MAG. >>> >>> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. >>> >>> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and >>> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective >>> participation in the meeting. >>> >>> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from >>> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. >>> >>> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they >>> there? >>> >>> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. >>> >>> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect >>> on their strategies >> >> >> What is their strategy(ies)? > > Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond > themselves. >> >> >> ... they work in the short term, but will they work >>> in the long term?  They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain >>> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to >>> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process >>> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to >>> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, >>> regulation, openness etc. issues. >> >> >> How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well >>  prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the >> most influential group by far in the MAG." >> > Two different 'theys'. > > It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have > never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech > community. > > Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. > Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort > to comment on the IGF programme. > > I believe they should work inside the IGF space. > > But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's > legitimacy and impact. > > My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with > developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or > get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you > don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. > > Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > What do MAG members think? > > Anriette > > >> ?? >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Feb 25 05:16:04 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:16:04 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Miguel you are absolutely right. However I have the fear that as soon as governments realize what the Internet can trigger (look into the Middle East developments) their conclusion will be how to get it under governmental control. We should be prepare for such a debate. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Miguel Alcaine Gesendet: Fr 25.02.2011 11:10 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen Betreff: Re: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting Dear Anriette, Governments are not aware of the reasons why they should actively participate in IGF, particularly many developing countries which are not aware even of the reasons why they should participate in anything regarding IG. There are a few Governments involved, but they have remained the same since the beginning and the majority do not care. It is a challenge to explain to them, when there is an opportunity to do so. We need to show them the link between IG - Development - Socio Economic Impact. Finally, I agree that this treat might have an impact on IGF sooner thant later, although I consider IGF to be a necessary part on the IG ecosystem. Best, Miguel On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Clarification below McTim: > > On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written >>> submissions, and the open consultation. >>> >>> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. >>> >>> My other observations, as an observer, are: >>> >>> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals >>> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary >>> >>> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well >>> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most >>> influential group by far in the MAG. >>> >>> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. >>> >>> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and >>> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective >>> participation in the meeting. >>> >>> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from >>> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. >>> >>> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they >>> there? >>> >>> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. >>> >>> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect >>> on their strategies >> >> >> What is their strategy(ies)? > > Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond > themselves. >> >> >> ... they work in the short term, but will they work >>> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain >>> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to >>> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process >>> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to >>> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, >>> regulation, openness etc. issues. >> >> >> How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the >> most influential group by far in the MAG." >> > Two different 'theys'. > > It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have > never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech > community. > > Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. > Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort > to comment on the IGF programme. > > I believe they should work inside the IGF space. > > But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's > legitimacy and impact. > > My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with > developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or > get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you > don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. > > Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > What do MAG members think? > > Anriette > > >> ?? >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Feb 25 05:35:48 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:35:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4D67653A.6070707@wzb.eu> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> <4D67653A.6070707@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message <4D67653A.6070707 at wzb.eu>, at 09:15:54 on Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Jeanette Hofmann writes >Anriette is also right about the very good coordination of all >ISOC-related members. We have noticed this many times, also on this >list. For several of the people involved, performing (and then delivering) that co-ordination role is their full-time job. >Civil society cannot compete in this respect, neither can governments >btw. But that's also the case for plenty of the government officials. To such an extent that many require a small team following different aspects (eg different people doing IGF, or ICANN or ITU). >CS and governments have the same problem: we simply do not agree to the >extent that ISOC folks do. The EU comprises a diverse set of governments, who don't always agree. However, for Internet Governance issues they meet together and agree a common position, which is then communicated at meetings such as these, by the country holding the Presidency. (I wonder why they didn't this week, it would have been Hungary's turn. Traditionally they'd be called upon very early in the day to set the scene from a government perspective. According to the transcripts Hungary only spoke towards the end of the afternoon and for a Dynamic Coalition and not the EU). > We disagree not only in terms of substance, And the "ISOC folks" don't always agree, but the internal debates are held elsewhere (and for RIRs something akin to the common position and the rotating spokesperson emerges; that's one of the NRO's roles). >we also disagree in terms of political style. The latter might even be >more divisive. Disagreeing with one another in public can have that effect. I have no instant solution though, especially one that's devoid of funding 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 avri at acm.org Fri Feb 25 06:24:16 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:24:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG meeting started In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CF2E5F2-FF13-4067-BE16-5D0B762E3F45@acm.org> hi, I understand it is a Chatham house rules meeting. if that is indeed the case you could send concepts and points without identifying who or even what stockholder group uttered them. Though I believe it is within the rule of Chatham house for anyone to identify what it is they themselves say (as long as they edit out any identifying marks of who they are responding to) btw the tweet crowd says you are still on procedures. are the observers being allowed to speak? were all the IGO observers seated? a. On 25 Feb 2011, at 10:56, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > Since it is a closed meeting, I don't plan to make live reports as I > did at Dec 17 CSTD > meeting. Please understand this. > > But, when I feel appropriate, I can try to share some points, maybe at > lunch time. > > We need to see how the agenda/modality/procedure things are sorted out > - that is what > we/they are discussing. > > All members, governments and other stakeholders, are sitting on the > same table, no > seat assignment, seems everyone has equal speaking right. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 iza at anr.org Fri Feb 25 06:38:09 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:38:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG meeting started In-Reply-To: <7CF2E5F2-FF13-4067-BE16-5D0B762E3F45@acm.org> References: <7CF2E5F2-FF13-4067-BE16-5D0B762E3F45@acm.org> Message-ID: There is no mention of Chatham House rules or not. Nobody dared to ask, including myself. But I think it's safer to assume so at this point. We are now moving to discuss how to discuss the substantial discussion, including how to break into Working Groups, one suggestion is to form Drafting group, another suggestion is to make several working groups around the themes/topics of the Report and compile them into Draft report. "observers" - sitting back of the room have not taken floor. No one asked for. Us, "Interactive participants" or non-governmental stakeholders are all have equal speaking opportunities. No one challenged that, and instead several governments including Iran expressed welcoming all stake holders participation into this group, very clearly. Good sign. izumi 2011/2/25 Avri Doria : > hi, > > I understand it is a Chatham house rules meeting.  if that is indeed the case you could send concepts and points without identifying who or even what stockholder group uttered them. > > Though I believe it is within the rule of Chatham house for anyone to identify what it is they themselves say (as long as they edit out any identifying marks of who they are responding to) > > btw the tweet crowd says you are still on procedures. > > are the observers being allowed to speak? > > were all the IGO observers seated? > > a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Fri Feb 25 06:40:42 2011 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:40:42 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D67953A.6000507@gih.com> This debate has already started. I have already been asked "how do we turn this thing off?" Prepare for a long "kill switch" debate. In return I presented the estimated cost ($90 Million) of using a kill switch in Egypt. Ouch. Governments have to understand that using a kill switch demonstrates a complete loss of control on their part - exactly the opposite of what they were looking for. Kind regards, Olivier Le 25/02/2011 11:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" a écrit : > Thanks Miguel > > you are absolutely right. However I have the fear that as soon as governments realize what the Internet can trigger (look into the Middle East developments) their conclusion will be how to get it under governmental control. We should be prepare for such a debate. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Miguel Alcaine > Gesendet: Fr 25.02.2011 11:10 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen > Betreff: Re: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting > > > > Dear Anriette, > > Governments are not aware of the reasons why they should actively > participate in IGF, particularly many developing countries which are > not aware even of the reasons why they should participate in anything > regarding IG. > > There are a few Governments involved, but they have remained the same > since the beginning and the majority do not care. > > It is a challenge to explain to them, when there is an opportunity to > do so. We need to show them the link between IG - Development - Socio > Economic Impact. > > Finally, I agree that this treat might have an impact on IGF sooner > thant later, although I consider IGF to be a necessary part on the IG > ecosystem. > > Best, > > Miguel > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Clarification below McTim: >> >> On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written >>>> submissions, and the open consultation. >>>> >>>> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. >>>> >>>> My other observations, as an observer, are: >>>> >>>> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals >>>> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary >>>> >>>> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well >>>> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most >>>> influential group by far in the MAG. >>>> >>>> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. >>>> >>>> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and >>>> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective >>>> participation in the meeting. >>>> >>>> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from >>>> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. >>>> >>>> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they >>>> there? >>>> >>>> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. >>>> >>>> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect >>>> on their strategies >>> >>> What is their strategy(ies)? >> Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond >> themselves. >>> >>> ... they work in the short term, but will they work >>>> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain >>>> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to >>>> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process >>>> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to >>>> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, >>>> regulation, openness etc. issues. >>> >>> How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well >>> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the >>> most influential group by far in the MAG." >>> >> Two different 'theys'. >> >> It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have >> never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech >> community. >> >> Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. >> Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort >> to comment on the IGF programme. >> >> I believe they should work inside the IGF space. >> >> But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's >> legitimacy and impact. >> >> My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with >> developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or >> get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you >> don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. >> >> Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? >> What do MAG members think? >> >> Anriette >> >> >>> ?? >>> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director >> association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 25 06:55:03 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:55:03 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <+NHmxI2Xi5ZNFAhP@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB31 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, at 11:16:04 on Fri, 25 Feb 2011, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes >I have the fear that as soon as governments realize what the Internet >can trigger (look into the Middle East developments) their conclusion >will be how to get it under governmental control. We should be prepare >for such a debate. I've been having that debate with some governments for 12 years now, not long before the OECD's Ottawa conference or the CoE Budapest Convention, or the EU's Electronic Commerce, Copyright and Privacy Directives; and the ITU has been interested for at least that long. It's difficult to imagine that any government which sent a representative to any of these big meetings in the last few years (and that's most Governments) is unaware of the issues. But some presumably think that the IGF is not the way to address 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Feb 25 06:58:40 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:58:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Compilation of contributions to first meeting of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF In-Reply-To: <1298623923.15938.572.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1298623923.15938.572.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <29Okt22wl5ZNFADz@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <1298623923.15938.572.camel at terminus-Aspire-L320>, at 16:52:02 on Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >I have received an input document given to members of the CSTD working >group on improvements to the IGF. I had also expected a document more along the lines of a "draft report" which the attendees would be reviewing. We've seen something with a dozen paragraph titles, but I wondered if there was anything more substantive available yet. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Feb 25 08:52:40 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:52:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Compilation of contributions to first meeting of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF In-Reply-To: <29Okt22wl5ZNFADz@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <1298623923.15938.572.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <29Okt22wl5ZNFADz@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message <29Okt22wl5ZNFADz at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 11:58:40 on Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Roland Perry writes >I had also expected a document more along the lines of a "draft report" >which the attendees would be reviewing. I see from tweets emanating from the meeting, that they haven't got to the stage of a draft report yet, or even what the draft report should contain. I had mistakenly interpreted (in the agenda) "presentation of draft report" to mean "of what we have written", rather than "what we'd like to start writing". -- 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 iza at anr.org Fri Feb 25 08:54:58 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:54:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Compilation of contributions to first meeting of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF In-Reply-To: <29Okt22wl5ZNFADz@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <1298623923.15938.572.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <29Okt22wl5ZNFADz@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: No, several delegates questioned how we produce the Report. There was a proposal to form a Drafting group as a sub-set of WG. There was another proposal to form several Working Groups along with the major topics for the Report, and each group will provide the draft texts. We will discuss/conclude these at the end of the meeting tomorrow according to the Agenda and the Chair. izumi 2011/2/25 Roland Perry : > In message <1298623923.15938.572.camel at terminus-Aspire-L320>, at 16:52:02 on > Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes > >> I have received an input document given to members of the CSTD working >> group on improvements to the IGF. > > I had also expected a document more along the lines of a "draft report" > which the attendees would be reviewing. We've seen something with a dozen > paragraph titles, but I wondered if there was anything more substantive > available yet. > -- > Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Feb 25 09:40:19 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:40:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] after lunch Message-ID: With some mixed understandings of the agenda, we are entering into substantive discussions. Some are: We should see what are the values and rooms for improvements for the objective, or functionings of IGF Let's for WGs and guide through, preparatory process and WSs and Pleanaries and post IGF to produce messages/outcomes Let's make inventories of new ideas IGF as input for policy development, not policy making, but place for policy dialogue ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Feb 25 12:03:30 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:03:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Next CSTD WG on IGF - likely to be in Geneva Message-ID: In the morning, several government delegates asked/criticized the location of CSTD WG moving outside Geneva, and asked the Chair/Secretariat to reconsider. It is highly likely that it will be held in Geneva. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Feb 25 12:05:44 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:05:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Meeting adjourned Message-ID: The Chair decided to adjourn the WG meeting as we could not agree on the text of the Agenda, asked us to come back by 9 am tomorrow with agreed text. The point we could not agree with is - how to improve IGF - in terms of linking IGF to broader dialogue on Internet governance. Or what the interpretation of UNGA resolution. Many are still staying in the room, making small groups ad hoc, but not sure where we will reach. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 25 12:16:55 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:16:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: > > Parminder, there is no chair, how can there be chair's advisors? Not >> everything is about you, relax please. > >Of course not about me, but I asked you what was it about... because there >is a certain impact a few of us are suffering here, and you havent >answered that question. What do you mean "suffering". You think you were going to be allowed to speak? There was at least one advisor who was going to ask the same question. We all suffered, the meeting was informal and on past practise that means all of us should have been able to speak. Why did you not speak up on that point? There was (and is) no chair for there to be any advisors to. Look at the MAG and advisors letter of appointment. My intention was that everyone should have had the right to speak in the meeting. No special status for anyone. The letter giving the MAG its mandate for 2010 is pretty much the same form as previous years and each year it has been interpreted as the MAG's mandate ending with the meeting it was asked to prepare, in this case Vilnius. Think it's pretty clear from the precedence established from earlier years that yesterday's meeting should have been held as an open consultation. Parminder, you of all people should know this. Some years ago, the first time the MAG's mandate hadn't been renewed by the time of a consultation you were one of the people who successfully led the argument that the MAG meeting should be open. You then spoke during that meeting (as did Bill and others.) What happened then was one of the more important achievements in improving openness and transparency of the MAG. Parminder, a question for you, were you going so sit in the room hoping not to be noticed until you tried to take a mic? Clearly the advisors have no legitimacy, you know that. Is that how you think we should make processes to ensure transparency and accountability of the MAG? We know you care deeply about the process we're engaged in. You have made many important and principled points about the transparency of the MAG. So we should have been demanding the meeting was open for all observers as we (you) did successfully some years ago when the MAG's mandate had also not been renewed. We have continually pushed to open the MAG process yet as a result of yesterday we might be back to where we were in 2005: MAG members speak and so do "observers" from the IGOs (oh, we have transcripts and can sit in the room and listen.) It should have been a flag to everyone that the first entity called to speak was UNESCO. So to get back to your question, what I was expecting was for all the CS people in the room to ask for the meeting to be open, to remind the Secretariat of precedence, and for MAG members and others to speak up in support. As far as I was concerned you and anyone else who had been an advisor should have the same right to speak as everyone else in the room. Nothing special. I'm sorry you did not see that as the correct approach and speak to it. Instead we pretty much rolled over, with silence from our MAG members. The only person who spoke in favor of holding the session open/informal was tech community. And when there was an opportunity for the CS members to speak up for an open process during the closed post-lunch session they first agreed to holding that discussion under the Chatham house rule. Then, apparently, not one MAG member spoke up in favor of openness. If I am wrong about this I apologize, but that's the summary of those closed 15 minutes I've been told by a MAG member who was in the room. Perhaps those CS members who were there can tell us why they accepted the Chatham house rule, and what was decided in that closed session, respecting the rule of course . I was also told the moderator interpreted the MAG decision liberally when she said some observer comment would be allowed if time permitted, when actually the MAG's decision was for none at all. Later when an observer was allowed to speak it was at the initiative of one of the Internet tech community representatives not civil society. Now there are MAG only working groups synthesizing questions for the design of the various sessions, and we can be pretty sure there won't be enough CS members to cover all the groups and work (half our members seem to have completely lost interest.) Another step backwards. I expect the agenda will strongly reflect the interests of business and the Internet tech community. Perhaps our MAG members could ask that those groups be opened up to other volunteers. I hope the caucus will protest the way the meeting was held, it was an enormous disadvantage to civil society (no funding support for one thing.) And we should ask that the commitment to the rotation of MAG members is honored. Adam >When secretariat asked observers to move to the sides, it obviously was to >do with differential speaking status, and you immediately got us - special >advisors - moved out as well. How did it help openness, or CS >participation. > >Of course I am cheesed off, dont you expect me to. > >and you are not telling why did you do it - with what end in mind. > > I just >have this hypothesis that reasonable people act with some end in mind, so >what were you trying to achieve here today. > >> >> We should be in an open MAG meeting. > >But that is not the point we are discussing here, are we. We shd be open, >but how did getting some of us shut up through your intervention help that >cause is what i am wondering. > > > > > > The first time the MAG met >> without its mandate being renewed was 3 or 4 years ago (I was still >> a member, or "non-member" depending on how we can confusingly refer to >> the title :-)) and I remember all in the room were able to speak. You >> were there and you spoke and it was an important precedent for the >> evolution of the MAG and process. That openness is what we should be >> enjoying this morning. That we are not is a problem, the process has >> moved back to how we started in 2005. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM, wrote: >>> When the MAG assembled in the morning today, the secretariat asked MAG >>> members to sit in the middle and observers on the sides, so that they >>> knew >>> who is who. >>> >>> Normally, MAG members have been liberally interpreted to include Special >>> Advisors. And special advisors have till now largely meant that there >>> were >>> a few more civil society members in the room. At this point, Adam >>> pointedly asked the status of Special Advisors in regard of who sits >>> where, which was obviously to be connected to speaking rights during the >>> meeting. The secretariat, in the form of Chengetai, answered that since > >> there is no chair there are no advisors to the chair. Which may be a >>> little unsure interpretation. In fact there is even no MAG  today, as >>> even >>> Chris Disspain said during the meeting without being challenged by the >>> secretariat or the chair. Things are rather informal. BTW, Chair >>> advisors >>> are like all other positions attached to a position not a person, in the >>> same way that MAG may not disappear simply if for some reason the UN >>> secretary general remits his position suddenly. These kind of things can >>> be very disruptive and that is why things continue till alternative >>> arrangements are made. So, in the same way, since there was some kind of >>> chair-ship of today's meeting, there would informally continue to the >>> special advisors doing the same role as earlier. As i said, everything >>> is >>> more than a bit fuzzy and a bit informal at present. >>> >>> So, Adam, I really do not understand what made you put Hartmut, Wolfgang >>> and me (and Jovan if he is to come in) out of circulation during the > >> meeting today. Any specific reason or strategy behind it? I understand > >> that all these are political events and situations, and our responses >>> are >>> always political (and not just 'technical) and contextual. So I was >>> wondering what prompted you to do what you did (esp when some of IGC >>> members have actually been seeking that CSTD WGIGF should allow CS reps > >> also to take in advisors, basically the effort is to get into the room >>> and >>> participate in all ways one can) >>> >>> I dont mind it too much though personally:).  Kind of used to it. >>> Happens >>> in political work but one knows that this kind of thing goes with a >>> civil >>> society advocacy role.. Just in the last meeting I was told by Markus >>> that >>> this was primarily a discussion among MAG members, and therefore , well, >>> to be blunt,  to basically shut up. I may remind you, Adam, and others >>> in >>> the IGC, that before I accepted the Advisor's position, I wrote to Nitin >>> and Markus giving my understanding of the Advisor role, which including >>> speaking up, and I was specifically told that my understanding was >>> right. >>> I did share my letter, and also if I remember right, Markus's response >>> to >>> my letter, with the IGC, since at that time I was IGC co-coordinator, >>> before I accepted the position. I have also, at least once, been told >>> off >>> by a technical community MAG member on the MAG list that it is MAG >>> members >>> views that count (and by implication special advisor's doesnt). >>> >>> But I wasnt expecting a CS member to do something like this, in a >>> context >>> where he clearly knew the exact and specific outcomes - that three or >>> four >>> of the very few CS members in the room will not be able to speak in the >>> MAG meeting. Any explanations, Adam? >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 25 12:22:36 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:22:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> Message-ID: >Clarification below McTim: Agree with Anriette. Business/tech community are very effective, strong well coordinated participation. They often present a near uniform voice on issues, support each other, build on each others arguments/proposals, and they are often successful in getting their views reflected in the outcomes. Not a complaint, their professionalism is something to try to learn from and emulate. But I think their successes are somewhat short term. Issue of outcomes is one example. There has been clear support from many stakeholders, very noticeably developing country governments (and us) for some form of more concrete outcome. This was one of the recommendations of the consultations Mr Sha led in Sharm, he saw it as a consensus of the process he led, and it's something we hear asked for again and again. And tech/business seems to resist at every opportunity. There is no compromise, just a very effectively delivered voice against. Brazil made some very sensible suggestions during the open consultation a couple of days ago, but I am not sure they got through the "lobby". Same is pretty much true of enhanced cooperation, consideration of new arrangements for critical Internet resources. These issues will get on agenda eventually (example is critical Internet resources, which was kept of the agenda of the first year, but eventually got on), but in the mean time governments give up, the process gives them nothing, not working for them, so they look to alternatives that better suit their modes of working. Like the CSTD, or the proposals in IBSA statement. Who can blame them. I think business/tech community needs to be careful as to what it's winning here. In the end they may just kill the process. Governments will go elsewhere, and we'll all be screwed. Adam >On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >>> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written >>> submissions, and the open consultation. >>> >>> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. >>> >>> My other observations, as an observer, are: >>> >>> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals >>> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary >>> >>> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well >>> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most >>> influential group by far in the MAG. >>> >>> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. >>> >>> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and >>> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective >>> participation in the meeting. >>> >>> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from >>> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. >>> >>> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they >>> there? >>> >>> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. >>> >>> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect >>> on their strategies >> >> >> What is their strategy(ies)? > >Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond >themselves. >> >> >> ... they work in the short term, but will they work >>> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain >>> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to >>> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process >>> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to >>> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, >>> regulation, openness etc. issues. >> >> >> How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the >> most influential group by far in the MAG." > > >Two different 'theys'. > >It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have >never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech >community. > >Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. >Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort >to comment on the IGF programme. > >I believe they should work inside the IGF space. > >But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's >legitimacy and impact. > >My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with >developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or >get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you >don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. > >Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? >What do MAG members think? > >Anriette > > >> ?? >> > >-- >------------------------------------------------------ >anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >executive director >association for progressive communications >www.apc.org >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 Feb 25 13:00:12 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:00:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Meeting adjourned In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 02:05:44 on Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes >The point we could not agree with is - how to improve IGF - in terms >of linking IGF to broader dialogue on Internet governance. Is "broader dialogue" code for "discussions in the ITU", or something else? Broader could mean "more participants involved", or "more topics involved". Either [or both] would be quite possible, given what the IGF has achieved so far (early days, only five years...) Do you think the discussion today has benefited from being fully multi-stakeholder [the +15 attendees] and from having no observers? Does everyone in the room fell they have some ownership of the position at the end of the day, or is there a battle-line developing, and if so between whom? -- 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 avri at acm.org Fri Feb 25 13:31:13 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:31:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0EA7FEBA-726B-4C5A-9DBE-0EDD4CC13BF4@acm.org> On 25 Feb 2011, at 18:16, Adam Peake wrote: > There was (and is) no chair for there to be any advisors to. I can confirm this point from my position as a member of the secretariat. >From the same vantage point i would contend that there still is a MAG and that the people on the 2010 MAG are still the MAG, at least for all intents and purposes, until notified otherwise. As for what happened under the Chatham house rule during the 10 minute meeting, there is little I can say other that anyone can admit to what they themselves said as long as it does not identify the opinions of others by either name or stakeholder group. cheers, a. in my secretariat consultant role (which ends 31 March 2011) defined as: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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: PastedGraphic-1.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 829250 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- not that there is an Executive coordinator. hmmm. maybe i am not employed. From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Feb 25 14:42:14 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:42:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 02:16:55 on Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Adam Peake writes > And we should ask that the commitment to the rotation of MAG members >is honored. This is one thing that puzzles me. MAG rotation is supposed to be one of the topics that the MAG recomends[1]. But there have been several occasions (this week was one) where the topic seemed taboo. And the final impression was that it was entirely the gift of the UN. [1] "it has been requested to make proposals on a suitable rotation among its members" http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/pi1791.doc.htm -- 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 avri at acm.org Fri Feb 25 14:59:20 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:59:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 25 Feb 2011, at 20:42, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 02:16:55 on Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Adam Peake writes > >> And we should ask that the commitment to the rotation of MAG members is honored. > > This is one thing that puzzles me. MAG rotation is supposed to be one of the topics that the MAG recomends[1]. But there have been several occasions (this week was one) where the topic seemed taboo. And the final impression was that it was entirely the gift of the UN. In the past this was up to the MAG. And with the exception of a few people, most chose not to step down voluntarily. There was a discussion of rotation most every year, and some MAG members were replaced every year. I have actually never seen a graph of how many, in total and per group, rotated each year, so I don't know what the facts of rotation are. I know the anecdotal impressions, but have no idea of what is the case. Has anyone done the tracking and have informative pictures? At the point of your puzzlement, at this point all organizational issues that do not relate specifically to IGF 2011 are out of the IGF and MAG's hands. Whatever the prior conditions were, all organizational issues and improvements belong to the blue ribbon panel of the CSTD IGF WG. If they solve this and only this, they will have made great progress. It is really hard to get a group to remove itself from the core. Somehow it seems that many of those who have a special seat will do anything to hold on that seat - though there are some few that do surrender them readily and believe in things like term limits that make it easier to do so. So you need some sort of oversight group to come around periodically to give these governing groups a little bit of governance, especially on how to rotate. A 5 year review by a group like the CSTD is probably a good thing for all organizations. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Feb 25 16:17:02 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:17:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 20:59:20 on Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Avri Doria writes > >On 25 Feb 2011, at 20:42, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , at 02:16:55 on >>Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Adam Peake writes >> >>> And we should ask that the commitment to the rotation of MAG members >>>is honored. >> >> This is one thing that puzzles me. MAG rotation is supposed to be one >>of the topics that the MAG recomends[1]. But there have been several >>occasions (this week was one) where the topic seemed taboo. And the >>final impression was that it was entirely the gift of the UN. > >In the past this was up to the MAG. And with the exception of a few >people, most chose not to step down voluntarily. There was a >discussion of rotation most every year, and some MAG members were >replaced every year. I have actually never seen a graph of how many, >in total and per group, rotated each year, so I don't know what the >facts of rotation are. It's disappointing that there's apparently no official record of this, but I have my own chart - which I referred to a few days ago. It reveals almost no rotation in 2008, and a new influx of about 20 in 2009 who join 16 people appointed in 2006 and 18 from 2007. >I know the anecdotal impressions, but have no idea of what is the case. >Has anyone done the tracking and have informative pictures? Perhaps I should publish my chart. >At the point of your puzzlement, at this point all organizational >issues that do not relate specifically to IGF 2011 are out of the IGF >and MAG's hands. Whatever the prior conditions were, all >organizational issues and improvements belong to the blue ribbon panel >of the CSTD IGF WG. If that's the case (and I'm not disputing it) then their outcome will most certainly not affect IGF2011 (because it has to be sent via CSTD to ECOSOC etc), so we have yet another annual cycle with no MAG renewal. Which means that even the newest appointees have had three years tenure. >If they solve this and only this, they will have made great progress. >It is really hard to get a group to remove itself from the core. >Somehow it seems that many of those who have a special seat will do >anything to hold on that seat - though there are some few that do >surrender them readily and believe in things like term limits that make >it easier to do so. I had originally understood the MAG rules to say that 1/3 would be retired every year, with the assumption that (once there was a couple of years to get a pattern started) this would be the longest-serving 1/3. But that's clearly not what's happened. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 25 18:16:41 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:16:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: >In message , at >20:59:20 on Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Avri Doria writes >> >>On 25 Feb 2011, at 20:42, Roland Perry wrote: >> >>>In message , at 02:16:55 on >>>Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Adam Peake writes >>> >>>>And we should ask that the commitment to the rotation of MAG >>>>members is honored. >>> >>>This is one thing that puzzles me. MAG rotation is supposed to be >>>one of the topics that the MAG recomends[1]. But there have been >>>several occasions (this week was one) where the topic seemed >>>taboo. And the final impression was that it was entirely the gift >>>of the UN. >> >>In the past this was up to the MAG. And with the exception of a >>few people, most chose not to step down voluntarily. There was a >>discussion of rotation most every year, and some MAG members were >>replaced every year. I have actually never seen a graph of how >>many, in total and per group, rotated each year, so I don't know >>what the facts of rotation are. > >It's disappointing that there's apparently no official record of >this, but I have my own chart - which I referred to a few days ago. >It reveals almost no rotation in 2008, and a new influx of about 20 >in 2009 who join 16 people appointed in 2006 and 18 from 2007. I think there was a goal of one third per rotation. There's probably some record in the MAG list or record of a consultation. Pretty sure it was about one third each year as that would have meant by the end of the five year mandate the full MAG would have swapped out. It's a pretty sustainable refresh rate. Adam >>I know the anecdotal impressions, but have no idea of what is the >>case. Has anyone done the tracking and have informative pictures? > >Perhaps I should publish my chart. > >>At the point of your puzzlement, at this point all organizational >>issues that do not relate specifically to IGF 2011 are out of the >>IGF and MAG's hands. Whatever the prior conditions were, all >>organizational issues and improvements belong to the blue ribbon >>panel of the CSTD IGF WG. > >If that's the case (and I'm not disputing it) then their outcome >will most certainly not affect IGF2011 (because it has to be sent >via CSTD to ECOSOC etc), so we have yet another annual cycle with no >MAG renewal. Which means that even the newest appointees have had >three years tenure. > >>If they solve this and only this, they will have made great >>progress. It is really hard to get a group to remove itself from >>the core. Somehow it seems that many of those who have a special >>seat will do anything to hold on that seat - though there are some >>few that do surrender them readily and believe in things like term >>limits that make it easier to do so. > >I had originally understood the MAG rules to say that 1/3 would be >retired every year, with the assumption that (once there was a >couple of years to get a pattern started) this would be the >longest-serving 1/3. But that's clearly not what's happened. >-- >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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Feb 25 19:10:31 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:10:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] Meeting adjourned In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Roland. Broader policy dialogue was the language used by the UN resolution, people did not come up with it today. I do not think there is any secret agenda there, the aim is to link the IGF to all relevant organizations, including the many in the UN that have a role in WSIS implementation. The discussion today was carried out in a multistakeholder spirit, Much more than I have imagined. We set on the table together and could speak on equal foot. Several countries, such as India and Iran, clearly remarked the importance of the presence and inputs of other actors. I feel that in general there is respect for the presence and opinions of non-gov actors. We did not have many observers, but I would be ok in istening to them. The only problem I could see in a completely open group would be that of the number os speakers. You know governments... If one speaks than others cannot lag behind and it takes long to close the round of subscriptions. I think that on the two moments of more tension and paralisis of the debate, the stakeholders gather and tried to reach an agreement on drafts. In my view, negotiation was effective and none of the parts was intransigent. There was some disruptions and we ended up leaving the agenda to be adopted only tomorrow mostly because of inability of the chair and very few comments that were not constructive. Best, Marilia On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message , > at 02:05:44 on Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU writes > > > The point we could not agree with is - how to improve IGF - in terms >> of linking IGF to broader dialogue on Internet governance. >> > > Is "broader dialogue" code for "discussions in the ITU", or something else? > > Broader could mean "more participants involved", or "more topics involved". > Either [or both] would be quite possible, given what the IGF has achieved so > far (early days, only five years...) > > Do you think the discussion today has benefited from being fully > multi-stakeholder [the +15 attendees] and from having no observers? Does > everyone in the room fell they have some ownership of the position at the > end of the day, or is there a battle-line developing, and if so between > whom? > -- > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Feb 25 23:51:17 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:51:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Clarification below McTim: > > Agree with Anriette. > > Business/tech community are very effective, strong well coordinated > participation.  They often present a near uniform voice on issues, support > each other, build on each others arguments/proposals, and they are often > successful in getting their views reflected in the outcomes. Not a > complaint, their professionalism is something to try to learn from and > emulate. > > But I think their successes are somewhat short term. Issue of outcomes is > one example. There has been clear support from many stakeholders, very > noticeably developing country governments (and us) for some form of more > concrete outcome.  This was one of the recommendations of the consultations > Mr Sha led in Sharm, he saw it as a consensus of the process he led, and > it's something we hear asked for again and again. And tech/business seems to > resist at every opportunity. Maybe because it is a bad idea? > > I think business/tech community needs to be careful as to what it's winning > here.  In the end they may just kill the process. Governments will go > elsewhere, and we'll all be screwed. You mean like this: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?m=201102 IETF and Internet Society Statement relating to today’s ITU-T SG15 decision that will lead to non-interoperability in MPLS development "Today, the ITU-T Study Group 15 determined a Recommendation that defines Y.1731 based operations, administration and management (OAM) for MPLS transport networks. This decision sets the stage for a divergence in MPLS development; it creates a situation where some vendors will use the IETF standard for MPLS OAM while other vendors implement the ITU-T Recommendation for OAM. This situation ensures that the two product groups will not work together. While the impact may not be immediate, ongoing evolution along this path will jeopardize the globally interconnected Internet, which is an interoperable network of networks." -- 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 mazzone at ebu.ch Fri Feb 25 23:52:13 2011 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 05:52:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG meeting started Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF5E411DFA0@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Thank you Izumi for your timely and detailed info on the process. Giacomo ----- Original Message ----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Avri Doria Sent: Fri Feb 25 12:38:09 2011 Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG meeting started There is no mention of Chatham House rules or not. Nobody dared to ask, including myself. But I think it's safer to assume so at this point. We are now moving to discuss how to discuss the substantial discussion, including how to break into Working Groups, one suggestion is to form Drafting group, another suggestion is to make several working groups around the themes/topics of the Report and compile them into Draft report. "observers" - sitting back of the room have not taken floor. No one asked for. Us, "Interactive participants" or non-governmental stakeholders are all have equal speaking opportunities. No one challenged that, and instead several governments including Iran expressed welcoming all stake holders participation into this group, very clearly. Good sign. izumi 2011/2/25 Avri Doria : > hi, > > I understand it is a Chatham house rules meeting.  if that is indeed the case you could send concepts and points without identifying who or even what stockholder group uttered them. > > Though I believe it is within the rule of Chatham house for anyone to identify what it is they themselves say (as long as they edit out any identifying marks of who they are responding to) > > btw the tweet crowd says you are still on procedures. > > are the observers being allowed to speak? > > were all the IGO observers seated? > > a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Sat Feb 26 02:05:37 2011 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:05:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] NTIA issues RFC on IANA functions Message-ID: FYI http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf Yrjö -------------- 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 iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 03:36:18 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:36:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG Day 2 starting Message-ID: At 9:25, A paper titled: “Schedule of topics for discussion on 26 February “ was distributed and adopted by all. 1. Review of IGF vis-a-vis Tunis Agenda - paragraph 72 to 80 2. Improving the IGF with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance as directed by UNGA resolution 3. How to enhance the contribution of IGF to socio-economic development and towards IADGs including enhancing participation of developing countries 4. Shaping the outcome of IGF meetings 5. Outreach to and cooperation with other organisations and fora dealing with IG issues 6. Inclusiveness of the IGF process and of participation at the IGF meetings (in particular with regard to stakeholders from developing countries) 7. Working methods of the IGF, in particular improving the preparation process modalities 7.1 Current modalities; open consultation and MAG 7.2 IGF Secretariat 8. Format of IGF meetings 9. Financing the Forum (exploring further options for financing) 9.1 Review of the current situation 9.2 Options for ensuring predictability, transparency and accountability in financing IGF 10. Conclusions and Recommendations 11. Provisional agenda of the second meeting of the Working Group Followed now by discussion on how to treat this proposal and also structure of the report. It's a simple list of topics, non-hierarchal, to allow discussion on substance Moving, slowly, maybe. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 04:07:36 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:07:36 -0300 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <6DC27241-DED6-460C-9F5E-4B326A2907CA@eff.org> Message-ID: <102D32057C654DD581FB2E2E4CBD9992@userPC> I have found myself even more out of the loop than Katiza or others for variety of travel and other reasons. In an earlier meeting I asked that someone on site volunteer/be designated to provide some sort of running substantive commentary. In reading through the emails on this meeing I have been finding that 90% are process related. Certainly necessary for those on the ground but of little interest or value to anyone else. What I haven't found are any emails that summarize what the issues are that are being addressed, who is addressing them and how, what the outcomes are and what is the likely import of those decisions. Without that there is really no possibility of even following what is going on let alone contributing at any point either now or in the future. Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Katitza Rodriguez Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:27 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting Hola, I agree that there is a need for civil society to organize ourselves in a strategic way, to ensure that we can participate most effectively in this process. In particular, it would be beneficial for civil society to have a meeting - in private among civil society (which this list is not) - to discuss our strategy, goals and proposals before the next MAG meeting. We should ensure that we have a virtual meeting just before the next MAG to coordinate among us, and to make sure that we know what are our common positions. This will enable MAG civil society members who are present at the meeting to be most effective - both at presenting common positions, and also at picking up and running with suggestions of the members at large that are put forward during the meeting. While I appreciate the efforts that the Secretariat made to help those of us trying to participate remotely today, it is clear to me that it is simply not possible to rely completely on the live-time remote participation facilities for ensuring effective civil society input for several reasons. First, there were ongoing technical glitches with the video stream today. The video and audio tracks disappeared or were not working properly during long periods of time today, and unfortunately at key moments of the discussion. I spent time coordinating with tech support. There were a need to scroll down the transcripts which was also uncomfortable. Second, there was a significant time lag, or latency, between the actual discussion on situ and when you were able to raise your hands and speak. This made it impossible to add comments at the right time, in the flow of the conversation, as the discussion on that topic was taking place. Several times, I found myself giving my comment after the topic of discussion had changed. Obviously it is hard for civil society to shape the discussion if we are having to add our comments only *after* the discussion has moved on or be able to make a second intervention as soon after other stakeholder put forward their message. Third, decisions were taken today at times when the video and sound and transcript were not working; (ie. when the right of observers to speak was discussed) all of a sudden it would come back, and only then I would discover that something had been decided and concluded. Taken together, these problems made effective remote participation frustrating and difficult. But my sense is that there are strategies that we could use to better address this next time, if we can have a private meeting to coordinate before hand. Finally, I want to apologize for not being able to attend the meeting in person and explain why I was not able to do so. First and foremost, there was no funding support for civil society to attend. I work for a member-supported non profit organization. We do not have a travel budget. Second, the confirmation that a MAG meeting would actually take place came so late that I could not change my existing commitments and travel schedule. Like all of you, I have multiple commitments and my schedule is set in advance. I arrived back in San Francisco a few hours before the meeting started. I joined the meeting at 3am my time, after close to 20 hours of travel the day before. With more time and notice, I might have been able to scrounge up funds or flying points to do so, but it was not possible in the time that we were given. In short, we need to have more notice of these meetings if we are going to ensure more civil society participation. I would therefore like to suggest that we ask the Secretariat to set the dates for the next MAG meeting with sufficient time to allow those of us in civil society to make affordable travel arrangements so that we can attend. We know it is in May but no dates have been given so far. I would also like to suggest that civil society should have a virtual meeting(s) to coordinate among ourselves as soon as the next MAG meeting dates are announced. gracias, Katitza On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: I am not sure I understood your comment: Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? I have been to many open consultations but this is my first MAG meeting and although I believe it is odd that people who are there with ideas could not speak their minds, I wonder if allowing observers to speak would not bring prejudice to multistakeholder equilibrium in the MAG. It would give the ones that have more facility to be in geneva more voice and more power. Of course, people who had the status of advisers are a different story. But anyway the fact that observers could not speak on the mic today did not mean they stayed quiet. There were Skype and Gtalk messages flying all around and some ideas from observers came through and were spoken by MAG members. This silent presence did have an impact. I would like to hear MAG members opinions on this question as well, but my logic tells me that transparency and increased chance for accountability puts pressure for MAG members to work better... Doesn't it? Marilia On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Clarification below McTim: On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written >> submissions, and the open consultation. >> >> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. >> >> My other observations, as an observer, are: >> >> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals >> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary >> >> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most >> influential group by far in the MAG. >> >> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. >> >> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and >> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective >> participation in the meeting. >> >> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from >> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. >> >> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they >> there? >> >> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. >> >> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect >> on their strategies > > > What is their strategy(ies)? Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond themselves. > > > ... they work in the short term, but will they work >> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain >> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to >> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process >> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to >> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access, >> regulation, openness etc. issues. > > > How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the > most influential group by far in the MAG." > Two different 'theys'. It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech community. Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort to comment on the IGF programme. I believe they should work inside the IGF space. But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's legitimacy and impact. My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? What do MAG members think? Anriette > ?? > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Feb 26 04:34:43 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:34:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <102D32057C654DD581FB2E2E4CBD9992@userPC> References: <102D32057C654DD581FB2E2E4CBD9992@userPC> Message-ID: On 26 Feb 2011, at 10:07, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Without that there is really no possibility of even following what is going on let alone contributing at any point either now or in the future. You could always try to follow the live transcription or the audiocast, or maybe even both of them. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 04:38:19 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:38:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] moving more Message-ID: With still some confusion on the modality/focus of the discussion, we are entering into making key comments on key elements. Topic 5 - Outreach - had several comments, including Russian proposal of merging WSIS Forum and IGF, counter arguments, other observations. I said something like: What is the “product” of IGF – one more “invisible” s We are seeing the emerging “IGF Community” – spreading into and by and across local, national, and regional – and inter-regional activities Thanks to non-binding, multi-stakeholder, open and bottom-up framework eg CS having better understanding and relationship with govs and bizs, cross-cultural understanding exercise creating a new culture ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 05:17:23 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:17:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 08:16:41 on Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Adam Peake writes >>almost no rotation in 2008, and a new influx of about 20 in 2009 who >>join 16 people appointed in 2006 and 18 from 2007. > >I think there was a goal of one third per rotation. Yes, there's a subtle difference between aiming for a 3yr tenure where the longest-serving 1/3 retire each year, and replacing 1/3 of the members. There's a middle course, which is to put the longest-serving 1/3 "up for re-selection", which could mean having a 6yr stint. And would give some security of tenure to newly appointed people. But as this is all happening inside a black box, we don't really know what the methodology is. >There's probably some record in the MAG list or record of a consultation. > >Pretty sure it was about one third each year as that would have meant >by the end of the five year mandate the full MAG would have swapped >out. It's a pretty sustainable refresh rate. -- 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 iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 05:41:21 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 19:41:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Chair put the Coffee break, and asked to discuss about the Drafting Group (or not) at 11:20. A drafting group will act as "editors", seeking inputs openly, by or around Mar 15, compile converging and diverging views according to the topic list agreed and other points. Now we are back to plenary discussion. Starting to discuss about Indian proposal: How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap We need more tangible outcome, or recommendations. Let's continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public policy issues and ask for answers Questions be agreed upon by MAGs, policy concerns, global level. Work through preparatory process, Workshops and Plenary sessions, and post IGF process. Outcome documents – to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA Brazil and others supported. Others have concerns or clarification comments. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 07:01:44 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 21:01:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Overall tone of discussion now is getting more constructive, each are listening to other sides, and many governments are listening to other stakeholders in quite positive manner, from Iran, India, Egypt to US, Finland and Portugal. That does not, of course, mean they agree each other, but agreed to disagree without big noise, mindful or WG task to produce consensus report by end of March. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 08:59:29 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:59:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Discussion around MAG is ongoing. Anriette proposed to increase number of CS in MAG - to 10, instead of current 5, because of vast diversity of Civil Society for effective participation. Behind the scene, how to compose the Report - by working group, or by secretariat, or combination of these - are also discussed off-line/on-line. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 09:09:47 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:09:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Draft 1-page report titled "Action points approved by the plenary" is distributed, among others, here is the para for the outcome. Just draft yet. "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where there are differing views and alternative suggestions." In 30 min, I have to leave and catch the train to Geneva airport. The meeting may end around 4 pm, hopefully. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Feb 26 09:33:21 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:33:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: (message from Izumi AIZU on Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:09:47 +0900) References: Message-ID: <20110226143321.9C53115C1C2@quill.bollow.ch> Izumi AIZU wrote: > Draft 1-page report titled "Action points approved by the plenary" is > distributed, among others, here is the para for the outcome. Just > draft yet. > > "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these > outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related > to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be > considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect > convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where > there are differing views and alternative suggestions." Wow. Very encouraging! Hoping that this doesn't get killed... 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sat Feb 26 09:37:42 2011 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:37:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: brilliant work on the blow by blow Izumi. Is there a sense as to whether this approach has "real" consensus? Rgds, Tracy On Feb 26, 2011 10:10 AM, "Izumi AIZU" wrote: > Draft 1-page report titled "Action points approved by the plenary" is > distributed, among others, here is the para for the outcome. Just > draft yet. > > "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these > outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related > to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be > considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect > convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where > there are differing views and alternative suggestions." > > In 30 min, I have to leave and catch the train to Geneva airport. > > The meeting may end around 4 pm, hopefully. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 09:43:54 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:43:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A draft Action points paper was distributed, prepared by Brazil and Brazil explained. This is not consensus paper, per se. But say "close to". But details often create huge gap in positions. Now we are discussing about the WG Report - timing, composition of drafting group, etc. izumi ---- Action points approved by the plenary The discussions took place in a constructive way and in a friendly environment that the next meetings will be held in Geneva, during week days. The chair of the Working Group took note of the concerns presented in the plenary about the representation of developing world among the stakeholders, considering that 6 out of 15 are from developing countries and the necessity of improving means for the selection process that considers an effective application of the principles of inclusiveness, diversity of ideas and equal representation between developing and developed countries in all stakeholder groups from business community, private sector and civil societies. The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where there are differing views and alternative suggestions. The plenary of the working group agreed that the list below are the key elements of the discussion and decided to submit it as an open questionnaire to receive the inputs from all stakeholders, to be answered until 15 of March. 1) Review of IGF vis-a-vis Tunis Agenda (Para 72 to 80) 2) Improving IGF with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance as directed by UNGA resolution 3) How to enhance the contribution of IGF to socio-economic development and towards IADGs including enhancing participation of developing countries. 4) Outcomes of IGF meetings be sent to relevant organizations. 5) Outreach to and cooperation with other organizations and for a dealing with IG issues. 6) Inclusiveness of the IGF process and of participation at the IGF meetings (in particular with regard to stakeholders from developing countries) 7) Working methods of the IGF, in particular improving the preparation process modalities 7.1 Review of current modalities; open consultation and MAG 7.2 IGF Secretariat 8) Format of IGF meetings 9) Financing the Forum (exploring further options for financing) 9.1 Review of the current situation 9.2 Options for ensuring predictability, transparency and accountability in financing IGF 10) Conclusions and Recommendations Contributions received will be immediately posed in the CSTD website in order to allow inter-sessional and online discussions. An informal drafting group will meet two days before the next meeting of the Working Group in order to compile and review all the inputs received at the various stages, including the transcriptions of the first meeting and identify convergence of views or the different views on each topic, without creating any new content on its own. This draft report will be submitted to the second meeting of the 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 From iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 09:51:36 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:51:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some are strongly commenting that Secretary should prepare draft compilation of report, and also about the Summary of Action points - be also prepared by Secretariat, not prepared by one member. So the closure of this meeting is yet to be seen. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Feb 26 11:08:15 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:08:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> Hi, Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. If not, glad to hear it. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Feb 26 11:32:09 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:32:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> References: ,<289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993D5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I thought the IGC consensus view was that messages/outcomes/recommendations of some sort out of IGF whether generated partially or wholly from plenaries or workshops and/or inter-sessional activities would be a good thing if it could be navigated. Though a few voices still prefer all talk and no rec; which as I have previously highlighted was never - required of IGF. So....maybe its premature to say what has or has not been recommended is or is not in conformance with IGC. Even if G77 nations also think actually getting to that point is a good thing. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 11:08 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Re: moving more Hi, Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. If not, glad to hear it. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Feb 26 11:44:39 2011 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:44:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D692DF7.2000903@wzb.eu> Part of the confusion has to do with the criteria of gender balance. Non-governmental membership was used to compensate for the lack or low number of women on the government side. After the rotation rule of 1/3 per year was agreed, the black box started rotating out male MAG members and selecting a higher number of women as new members to avoid the dominance of men so typical in internet governance groups. Emily Taylor and I were among those who benefited from this logic. jeanette On 26.02.2011 11:17, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 08:16:41 on Sat, > 26 Feb 2011, Adam Peake writes > >>> almost no rotation in 2008, and a new influx of about 20 in 2009 who >>> join 16 people appointed in 2006 and 18 from 2007. >> >> I think there was a goal of one third per rotation. > > Yes, there's a subtle difference between aiming for a 3yr tenure where > the longest-serving 1/3 retire each year, and replacing 1/3 of the members. > > There's a middle course, which is to put the longest-serving 1/3 "up for > re-selection", which could mean having a 6yr stint. And would give some > security of tenure to newly appointed people. > > But as this is all happening inside a black box, we don't really know > what the methodology is. > >> There's probably some record in the MAG list or record of a consultation. >> >> Pretty sure it was about one third each year as that would have meant >> by the end of the five year mandate the full MAG would have swapped >> out. It's a pretty sustainable refresh rate. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 12:12:20 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:42:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <102D32057C654DD581FB2E2E4CBD9992@userPC> References: <102D32057C654DD581FB2E2E4CBD9992@userPC> Message-ID: <4D693474.8050903@itforchange.net> On Saturday 26 February 2011 02:37 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I have found myself even more out of the loop than Katiza or others > for variety of travel and other reasons. > In an earlier meeting I asked that someone on site volunteer/be > designated to provide some sort of running substantive commentary. > In reading through the emails on this meeing I have been finding that > 90% are process related. Certainly necessary for those on the ground > but of little interest or value to anyone else. > What I haven't found are any emails that summarize what the issues are > that are being addressed, who is addressing them and how, what the > outcomes are and what is the likely import of those decisions. > Without that there is really no possibility of even following what is > going on let alone contributing at any point either now or in the future. Dear Mike I am at the WG on IGF improvements and it has just ended. I have almost always tried to submit a detailed report on any such meeting that I participate as a CS rep, describing but also analysing what had happened. These meeting are intensely political activities - not technical, informational etc - and what really is happening is difficult to capture by running commentaries. Also often communicating substantial negotiation issues/angles, along with opinions on them, to open lists may compromise what civil society and other progressive actors are trying to achieve. I understand that from the outside it may be a little frustrating, but I am not much of a twitter guy :) . However, anyone wants to know about what I see as going on, Pl contact me offline, and I will provide a detailed response, as I will presently to you. Also, happy to keep one to one link with anyone interested in making offsite contributions to such meeting. Pl let me know, and I promise you will not be disappointed. :). I do agree that civil society networks much less than it should for such crucial meetings. Parminder > Tks, > M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] *On Behalf Of *Katitza > Rodriguez > *Sent:* Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:27 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel > *Cc:* Anriette Esterhuysen > *Subject:* Re: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting > > Hola, > > I agree that there is a need for civil society to organize > ourselves in a strategic way, to ensure that we can participate > most effectively in this process. In particular, it would be > beneficial for civil society to have a meeting - in private among > civil society (which this list is not) - to discuss our strategy, > goals and proposals before the next MAG meeting. > > We should ensure that we have a virtual meeting just before the > next MAG to coordinate among us, and to make sure that we know > what are our common positions. This will enable MAG civil society > members who are present at the meeting to be most effective - both > at presenting common positions, and also at picking up and running > with suggestions of the members at large that are put forward > during the meeting. > > While I appreciate the efforts that the Secretariat made to help > those of us trying to participate remotely today, it is clear to > me that it is simply not possible to rely completely on the > live-time remote participation facilities for ensuring effective > civil society input for several reasons. > > First, there were ongoing technical glitches with the video stream > today. The video and audio tracks disappeared or were not working > properly during long periods of time today, and unfortunately at > key moments of the discussion. I spent time coordinating with tech > support. There were a need to scroll down the transcripts which > was also uncomfortable. Second, there was a significant time lag, > or latency, between the actual discussion on situ and when you > were able to raise your hands and speak. This made it impossible > to add comments at the right time, in the flow of the > conversation, as the discussion on that topic was taking place. > Several times, I found myself giving my comment after the topic of > discussion had changed. Obviously it is hard for civil society to > shape the discussion if we are having to add our comments only > *after* the discussion has moved on or be able to make a second > intervention as soon after other stakeholder put forward their > message. Third, decisions were taken today at times when the > video and sound and transcript were not working; (ie. when the > right of observers to speak was discussed) all of a sudden it > would come back, and only then I would discover that something had > been decided and concluded. Taken together, these problems made > effective remote participation frustrating and difficult. > > But my sense is that there are strategies that we could use to > better address this next time, if we can have a private meeting to > coordinate before hand. > > Finally, I want to apologize for not being able to attend the > meeting in person and explain why I was not able to do so. First > and foremost, there was no funding support for civil society to > attend. I work for a member-supported non profit organization. We > do not have a travel budget. Second, the confirmation that a MAG > meeting would actually take place came so late that I could not > change my existing commitments and travel schedule. Like all of > you, I have multiple commitments and my schedule is set in > advance. I arrived back in San Francisco a few hours before the > meeting started. I joined the meeting at 3am my time, after close > to 20 hours of travel the day before. With more time and notice, I > might have been able to scrounge up funds or flying points to do > so, but it was not possible in the time that we were given. In > short, we need to have more notice of these meetings if we are > going to ensure more civil society participation. > > I would therefore like to suggest that we ask the Secretariat to > set the dates for the next MAG meeting with sufficient time to > allow those of us in civil society to make affordable travel > arrangements so that we can attend. We know it is in May but no > dates have been given so far. I would also like to suggest that > civil society should have a virtual meeting(s) to coordinate among > ourselves as soon as the next MAG meeting dates are announced. > > gracias, > > Katitza > > > > > On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> I am not sure I understood your comment: >> Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many >> observers? >> >> I have been to many open consultations but this is my first MAG >> meeting and although I believe it is odd that people who are >> there with ideas could not speak their minds, I wonder if >> allowing observers to speak would not bring prejudice to >> multistakeholder equilibrium in the MAG. It would give the ones >> that have more facility to be in geneva more voice and more >> power. Of course, people who had the status of advisers are a >> different story. >> >> But anyway the fact that observers could not speak on the mic >> today did not mean they stayed quiet. There were Skype and Gtalk >> messages flying all around and some ideas from observers came >> through and were spoken by MAG members. This silent presence did >> have an impact. >> >> I would like to hear MAG members opinions on this question as >> well, but my logic tells me that transparency and increased >> chance for accountability puts pressure for MAG members to work >> better... Doesn't it? >> >> Marilia >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >> Clarification below McTim: >> >> On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from >> the written >> >> submissions, and the open consultation. >> >> >> >> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. >> >> >> >> My other observations, as an observer, are: >> >> >> >> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who >> make proposals >> >> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back >> into plenary >> >> >> >> * The technical community and the private sector is >> extremely well >> >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they >> are the most >> >> influential group by far in the MAG. >> >> >> >> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, >> but battling. >> >> >> >> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, >> text and >> >> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared >> for effective >> >> participation in the meeting. >> >> >> >> * Government participation is very limited... with good >> efforts from >> >> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. >> >> >> >> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. >> Why are they >> >> there? >> >> >> >> * It is not a very developing country or civil society >> friendly space. >> >> >> >> * I think the private sector and the technical community >> should reflect >> >> on their strategies >> > >> > >> > What is their strategy(ies)? >> >> Would be good if people from tech community and business can >> respond >> themselves. >> > >> > >> > ... they work in the short term, but will they work >> >> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF >> from certain >> >> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not >> conducive to >> >> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal >> from the process >> >> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need >> to and want to >> >> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic >> internet access, >> >> regulation, openness etc. issues. >> > >> > >> > How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well >> > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they >> are the >> > most influential group by far in the MAG." >> > >> Two different 'theys'. >> >> It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. >> Some have >> never really participated. I was not referring to the >> business and tech >> community. >> >> Personally I am really critical of governments who don't >> participate. >> Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made >> an effort >> to comment on the IGF programme. >> >> I believe they should work inside the IGF space. >> >> But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the >> IGF's >> legitimacy and impact. >> >> My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really >> empathise with >> developing country governments... it is not easy to make an >> impact, or >> get your points across. If English is not your first >> language, and you >> don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. >> >> Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many >> observers? >> What do MAG members think? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> > ?? >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director >> association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 26 12:24:57 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:54:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D693769.8030508@itforchange.net> On Saturday 26 February 2011 09:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? While I entirely give to the dominant discourse (including the rumour system) to be able to quickly construct the terms of a conversation.... on a more serious note, two responses, as below > If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. (1) what was proposed, not by the G77 but by one developing country alone, has very little variance, if any, with the kind of stuff that has been discussed often on the IGC list, and most part of it agreed to commonly, or as one of the alternatives, in IGC statements (2) And Avri, you know it too well, that civil society reps on this WG or in MAG speak representing the position of their organization and/or their constituency and only when they specifically say they speak for IGC are they constrained to stay strictly within IGC consensus position. parminder > If not, glad to hear it. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 26 12:37:46 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:07:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D693A6A.7080608@itforchange.net> On Saturday 26 February 2011 09:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? While I have no idea of the meaning of the phrase 'plenary style outcomes' , two responses, as below > If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. (1) what was proposed, not by the G77 but by one developing country alone, has very little variance, if any at all, with the kind of stuff that has been discussed often on the IGC list, and most part of it agreed to commonly, or as one of the alternatives, in IGC statements (2) And Avri, you know it only too well that, civil society reps on this WG or in MAG speak representing the position of their organization and/or their larger constituency and only when they specifically say they speak for IGC are they constrained to stay strictly within the IGC consensus position. parminder > If not, glad to hear it. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Feb 26 12:43:40 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:43:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <4D693769.8030508@itforchange.net> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <4D693769.8030508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <14BA294C-861F-4C0B-AECC-03EE4B1C18C8@acm.org> On 26 Feb 2011, at 18:24, parminder wrote: > > > On Saturday 26 February 2011 09:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? >> > > While I entirely give to the dominant discourse (including the rumour system) to be able to quickly construct the terms of a conversation.... on a more serious note, two responses, as below Information comes out of all of thing quite quickly. and as i said it was rumor and i was checking on its truth. >> If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. >> > > > (1) what was proposed, not by the G77 but by one developing country alone, has very little variance, if any, with the kind of stuff that has been discussed often on the IGC list, and most part of it agreed to commonly, or as one of the alternatives, in IGC statements Yes as Lee said I might be wrong and such government centric views might indeed be the common civil society view now. While I don't know what country brought it up - nor incidentally who in CS brought it up. it is a well known g77 position - no matter who brought it up. > > (2) And Avri, you know it too well, that civil society reps on this WG or in MAG speak representing the position of their organization and/or their constituency and only when they specifically say they speak for IGC are they constrained to stay strictly within IGC consensus position. Actually in this case, i.e. the CSTD IGF WG, I though you were actually representatives of the IGC which had set itself up as the representatives of CS. On MAG, yes there is a specific 'operating in their independent capacity' notion, but for the CSTD I thought representatives were sent. Buess i am wrong about that too. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Feb 26 13:27:00 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 06:27:00 +1200 Subject: AW: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <4D67953A.6000507@gih.com> References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D67953A.6000507@gih.com> Message-ID: omg Does the $90million cover include costs for unmet SLAs and exposures to service providers? Although they are exempt from litigation, I suppose because they were legislated to disconnect. This very act of using a "kill switch" supports the argument for removing control from a national level to an international level. The only question is whether there would be tiered controls or not. I suppose the arguments would have to come under the ICESCR and perhaps a new schedule within the GATS - creation of options. But first, we would have to revise or add on Montesqiue, Locke and Hobbe's philosophy to capture the basis of possible controls and who should have control. I suppose option 2 would be to create a new exception (where internet is threatened) to justify a humanitarian intervention especially if the internet is an enabler for rights (economic, social, cultural as well as civil and political rights) although the argument against this would be sovereignty and the right to bring into effect the Doctrine of Necessity when national security is threatened, the only question is "how far", there is ample precedents to justify the level of flexibility afforded to governments during the Doctrine of Necessity. This is why the voice of Civil Society is critical as watchdogs and even advocates for those who cannot speak nor defend themselves. On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > This debate has already started. I have already been asked "how do we > turn this thing off?" > Prepare for a long "kill switch" debate. In return I presented the > estimated cost ($90 Million) of using a kill switch in Egypt. Ouch. > Governments have to understand that using a kill switch demonstrates a > complete loss of control on their part - exactly the opposite of what > they were looking for. > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > Le 25/02/2011 11:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" a écrit : > > Thanks Miguel > > > > you are absolutely right. However I have the fear that as soon as > governments realize what the Internet can trigger (look into the Middle East > developments) their conclusion will be how to get it under governmental > control. We should be prepare for such a debate. > > > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Miguel Alcaine > > Gesendet: Fr 25.02.2011 11:10 > > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen > > Betreff: Re: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting > > > > > > > > Dear Anriette, > > > > Governments are not aware of the reasons why they should actively > > participate in IGF, particularly many developing countries which are > > not aware even of the reasons why they should participate in anything > > regarding IG. > > > > There are a few Governments involved, but they have remained the same > > since the beginning and the majority do not care. > > > > It is a challenge to explain to them, when there is an opportunity to > > do so. We need to show them the link between IG - Development - Socio > > Economic Impact. > > > > Finally, I agree that this treat might have an impact on IGF sooner > > thant later, although I consider IGF to be a necessary part on the IG > > ecosystem. > > > > Best, > > > > Miguel > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Clarification below McTim: > >> > >> On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > anriette at apc.org> wrote: > >>>> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written > >>>> submissions, and the open consultation. > >>>> > >>>> I am not quite sure that is what happened today. > >>>> > >>>> My other observations, as an observer, are: > >>>> > >>>> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make > proposals > >>>> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary > >>>> > >>>> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well > >>>> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the > most > >>>> influential group by far in the MAG. > >>>> > >>>> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling. > >>>> > >>>> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and > >>>> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for > effective > >>>> participation in the meeting. > >>>> > >>>> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from > >>>> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments. > >>>> > >>>> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are > they > >>>> there? > >>>> > >>>> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space. > >>>> > >>>> * I think the private sector and the technical community should > reflect > >>>> on their strategies > >>> > >>> What is their strategy(ies)? > >> Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond > >> themselves. > >>> > >>> ... they work in the short term, but will they work > >>>> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from > certain > >>>> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to > >>>> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the > process > >>>> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want > to > >>>> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet > access, > >>>> regulation, openness etc. issues. > >>> > >>> How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well > >>> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the > >>> most influential group by far in the MAG." > >>> > >> Two different 'theys'. > >> > >> It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have > >> never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech > >> community. > >> > >> Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate. > >> Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort > >> to comment on the IGF programme. > >> > >> I believe they should work inside the IGF space. > >> > >> But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's > >> legitimacy and impact. > >> > >> My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with > >> developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or > >> get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you > >> don't have very well though out positions it is even harder. > >> > >> Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers? > >> What do MAG members think? > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >>> ?? > >>> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >> executive director > >> association for progressive communications > >> www.apc.org > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> To 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 > > > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Feb 26 14:19:27 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:19:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Montreux References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody here are some observations from the IGF Improvement meeting in Montreux. 1. The first and most important point is that nobody challenged the participation of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders as equals in the discussion and in the future drafting of the final report. After the two December meetings of the UNCSTD this was not so obviously expected. Even the government of Iran said that it values the contribution of non-governmental stakeholders in the process since 2003. There was no hostile climate. In contrary, contributions from all five CS reps in the WG were taken as very helpful and reasonable input. 2. A lot of time was wasted with the discussion on procedureal issues. The discussion on substantial issues circeled for hours around the questions of the "linkage" of the IGF. India, Egypt but also Brazil used the languge of the UNGA resolution which says that the IGF should be linked to the "broader dialogue on Internet Governance". Some pepole in the room had the impression that this is not a good language because the broadest dialogue is the IGF itself. And there was some mistrust that this could become a formula to put the IGF under the "enhanced cooperation" discussion in the UNGA. Alternative proposed language was to link the IGF to "other dialogues" but India and Egypt insisted in the "accepted language" which, BTW, was introduced by the US government during the negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA in New York in November 2010. However both Egypt and India accepted an interpretiaton that one of the functions of the IGF is to bring information to other dialogues and that this formulation (in the headline of Chapter 2 of the forthcoming report) will not include any formal sub-ordination of the IGF under "another dialogue". My comment here is that it is rather obvious that on the one hand IGF and EC are two different processes which are not formally interlinked but there are some trade offs on the other hand. The IBSA was not discussed in detail. This will remain an open question. Russia proposed again to link the IGF with the WSIS Forum but produced protest against any form of "merger". In a second interventon Russia clarified that they did not propose "merger" but wanted to use "synergies" to avoid the waste of resources. There was no support for a closer linkage between the two fora. 3. The debate about outcome did not create any new ideas. There was a broad consensus that the IGF should not become a "negotiation body", should not produce any "negotiated language" or "binding recommendations", but should produce something which people can take home and read within "ten minutes" and show their constituencies as "outcome". My impression was that more and more stakeholders, including governments, can live with "messages". The proposed procedure to generate the messages was not discussed in detail but the proposal to have nominated rapporteurs for each workshop and plenary who have to produce one to three "short messages" from the discussion was seen as a reasonable approach. This would guaratee that there is a distributed system of messages production which would reduce the risk of capture of the drafting by one single group. 50 workshops would mean 50 - 150 messages from 50 rapporteurs. 4. Another key issues was the role and function of the MAG. The idea to have the MAG (or the secretariat) like a bureau was mentioned but got no suprport. The majority was in favour of a more open MAG, more open consultations and a right mixture between continuation and rotation in the membership. A related question was the financing of the secretariat. India and Egypt called for a stable public funding (to become independen from voluntary contributions) but they did not say where the money should come from. 5. The broader involvement of developing countries was discussed at length. There was a broad consensus among all participants that the participation of developing countries - both governments and non-govenrmental stakeholders - has to be broadend. There was an outspoken wish to strengthen in particular civil society organisations and small and medium enterprises in developing countries and to enable them to participate more actively in IGF activities. 6. There was a clear support for a stronger linkage between the global IGF and national and regional IGFs. On the other hand, dynamic coalitions were not really discussed. There was a proposal to have in between the global IGFs also "thematic IGFs" but also here no concrete step was planned. 7. The meeting decided not to go into the details of how to organize workshops, plenaries, feeder workshops etc. Some proposals were made how to improve the planning and the linkage between the various sessions within an IGF, but this has to be further discussed. 8. The only thing (but this is not bad) the group could agree after two days is the structure of the planned report to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011. There is now an informal drafting group which will work together with the Secretariat to draft the report for the next meeting, scheduled for March 24/25, 2011 in Geneva. I want to thank all friends of the IGC and the civil society for their input. CS played and active and recognized role and made very valuable contributions to the process. At the end Anriette, Parminder and other raised even the issue to increase the number of CS people in the various forthcoming groups because CS is different from the other non-governmentwl stakeholders (broader, more diverse etc.). Nobody really objetced this but there was no time left for a discussion, Lets wait and see where we will go from here. 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 aizu at anr.org Sat Feb 26 15:23:01 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:23:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thank you Wolfgang for your quite precise and concise summary. Since I had to leave earlier than the meeting's closure, I could not capture what was the closing, especially with regard to the "drafting group" since several members including USG and business were not supporting the creation of such drafting group consist of WG members, but rather to task it to the secretariat, to me that is not the right path. I would like to underscore what Wolfgang mentioned here about the good acceptance and recognition of Civil society members and our inputs - compared with December where it was very different. I spoke with India, Egypt, and some other gov members informally during brakes and they are really trying to accommodate us as peer members, and valuing our input (and other stakeholders input). No one questioned the composition of drafting group include non-gov stakeholders - yes, we had some difference between CS and business for the number of members to the drafting group. CS wanted to have more numbers than other stakeholders since we are much more diverse than, say business or academic/tech community. They disagreed and tried to keep equal number. This does not mean, please, that CS members were supporting G77 position on outcome. As far as I can tell, no CS members took that position per se. izumi 2011/2/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > Hi everybody > > here are some observations from the IGF Improvement meeting in Montreux. > > 1. The first and most important point is that nobody challenged the participation of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders as equals in the discussion and in the future drafting of the final report. After the two December meetings of the UNCSTD this was not so obviously expected. Even the government of Iran said that it values the contribution of non-governmental stakeholders in the process since 2003. There was no hostile climate. In contrary, contributions from all five CS reps in the WG were taken as very helpful and reasonable input. > > 2. A lot of time was wasted with the discussion on procedureal issues. The discussion on substantial issues circeled for hours around the questions of the "linkage" of the IGF. India, Egypt but also Brazil used the languge of the UNGA resolution which says that the IGF should be linked to the "broader dialogue on Internet Governance". Some pepole in the room had the impression that this is not a good language because the broadest dialogue is the IGF itself. And there was some mistrust that this could become a formula to put the IGF under the "enhanced cooperation" discussion in the UNGA. Alternative proposed language was to link the IGF to "other dialogues" but India and Egypt insisted in the "accepted language" which, BTW, was introduced by the US government during the negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA in New York in November 2010. However both Egypt and India accepted an interpretiaton that one of the functions of the IGF is to bring information to other dialogues and that this formulation (in the headline of Chapter 2 of the forthcoming report) will not include any formal sub-ordination of the IGF under "another dialogue". My comment here is that it is rather obvious that on the one hand IGF and EC are two different processes which are not formally interlinked but there are some trade offs on the other hand. The IBSA was not discussed in detail. This will remain an open question. Russia proposed again to link the IGF with the WSIS Forum but produced protest against any form of "merger". In a second interventon Russia clarified that they did not propose "merger" but wanted to use "synergies" to avoid the waste of resources. There was no support for a closer linkage between the two fora. > > 3. The debate about outcome did not create any new ideas. There was a broad consensus that the IGF should not become a "negotiation body", should not produce any "negotiated language" or "binding recommendations", but should produce something which people can take home and read within "ten minutes" and show their constituencies as "outcome". My impression was that more and more stakeholders, including governments, can live with "messages".  The proposed procedure to generate the messages was not discussed in detail but the proposal to have nominated rapporteurs for each workshop and plenary who have to produce one to three "short messages" from the discussion was seen as a reasonable approach. This would guaratee that there is a distributed system of messages production which would reduce the risk of capture of the drafting by one single group. 50 workshops would mean 50 - 150 messages from 50 rapporteurs. > > 4. Another key issues was the role and function of the MAG. The idea to have the MAG (or the secretariat) like a bureau was mentioned but got no suprport. The majority was in favour of a more open MAG, more open consultations and a right mixture between continuation and rotation in the membership. A related question was the financing of the secretariat. India and Egypt called for a stable public funding (to become independen from voluntary contributions) but they did not say where the money should come from. > > 5. The broader involvement of developing countries was discussed at length. There was a broad consensus among all participants that the participation of developing countries - both governments and non-govenrmental stakeholders - has to be broadend. There was an outspoken wish to strengthen in particular civil society organisations and small and medium enterprises in developing countries and to enable them to participate more actively in IGF activities. > > 6. There was a clear support for a stronger linkage between the global IGF and national and regional IGFs. On the other hand, dynamic coalitions were not really discussed. There was a proposal to have in between the global IGFs also "thematic IGFs" but also here no concrete step was planned. > > 7. The meeting decided not to go into the details of how to organize workshops, plenaries, feeder workshops etc. Some proposals were made how to improve the planning and the linkage between the various sessions within an IGF, but this has to be further discussed. > > 8. The only thing (but this is not bad) the group could agree after two days is the structure of the planned report to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011. There is now an informal drafting group which will work together with the Secretariat to draft the report for the next meeting, scheduled for March 24/25, 2011 in Geneva. > > I want to thank all friends of the IGC and the civil society for their input. CS played and active and recognized role and made very valuable contributions to the process. At the end Anriette, Parminder and other raised even the issue to increase the number of CS people in the various forthcoming groups because CS is different from the other non-governmentwl stakeholders (broader, more diverse etc.). Nobody really objetced this but there was no time left for a discussion, Lets wait and see where we will go from here. > > 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 > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 15:30:52 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:30:52 +0300 Subject: AW: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D67953A.6000507@gih.com> Message-ID: 2011/2/26 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > omg > > Does the $90million cover include costs for unmet SLAs and exposures to > service providers? Although they are exempt from litigation, I suppose > because they were legislated to disconnect. This very act of using a "kill > switch" supports the argument for removing control from a national level to > an international level. NO, IT DOESN'T!! It supports the idea that "control" over the Internet is not at all useful. > > The only question That is not at all the only question. is whether there would be tiered controls or not. I > suppose the arguments would have to come under the ICESCR and perhaps a new > schedule within the GATS - creation of options. > > But first, we would have to revise or add on Montesqiue, Locke and Hobbe's > philosophy to capture the basis of possible controls and who should have > control. People should have control over their own networks. Governments can control their own. Haven't we learned ANYTHING in the last 6 weeks? Do you honestly believe that a government that feels threatened is going to abide by an international agreement NOT to shut off communications to its citizens? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Feb 26 15:34:58 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 21:34:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:23, Izumi AIZU wrote: > This does not mean, please, that CS members were supporting G77 > position on outcome. As far as I can tell, no > CS members took that position per se. Happy to hear that. Glad the rumor mill was wrong this time. And glad I asked. a. ps. "per se"? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 15:46:17 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:46:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: well, ignore "per se" please. I will explain in more factual manner with my note in the different thread. izumi 2011/2/27 Avri Doria : > > On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:23, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> This does not mean, please, that CS members were supporting G77 >> position on outcome. As far as I can tell, no >> CS members took that position per se. > > > Happy to hear that. > > Glad the rumor mill was wrong this time. > And glad I asked. > > a. > > > ps.  "per se"? > __ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Feb 26 15:48:01 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:48:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, thanks for the report. In relation to outcomes you mention in 3. below, was the Chair's summary mentioned? I also liked Brazil's suggestion during the open consultation on Wednesday to try and develop principles from discussions at the IGF, not as something to be produced as a specific outcome of each meeting, but develop/emerge overtime . Adam >Hi everybody > >here are some observations from the IGF Improvement meeting in Montreux. > >1. The first and most important point is that >nobody challenged the participation of civil >society and other non-governmental stakeholders >as equals in the discussion and in the future >drafting of the final report. After the two >December meetings of the UNCSTD this was not so >obviously expected. Even the government of Iran >said that it values the contribution of >non-governmental stakeholders in the process >since 2003. There was no hostile climate. In >contrary, contributions from all five CS reps in >the WG were taken as very helpful and reasonable >input. > >2. A lot of time was wasted with the discussion >on procedureal issues. The discussion on >substantial issues circeled for hours around the >questions of the "linkage" of the IGF. India, >Egypt but also Brazil used the languge of the >UNGA resolution which says that the IGF should >be linked to the "broader dialogue on Internet >Governance". Some pepole in the room had the >impression that this is not a good language >because the broadest dialogue is the IGF itself. >And there was some mistrust that this could >become a formula to put the IGF under the >"enhanced cooperation" discussion in the UNGA. >Alternative proposed language was to link the >IGF to "other dialogues" but India and Egypt >insisted in the "accepted language" which, BTW, >was introduced by the US government during the >negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA in >New York in November 2010. However both Egypt >and India accepted an interpretiaton that one of >the functions of the IGF is to bring information >to other dialogues and that this formulation (in >the headline of Chapter 2 of the forthcoming >report) will not include any formal >sub-ordination of the IGF under "another >dialogue". My comment here is that it is rather >obvious that on the one hand IGF and EC are two >different processes which are not formally >interlinked but there are some trade offs on the >other hand. The IBSA was not discussed in >detail. This will remain an open question. >Russia proposed again to link the IGF with the >WSIS Forum but produced protest against any form >of "merger". In a second interventon Russia >clarified that they did not propose "merger" but >wanted to use "synergies" to avoid the waste of >resources. There was no support for a closer >linkage between the two fora.   > >3. The debate about outcome did not create any >new ideas. There was a broad consensus that the >IGF should not become a "negotiation body", >should not produce any "negotiated language" or >"binding recommendations", but should produce >something which people can take home and read >within "ten minutes" and show their >constituencies as "outcome". My impression was >that more and more stakeholders, including >governments, can live with "messages". The >proposed procedure to generate the messages was >not discussed in detail but the proposal to have >nominated rapporteurs for each workshop and >plenary who have to produce one to three "short >messages" from the discussion was seen as a >reasonable approach. This would guaratee that >there is a distributed system of messages >production which would reduce the risk of >capture of the drafting by one single group. 50 >workshops would mean 50 - 150 messages from 50 >rapporteurs. > >4. Another key issues was the role and function >of the MAG. The idea to have the MAG (or the >secretariat) like a bureau was mentioned but got >no suprport. The majority was in favour of a >more open MAG, more open consultations and a >right mixture between continuation and rotation >in the membership. A related question was the >financing of the secretariat. India and Egypt >called for a stable public funding (to become >independen from voluntary contributions) but >they did not say where the money should come >from. > >5. The broader involvement of developing >countries was discussed at length. There was a >broad consensus among all participants that the >participation of developing countries - both >governments and non-govenrmental stakeholders - >has to be broadend. There was an outspoken wish >to strengthen in particular civil society >organisations and small and medium enterprises >in developing countries and to enable them to >participate more actively in IGF activities. > >6. There was a clear support for a stronger >linkage between the global IGF and national and >regional IGFs. On the other hand, dynamic >coalitions were not really discussed. There was >a proposal to have in between the global IGFs >also "thematic IGFs" but also here no concrete >step was planned. > >7. The meeting decided not to go into the >details of how to organize workshops, plenaries, >feeder workshops etc. Some proposals were made >how to improve the planning and the linkage >between the various sessions within an IGF, but >this has to be further discussed. > >8. The only thing (but this is not bad) the >group could agree after two days is the >structure of the planned report to the UNCSTD >meeting in May 2011. There is now an informal >drafting group which will work together with the >Secretariat to draft the report for the next >meeting, scheduled for March 24/25, 2011 in >Geneva. > >I want to thank all friends of the IGC and the >civil society for their input. CS played and >active and recognized role and made very >valuable contributions to the process. At the >end Anriette, Parminder and other raised even >the issue to increase the number of CS people in >the various forthcoming groups because CS is >different from the other non-governmentwl >stakeholders (broader, more diverse etc.). >Nobody really objetced this but there was no >time left for a discussion, Lets wait and see >where we will go from here. > >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 iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 15:52:14 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:52:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, thank you for the clarification question, It helps. Now at CDG airport, I have the luxury of spending three hours in the lounge with access to wifi, electricity and some foods and drinks. My crude note is as follows - please understand this is very rough and just for reference only. I also made some editing so as not to create problems by some members. Parminder, allow me to "quote" your comments - I mean please correct here if my note is not accurate. India How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap need more tangible outcome, or recommendations continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public policy issues, asking for an answer questions be agreed upon by MAGs, policy concerns only on global level Outcome documents – to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA Parminder desire to move to this direction non-binding, through MAG process, open prep process, IGF, post IGF Brazil support Indian proposal – have ability to gather different opinions from different stakeholders we need to go further means for participation – from developing countries National and regional IGFs seek inputs for basic guidelines for National and Regional IGFs not bureaucratic, formal structure from Izumi’s remarks, we learn from civil society, or business, but also you can learn from governments, on transparency, accountability etc Chair Summing: 1) How to bring outcomes, bring more visibility, better 2) Collaboration with other fora, including national and regional Parminder Message goes to CSTD, not negotiated, but just a report of IGF without having parity of CSTD document, as such Idea of process is quite flexible Izumi CS have diverse views on Indian proposal direction, personally it’s in the right direction. but be it flexible, lightweight and decentralized lightweight – use Internet applications as much as possible, if not facebook [end of note on this part] ---- What I meant with my comment is "right direction" for outcome oriented, but "decentralized" - not going to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA in a mechanical manner for their decision making at all. India was asked to make their proposal in writing by the Chair, but at least I have not seen that happened until I have left the room. Brazil came up with the following language *as draft* "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where there are differing views and alternative suggestions." While Indian proposal clearly mentioned about CSTD - ECOSOC - GA, the phrase above does not include these specific UN bodies for the outcome. In this sense Brazil captured the sense of the room collectively, and did not give explicit support to Indian' proposal in details. But some governments did not accept that Brazil writes the summary of the meeting. And we did not have time to discuss around this further, and I don't think we reached any consensus on these points. To me, t was more of brain-storming than, say negotiation, I felt. I might be naiive, but this is what I brought back. Please also note that IGC made the following statement in the questionnaire in November as our consensus document. http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 "As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF which contributed a great deal." "a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or common framework. Working process towards achieving the consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders." I was quite aware of these and tried to stick with these lines. I hope these will provide some more clarification. izumi 2011/2/27 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? > > If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. > > If not, glad to hear it. > > a. > > _______________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Feb 26 15:54:17 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:54:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> Message-ID: Just one more. I made it very clear that my comments on outcomes are very much of personal view and not representing CS/IGC view. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Feb 26 17:19:59 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:19:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> Message-ID: <4732A78C-3F51-4C4A-8C7B-939448939668@acm.org> Hi, Thanks for the update. Personally I think that there is a pretty large difference between: "outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related to Internet Governance issues. " and "Message goes to CSTD," - One can be seen as sending messages to the organization responsible for Internet governance such as those who are dong the job how - And one can be seen as reporting to a UN body as if it were an organization responsible for Internet governance. At the very least it does look like we are on a very slippery slope sliding toward having the CSTD recommending UN control , by ECOSOC and the GA since that is who CSTD reports, over Internet governance with at least some of the CS representatives advocating that point of view. In my opinion this is frightening. a. On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:52, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi Avri, thank you for the clarification question, It helps. > Now at CDG airport, I have the luxury of spending > three hours in the lounge with access to wifi, electricity > and some foods and drinks. > > My crude note is as follows - please understand this is very rough and > just for reference only. I also made some editing so as not to create > problems by some members. > > Parminder, allow me to "quote" your comments - I mean please correct > here if my note is not accurate. > > India > How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap > need more tangible outcome, or recommendations > continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public > policy issues, asking for an answer > questions be agreed upon by MAGs, policy concerns only on global level > > Outcome documents – to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA > > Parminder > desire to move to this direction > non-binding, through MAG process, open prep process, IGF, post IGF > > > Brazil > support Indian proposal – > have ability to gather different opinions from different stakeholders > we need to go further > means for participation – from developing countries > > National and regional IGFs > seek inputs for basic guidelines for National and Regional IGFs > not bureaucratic, formal structure > from Izumi’s remarks, we learn from civil society, or business, but > also you can learn from governments, on transparency, accountability > etc > > Chair > Summing: > 1) How to bring outcomes, bring more visibility, better > 2) Collaboration with other fora, including national and regional > > Parminder > Message goes to CSTD, not negotiated, but just a report of IGF without > having parity of CSTD document, as such > Idea of process is quite flexible > > Izumi > CS have diverse views on Indian proposal direction, > personally it’s in the right direction. > but be it flexible, lightweight and decentralized > lightweight – use Internet applications as much as possible, if not facebook > > [end of note on this part] > ---- > > What I meant with my comment is "right direction" for outcome > oriented, but "decentralized" - not going to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA in a > mechanical manner for their > decision making at all. > > India was asked to make their proposal in writing by the Chair, but at > least I have not seen that happened until I have left the room. > > Brazil came up with the following language *as draft* > > "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these > outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related > to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be > considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect > convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where > there are differing views and alternative suggestions." > > While Indian proposal clearly mentioned about CSTD - ECOSOC - GA, the > phrase above does not include these specific UN bodies for the > outcome. In this sense Brazil > captured the sense of the room collectively, and did not > give explicit support to Indian' proposal in details. > > But some governments did not accept that Brazil writes the summary of > the meeting. > > And we did not have time to discuss around this further, and > I don't think we reached any consensus on these points. > > To me, t was more of brain-storming than, say negotiation, I felt. I > might be naiive, but this is what I brought back. > > Please also note that IGC made the following statement in the > questionnaire in November as our consensus document. > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 > > "As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF > primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction > might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be > carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF > which contributed a great deal." > > "a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of > recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] > consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as > model, reference or common framework. Working process towards > achieving the consensus will create better and deeper understandings > amongst different stakeholders." > > I was quite aware of these and tried to stick with these lines. > > I hope these will provide some more clarification. > > izumi > > 2011/2/27 Avri Doria : >> Hi, >> >> Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? >> >> If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. >> >> If not, glad to hear it. >> >> a. >> >> _______________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 19:50:19 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:50:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thank you Wolfgang, awesome hearing and seeing the events through your concise report. You guys are all doing a great job! 2011/2/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi everybody > > here are some observations from the IGF Improvement meeting in Montreux. > > 1. The first and most important point is that nobody challenged the > participation of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders as > equals in the discussion and in the future drafting of the final report. *Awesome! :) This is critical as "watchdog" in light of the diverse forms of government where "due process" may not have been followed within their respective countries and a wider spectrum of views that could have been considered were not considered before reaching an official position.* > After the two December meetings of the UNCSTD this was not so obviously > expected. Even the government of Iran said that it values the contribution > of non-governmental stakeholders in the process since 2003. *:)* > There was no hostile climate. contrary, contributions from all five CS > reps in the WG were taken as very helpful and reasonable input. > > 2. A lot of time was wasted with the discussion on procedureal issues. *Hmm, I wonder what the procedural issues were, although procedural issues are critical because sometimes substantive matters may not get heard if proper procedures are not followed, ie. locus to speak.* > The discussion on substantial issues circeled for hours around the > questions of the "linkage" of the IGF. India, Egypt but also Brazil used the > languge of the UNGA resolution which says that the IGF should be linked to > the "broader dialogue on Internet Governance". Some pepole in the room had > the impression that this is not a good language because the broadest > dialogue is the IGF itself. And there was some mistrust that this could > become a formula to put the IGF under the "enhanced cooperation" discussion > in the UNGA. Alternative proposed language was to link the IGF to "other > dialogues" but India and Egypt insisted in the "accepted language" which, > BTW, was introduced by the US government during the negotiations in the 2nd > Committee of the UNGA in New York in November 2010. However both Egypt and > India accepted an interpretiaton that one of the functions of the IGF is to > bring information to other dialogues and that this formulation (in the > headline of Chapter 2 of the forthcoming report) will not include any formal > sub-ordination of the IGF under "another dialogue". > My comment here is that it is rather obvious that on the one hand IGF and > EC are two different processes which are not formally interlinked but there > are some trade offs on the other hand. The IBSA was not discussed in detail. > This will remain an open question. Russia proposed again to link the IGF > with the WSIS Forum but produced protest against any form of "merger". In a > second interventon Russia clarified that they did not propose "merger" but > wanted to use "synergies" to avoid the waste of resources. There was no > support for a closer linkage between the two fora. > > 3. The debate about outcome did not create any new ideas. There was a broad > consensus that the IGF should not become a "negotiation body", should not > produce any "negotiated language" or "binding recommendations", but should > produce something which people can take home and read within "ten minutes" > and show their constituencies as "outcome". *I agree that the IGF should not become a "negotiation body" nor make binding recommendations but should be a resource source for policy analysts, writers, decision makers to allow them to see the diverse perspectives. That the IGF should be present in meetings and their views should be heard to allow the technocrats, beauraucrats, autocrats and all the other possible crats to hear what the other perspectives are before arriving at a consensus or decision. But developing countries who do not have the capacity may opt to consider the IGF and give it consultative status and even help to guide their government positions, if invited to by governments.* > My impression was that more and more stakeholders, including governments, > can live with "messages". The proposed procedure to generate the messages > was not discussed in detail but the proposal to have nominated rapporteurs > for each workshop and plenary who have to produce one to three "short > messages" from the discussion was seen as a reasonable approach. This would > guaratee that there is a distributed system of messages production which > would reduce the risk of capture of the drafting by one single group. 50 > workshops would mean 50 - 150 messages from 50 rapporteurs. > *Awesome* > > 4. Another key issues was the role and function of the MAG. The idea to > have the MAG (or the secretariat) like a bureau was mentioned but got no > suprport. The majority was in favour of a more open MAG, more open > consultations and a right mixture between continuation and rotation in the > membership. A related question was the financing of the secretariat. India > and Egypt called for a stable public funding (to become independen from > voluntary contributions) but they did not say where the money should come > from. > > 5. The broader involvement of developing countries was discussed at length. > There was a broad consensus among all participants that the participation of > developing countries - both governments and non-govenrmental stakeholders - > has to be broadend. There was an outspoken wish to strengthen in particular > civil society organisations and small and medium enterprises in developing > countries and to enable them to participate more actively in IGF activities. > Absolutely! > > 6. There was a clear support for a stronger linkage between the global IGF > and national and regional IGFs. On the other hand, dynamic coalitions were > not really discussed. There was a proposal to have in between the global > IGFs also "thematic IGFs" but also here no concrete step was planned. > Awesome! > > 7. The meeting decided not to go into the details of how to organize > workshops, plenaries, feeder workshops etc. Some proposals were made how to > improve the planning and the linkage between the various sessions within an > IGF, but this has to be further discussed. > > 8. The only thing (but this is not bad) the group could agree after two > days is the structure of the planned report to the UNCSTD meeting in May > 2011. There is now an informal drafting group which will work together with > the Secretariat to draft the report for the next meeting, scheduled for > March 24/25, 2011 in Geneva. > > I want to thank all friends of the IGC and the civil society for their > input. CS played and active and recognized role and made very valuable > contributions to the process. At the end Anriette, Parminder and other > raised even the issue to increase the number of CS people in the various > forthcoming groups because CS is different from the other non-governmentwl > stakeholders (broader, more diverse etc.). Nobody really objetced this but > there was no time left for a discussion, Lets wait and see where we will go > from here. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Feb 26 22:25:47 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:25:47 +1200 Subject: AW: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D67953A.6000507@gih.com> Message-ID: Whether we choose to see it or not, the internet is regulated by virtue of licensing and regulating authorities over ISP and Telecommunications authorities through interconnection arrangements that allow for the transmission over content. When I said the "only question", I meant my only question. There should be controls but how much control and what levels of control is the question that 21st century philosphers will have to ponder on. On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:30 AM, McTim wrote: > 2011/2/26 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>: > > omg > > > > Does the $90million cover include costs for unmet SLAs and exposures to > > service providers? Although they are exempt from litigation, I suppose > > because they were legislated to disconnect. This very act of using a > "kill > > switch" supports the argument for removing control from a national level > to > > an international level. > > > NO, IT DOESN'T!! It supports the idea that "control" over the > Internet is not at all useful. > > > > > > > The only question > > That is not at all the only question. > > > > > is whether there would be tiered controls or not. I > > suppose the arguments would have to come under the ICESCR and perhaps a > new > > schedule within the GATS - creation of options. > > > > But first, we would have to revise or add on Montesqiue, Locke and > Hobbe's > > philosophy to capture the basis of possible controls and who should have > > control. > > People should have control over their own networks. Governments can > control their own. Haven't we learned ANYTHING in the last 6 weeks? > > Do you honestly believe that a government that feels threatened is > going to abide by an international agreement NOT to shut off > communications to its citizens? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Feb 26 23:09:57 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:09:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/02/2011, at 10:09 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these > outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related > to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be > considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect > convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where > there are differing views and alternative suggestions." This would be a positive step forward if accepted. WGIG is the most obvious example of how the non-binding text with alternative options, drafted by a multi-stakeholder working group, can still be persuasive and useful. -- 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 for Fair Financial Services World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011 Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and competitive markets in financial services for all. http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Feb 27 01:03:18 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:03:18 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: moving more References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <4732A78C-3F51-4C4A-8C7B-939448939668@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB45@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Avri your concerns are valid but this was t so decided. There was no discussion about an formal reporting mechanism. However it depends now from the concrete formulations in the report what is the understanding of "linking". BTW there is no formal drafting group but an open working group which will discuss the draft of the secretariat two days before the next meeting. w ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Sa 26.02.2011 23:19 An: IGC Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: moving more Hi, Thanks for the update. Personally I think that there is a pretty large difference between: "outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related to Internet Governance issues. " and "Message goes to CSTD," - One can be seen as sending messages to the organization responsible for Internet governance such as those who are dong the job how - And one can be seen as reporting to a UN body as if it were an organization responsible for Internet governance. At the very least it does look like we are on a very slippery slope sliding toward having the CSTD recommending UN control , by ECOSOC and the GA since that is who CSTD reports, over Internet governance with at least some of the CS representatives advocating that point of view. In my opinion this is frightening. a. On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:52, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi Avri, thank you for the clarification question, It helps. > Now at CDG airport, I have the luxury of spending > three hours in the lounge with access to wifi, electricity > and some foods and drinks. > > My crude note is as follows - please understand this is very rough and > just for reference only. I also made some editing so as not to create > problems by some members. > > Parminder, allow me to "quote" your comments - I mean please correct > here if my note is not accurate. > > India > How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap > need more tangible outcome, or recommendations > continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public > policy issues, asking for an answer > questions be agreed upon by MAGs, policy concerns only on global level > > Outcome documents - to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA > > Parminder > desire to move to this direction > non-binding, through MAG process, open prep process, IGF, post IGF > > > Brazil > support Indian proposal - > have ability to gather different opinions from different stakeholders > we need to go further > means for participation - from developing countries > > National and regional IGFs > seek inputs for basic guidelines for National and Regional IGFs > not bureaucratic, formal structure > from Izumi's remarks, we learn from civil society, or business, but > also you can learn from governments, on transparency, accountability > etc > > Chair > Summing: > 1) How to bring outcomes, bring more visibility, better > 2) Collaboration with other fora, including national and regional > > Parminder > Message goes to CSTD, not negotiated, but just a report of IGF without > having parity of CSTD document, as such > Idea of process is quite flexible > > Izumi > CS have diverse views on Indian proposal direction, > personally it's in the right direction. > but be it flexible, lightweight and decentralized > lightweight - use Internet applications as much as possible, if not facebook > > [end of note on this part] > ---- > > What I meant with my comment is "right direction" for outcome > oriented, but "decentralized" - not going to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA in a > mechanical manner for their > decision making at all. > > India was asked to make their proposal in writing by the Chair, but at > least I have not seen that happened until I have left the room. > > Brazil came up with the following language *as draft* > > "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these > outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related > to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be > considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect > convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where > there are differing views and alternative suggestions." > > While Indian proposal clearly mentioned about CSTD - ECOSOC - GA, the > phrase above does not include these specific UN bodies for the > outcome. In this sense Brazil > captured the sense of the room collectively, and did not > give explicit support to Indian' proposal in details. > > But some governments did not accept that Brazil writes the summary of > the meeting. > > And we did not have time to discuss around this further, and > I don't think we reached any consensus on these points. > > To me, t was more of brain-storming than, say negotiation, I felt. I > might be naiive, but this is what I brought back. > > Please also note that IGC made the following statement in the > questionnaire in November as our consensus document. > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 > > "As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF > primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction > might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be > carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF > which contributed a great deal." > > "a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of > recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] > consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as > model, reference or common framework. Working process towards > achieving the consensus will create better and deeper understandings > amongst different stakeholders." > > I was quite aware of these and tried to stick with these lines. > > I hope these will provide some more clarification. > > izumi > > 2011/2/27 Avri Doria : >> Hi, >> >> Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? >> >> If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. >> >> If not, glad to hear it. >> >> a. >> >> _______________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Feb 27 03:46:24 2011 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:46:24 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB45@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <4732A78C-3F51-4C4A-8C7B-939448939668@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB45@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <62F424A9-AFE5-45F8-B759-E5CE42AD8577@ella.com> Hi Wolfgang, I appreciate your comments. It is, however, often a very small wording change from something tolerable to something intolerable. And as you know, probably better than me, it is in the review of text and in the end game that these simple word substitutions get made. A blink at the wrong moment could seriously threaten the bottom-up people centered nature of the Internet. So I truly appreciate your vigilance as a member of the CSTD WG. that is currently messing with the IGF's evolving bottom-up nature in a top-down manner. a. On 27 Feb 2011, at 07:03, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Avri > > your concerns are valid but this was t so decided. There was no discussion about an formal reporting mechanism. However it depends now from the concrete formulations in the report what is the understanding of "linking". BTW there is no formal drafting group but an open working group which will discuss the draft of the secretariat two days before the next meeting. > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Sa 26.02.2011 23:19 > An: IGC > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: moving more > > > > Hi, > > Thanks for the update. > > Personally I think that there is a pretty large difference between: > > "outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related > to Internet Governance issues. " > > and > > "Message goes to CSTD," > > - One can be seen as sending messages to the organization responsible for Internet governance such as those who are dong the job how > > - And one can be seen as reporting to a UN body as if it were an organization responsible for Internet governance. > > At the very least it does look like we are on a very slippery slope sliding toward having the CSTD recommending UN control , by ECOSOC and the GA since that is who CSTD reports, over Internet governance with at least some of the CS representatives advocating that point of view. > > In my opinion this is frightening. > > a. > > > > On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:52, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Hi Avri, thank you for the clarification question, It helps. >> Now at CDG airport, I have the luxury of spending >> three hours in the lounge with access to wifi, electricity >> and some foods and drinks. >> >> My crude note is as follows - please understand this is very rough and >> just for reference only. I also made some editing so as not to create >> problems by some members. >> >> Parminder, allow me to "quote" your comments - I mean please correct >> here if my note is not accurate. >> >> India >> How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap >> need more tangible outcome, or recommendations >> continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public >> policy issues, asking for an answer >> questions be agreed upon by MAGs, policy concerns only on global level >> >> Outcome documents - to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA >> >> Parminder >> desire to move to this direction >> non-binding, through MAG process, open prep process, IGF, post IGF >> >> >> Brazil >> support Indian proposal - >> have ability to gather different opinions from different stakeholders >> we need to go further >> means for participation - from developing countries >> >> National and regional IGFs >> seek inputs for basic guidelines for National and Regional IGFs >> not bureaucratic, formal structure >> from Izumi's remarks, we learn from civil society, or business, but >> also you can learn from governments, on transparency, accountability >> etc >> >> Chair >> Summing: >> 1) How to bring outcomes, bring more visibility, better >> 2) Collaboration with other fora, including national and regional >> >> Parminder >> Message goes to CSTD, not negotiated, but just a report of IGF without >> having parity of CSTD document, as such >> Idea of process is quite flexible >> >> Izumi >> CS have diverse views on Indian proposal direction, >> personally it's in the right direction. >> but be it flexible, lightweight and decentralized >> lightweight - use Internet applications as much as possible, if not facebook >> >> [end of note on this part] >> ---- >> >> What I meant with my comment is "right direction" for outcome >> oriented, but "decentralized" - not going to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA in a >> mechanical manner for their >> decision making at all. >> >> India was asked to make their proposal in writing by the Chair, but at >> least I have not seen that happened until I have left the room. >> >> Brazil came up with the following language *as draft* >> >> "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these >> outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related >> to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be >> considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect >> convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where >> there are differing views and alternative suggestions." >> >> While Indian proposal clearly mentioned about CSTD - ECOSOC - GA, the >> phrase above does not include these specific UN bodies for the >> outcome. In this sense Brazil >> captured the sense of the room collectively, and did not >> give explicit support to Indian' proposal in details. >> >> But some governments did not accept that Brazil writes the summary of >> the meeting. >> >> And we did not have time to discuss around this further, and >> I don't think we reached any consensus on these points. >> >> To me, t was more of brain-storming than, say negotiation, I felt. I >> might be naiive, but this is what I brought back. >> >> Please also note that IGC made the following statement in the >> questionnaire in November as our consensus document. >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 >> >> "As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF >> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction >> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be >> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF >> which contributed a great deal." >> >> "a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of >> recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] >> consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as >> model, reference or common framework. Working process towards >> achieving the consensus will create better and deeper understandings >> amongst different stakeholders." >> >> I was quite aware of these and tried to stick with these lines. >> >> I hope these will provide some more clarification. >> >> izumi >> >> 2011/2/27 Avri Doria : >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? >>> >>> If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. >>> >>> If not, glad to hear it. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Feb 27 04:05:58 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:05:58 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: moving more References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <4732A78C-3F51-4C4A-8C7B-939448939668@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB45@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <62F424A9-AFE5-45F8-B759-E5CE42AD8577@ella.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB46@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Avri Montreux was not "top down". In contrary, I was positively surprised that "bottom up" is seen now by everybody (who spoke) as a consensus principle for the IGF. I do not see - at the moment - that somebody wants to put an oversightr body over the IGF. However, you are right, the IGF operates under a mechanism which gives the UN General Assembly (via UNCSTD and ECOSOC) a special role. But this is the case since 2005. One conclustion is to strengthen the collaboration with governments who favour MS and bottom up. w From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Avri Doria Sent: Sun 2/27/2011 9:46 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Re: moving more Hi Wolfgang, I appreciate your comments. It is, however, often a very small wording change from something tolerable to something intolerable. And as you know, probably better than me, it is in the review of text and in the end game that these simple word substitutions get made. A blink at the wrong moment could seriously threaten the bottom-up people centered nature of the Internet. So I truly appreciate your vigilance as a member of the CSTD WG. that is currently messing with the IGF's evolving bottom-up nature in a top-down manner. a. On 27 Feb 2011, at 07:03, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Avri > > your concerns are valid but this was t so decided. There was no discussion about an formal reporting mechanism. However it depends now from the concrete formulations in the report what is the understanding of "linking". BTW there is no formal drafting group but an open working group which will discuss the draft of the secretariat two days before the next meeting. > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Sa 26.02.2011 23:19 > An: IGC > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: moving more > > > > Hi, > > Thanks for the update. > > Personally I think that there is a pretty large difference between: > > "outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related > to Internet Governance issues. " > > and > > "Message goes to CSTD," > > - One can be seen as sending messages to the organization responsible for Internet governance such as those who are dong the job how > > - And one can be seen as reporting to a UN body as if it were an organization responsible for Internet governance. > > At the very least it does look like we are on a very slippery slope sliding toward having the CSTD recommending UN control , by ECOSOC and the GA since that is who CSTD reports, over Internet governance with at least some of the CS representatives advocating that point of view. > > In my opinion this is frightening. > > a. > > > > On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:52, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Hi Avri, thank you for the clarification question, It helps. >> Now at CDG airport, I have the luxury of spending >> three hours in the lounge with access to wifi, electricity >> and some foods and drinks. >> >> My crude note is as follows - please understand this is very rough and >> just for reference only. I also made some editing so as not to create >> problems by some members. >> >> Parminder, allow me to "quote" your comments - I mean please correct >> here if my note is not accurate. >> >> India >> How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap >> need more tangible outcome, or recommendations >> continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public >> policy issues, asking for an answer >> questions be agreed upon by MAGs, policy concerns only on global level >> >> Outcome documents - to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA >> >> Parminder >> desire to move to this direction >> non-binding, through MAG process, open prep process, IGF, post IGF >> >> >> Brazil >> support Indian proposal - >> have ability to gather different opinions from different stakeholders >> we need to go further >> means for participation - from developing countries >> >> National and regional IGFs >> seek inputs for basic guidelines for National and Regional IGFs >> not bureaucratic, formal structure >> from Izumi's remarks, we learn from civil society, or business, but >> also you can learn from governments, on transparency, accountability >> etc >> >> Chair >> Summing: >> 1) How to bring outcomes, bring more visibility, better >> 2) Collaboration with other fora, including national and regional >> >> Parminder >> Message goes to CSTD, not negotiated, but just a report of IGF without >> having parity of CSTD document, as such >> Idea of process is quite flexible >> >> Izumi >> CS have diverse views on Indian proposal direction, >> personally it's in the right direction. >> but be it flexible, lightweight and decentralized >> lightweight - use Internet applications as much as possible, if not facebook >> >> [end of note on this part] >> ---- >> >> What I meant with my comment is "right direction" for outcome >> oriented, but "decentralized" - not going to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA in a >> mechanical manner for their >> decision making at all. >> >> India was asked to make their proposal in writing by the Chair, but at >> least I have not seen that happened until I have left the room. >> >> Brazil came up with the following language *as draft* >> >> "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these >> outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related >> to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be >> considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect >> convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where >> there are differing views and alternative suggestions." >> >> While Indian proposal clearly mentioned about CSTD - ECOSOC - GA, the >> phrase above does not include these specific UN bodies for the >> outcome. In this sense Brazil >> captured the sense of the room collectively, and did not >> give explicit support to Indian' proposal in details. >> >> But some governments did not accept that Brazil writes the summary of >> the meeting. >> >> And we did not have time to discuss around this further, and >> I don't think we reached any consensus on these points. >> >> To me, t was more of brain-storming than, say negotiation, I felt. I >> might be naiive, but this is what I brought back. >> >> Please also note that IGC made the following statement in the >> questionnaire in November as our consensus document. >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 >> >> "As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF >> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction >> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be >> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF >> which contributed a great deal." >> >> "a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of >> recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] >> consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as >> model, reference or common framework. Working process towards >> achieving the consensus will create better and deeper understandings >> amongst different stakeholders." >> >> I was quite aware of these and tried to stick with these lines. >> >> I hope these will provide some more clarification. >> >> izumi >> >> 2011/2/27 Avri Doria : >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? >>> >>> If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. >>> >>> If not, glad to hear it. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Feb 27 04:40:45 2011 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:40:45 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB46@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <4732A78C-3F51-4C4A-8C7B-939448939668@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB45@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <62F424A9-AFE5-45F8-B759-E5CE42AD8577@ella.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB46@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, We probably have a different definition of top down versus bottom-up. Something for a discussion some evening at the IG Summer School and elsewhere. When a select group in full transparency makes its recommendations based on discussions held by an open consultative process that are open to comment and revision by that open consultative process we have something that approaches bottom-up (though of course there is always a movement in public policy process between the people and those chosen to represent - when those chosen to represent admit to being representatives - and back to the people and back to the representatives until an annealing point is reached) we have something that I think approaches a bottom-up process. I think many of the I* organization (including the IGF itself) show variations on this dynamic. On the other hand when there is a group of people, even if they are not all government employees, acting in their own capacity making recommendations to an intergovernmental body for another intergovernmental body to approve, i tend to think it is an essentially top-down process. True not all top-down processes are bad, some can be quite benevolent, but that does not stop them from being essentially top-down. I have every hope that the CSTD WG process will be benevolent, and from what you and Izumi are saying it sounds like it started out that way. And yes, we are all so grateful that they let you in the room and treated you as peers. That was generous of them, and I am sure that as long as you all behave, they will continue to let you speak as equals. a. On 27 Feb 2011, at 10:05, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > Hi Avri > > Montreux was not "top down". In contrary, I was positively surprised that "bottom up" is seen now by everybody (who spoke) as a consensus principle for the IGF. I do not see - at the moment - that somebody wants to put an oversightr body over the IGF. However, you are right, the IGF operates under a mechanism which gives the UN General Assembly (via UNCSTD and ECOSOC) a special role. But this is the case since 2005. > > One conclustion is to strengthen the collaboration with governments who favour MS and bottom up. > > w > > > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Avri Doria > Sent: Sun 2/27/2011 9:46 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Re: moving more > > Hi Wolfgang, > > I appreciate your comments. > > It is, however, often a very small wording change from something tolerable to something intolerable. And as you know, probably better than me, it is in the review of text and in the end game that these simple word substitutions get made. A blink at the wrong moment could seriously threaten the bottom-up people centered nature of the Internet. > > So I truly appreciate your vigilance as a member of the CSTD WG. that is currently messing with the IGF's evolving bottom-up nature in a top-down manner. > > a. > > > On 27 Feb 2011, at 07:03, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> Avri >> >> your concerns are valid but this was t so decided. There was no discussion about an formal reporting mechanism. However it depends now from the concrete formulations in the report what is the understanding of "linking". BTW there is no formal drafting group but an open working group which will discuss the draft of the secretariat two days before the next meeting. >> >> w >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >> Gesendet: Sa 26.02.2011 23:19 >> An: IGC >> Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: moving more >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the update. >> >> Personally I think that there is a pretty large difference between: >> >> "outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related >> to Internet Governance issues. " >> >> and >> >> "Message goes to CSTD," >> >> - One can be seen as sending messages to the organization responsible for Internet governance such as those who are dong the job how >> >> - And one can be seen as reporting to a UN body as if it were an organization responsible for Internet governance. >> >> At the very least it does look like we are on a very slippery slope sliding toward having the CSTD recommending UN control , by ECOSOC and the GA since that is who CSTD reports, over Internet governance with at least some of the CS representatives advocating that point of view. >> >> In my opinion this is frightening. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:52, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> Hi Avri, thank you for the clarification question, It helps. >>> Now at CDG airport, I have the luxury of spending >>> three hours in the lounge with access to wifi, electricity >>> and some foods and drinks. >>> >>> My crude note is as follows - please understand this is very rough and >>> just for reference only. I also made some editing so as not to create >>> problems by some members. >>> >>> Parminder, allow me to "quote" your comments - I mean please correct >>> here if my note is not accurate. >>> >>> India >>> How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap >>> need more tangible outcome, or recommendations >>> continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public >>> policy issues, asking for an answer >>> questions be agreed upon by MAGs, policy concerns only on global level >>> >>> Outcome documents - to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA >>> >>> Parminder >>> desire to move to this direction >>> non-binding, through MAG process, open prep process, IGF, post IGF >>> >>> >>> Brazil >>> support Indian proposal - >>> have ability to gather different opinions from different stakeholders >>> we need to go further >>> means for participation - from developing countries >>> >>> National and regional IGFs >>> seek inputs for basic guidelines for National and Regional IGFs >>> not bureaucratic, formal structure >>> from Izumi's remarks, we learn from civil society, or business, but >>> also you can learn from governments, on transparency, accountability >>> etc >>> >>> Chair >>> Summing: >>> 1) How to bring outcomes, bring more visibility, better >>> 2) Collaboration with other fora, including national and regional >>> >>> Parminder >>> Message goes to CSTD, not negotiated, but just a report of IGF without >>> having parity of CSTD document, as such >>> Idea of process is quite flexible >>> >>> Izumi >>> CS have diverse views on Indian proposal direction, >>> personally it's in the right direction. >>> but be it flexible, lightweight and decentralized >>> lightweight - use Internet applications as much as possible, if not facebook >>> >>> [end of note on this part] >>> ---- >>> >>> What I meant with my comment is "right direction" for outcome >>> oriented, but "decentralized" - not going to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA in a >>> mechanical manner for their >>> decision making at all. >>> >>> India was asked to make their proposal in writing by the Chair, but at >>> least I have not seen that happened until I have left the room. >>> >>> Brazil came up with the following language *as draft* >>> >>> "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these >>> outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related >>> to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be >>> considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect >>> convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where >>> there are differing views and alternative suggestions." >>> >>> While Indian proposal clearly mentioned about CSTD - ECOSOC - GA, the >>> phrase above does not include these specific UN bodies for the >>> outcome. In this sense Brazil >>> captured the sense of the room collectively, and did not >>> give explicit support to Indian' proposal in details. >>> >>> But some governments did not accept that Brazil writes the summary of >>> the meeting. >>> >>> And we did not have time to discuss around this further, and >>> I don't think we reached any consensus on these points. >>> >>> To me, t was more of brain-storming than, say negotiation, I felt. I >>> might be naiive, but this is what I brought back. >>> >>> Please also note that IGC made the following statement in the >>> questionnaire in November as our consensus document. >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 >>> >>> "As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF >>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction >>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be >>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF >>> which contributed a great deal." >>> >>> "a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of >>> recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] >>> consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as >>> model, reference or common framework. Working process towards >>> achieving the consensus will create better and deeper understandings >>> amongst different stakeholders." >>> >>> I was quite aware of these and tried to stick with these lines. >>> >>> I hope these will provide some more clarification. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> 2011/2/27 Avri Doria : >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? >>>> >>>> If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. >>>> >>>> If not, glad to hear it. >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Feb 27 07:51:20 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:51:20 -0300 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <4732A78C-3F51-4C4A-8C7B-939448939668@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB45@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <62F424A9-AFE5-45F8-B759-E5CE42AD8577@ella.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB46@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7053E09D-4915-4642-90CE-A1442A0DFC5D@cafonso.ca> Right on, Avri. Your concerns are mine too. --c.a. sent from a dumbphone On 27/02/2011, at 06:40, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > We probably have a different definition of top down versus bottom-up. Something for a discussion some evening at the IG Summer School and elsewhere. > > When a select group in full transparency makes its recommendations based on discussions held by an open consultative process that are open to comment and revision by that open consultative process we have something that approaches bottom-up (though of course there is always a movement in public policy process between the people and those chosen to represent - when those chosen to represent admit to being representatives - and back to the people and back to the representatives until an annealing point is reached) we have something that I think approaches a bottom-up process. I think many of the I* organization (including the IGF itself) show variations on this dynamic. > > On the other hand when there is a group of people, even if they are not all government employees, acting in their own capacity making recommendations to an intergovernmental body for another intergovernmental body to approve, i tend to think it is an essentially top-down process. True not all top-down processes are bad, some can be quite benevolent, but that does not stop them from being essentially top-down. I have every hope that the CSTD WG process will be benevolent, and from what you and Izumi are saying it sounds like it started out that way. And yes, we are all so grateful that they let you in the room and treated you as peers. That was generous of them, and I am sure that as long as you all behave, they will continue to let you speak as equals. > > a. > > On 27 Feb 2011, at 10:05, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Avri >> >> Montreux was not "top down". In contrary, I was positively surprised that "bottom up" is seen now by everybody (who spoke) as a consensus principle for the IGF. I do not see - at the moment - that somebody wants to put an oversightr body over the IGF. However, you are right, the IGF operates under a mechanism which gives the UN General Assembly (via UNCSTD and ECOSOC) a special role. But this is the case since 2005. >> >> One conclustion is to strengthen the collaboration with governments who favour MS and bottom up. >> >> w >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Avri Doria >> Sent: Sun 2/27/2011 9:46 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Re: moving more >> >> Hi Wolfgang, >> >> I appreciate your comments. >> >> It is, however, often a very small wording change from something tolerable to something intolerable. And as you know, probably better than me, it is in the review of text and in the end game that these simple word substitutions get made. A blink at the wrong moment could seriously threaten the bottom-up people centered nature of the Internet. >> >> So I truly appreciate your vigilance as a member of the CSTD WG. that is currently messing with the IGF's evolving bottom-up nature in a top-down manner. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 27 Feb 2011, at 07:03, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> Avri >>> >>> your concerns are valid but this was t so decided. There was no discussion about an formal reporting mechanism. However it depends now from the concrete formulations in the report what is the understanding of "linking". BTW there is no formal drafting group but an open working group which will discuss the draft of the secretariat two days before the next meeting. >>> >>> w >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >>> Gesendet: Sa 26.02.2011 23:19 >>> An: IGC >>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: moving more >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the update. >>> >>> Personally I think that there is a pretty large difference between: >>> >>> "outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related >>> to Internet Governance issues. " >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Message goes to CSTD," >>> >>> - One can be seen as sending messages to the organization responsible for Internet governance such as those who are dong the job how >>> >>> - And one can be seen as reporting to a UN body as if it were an organization responsible for Internet governance. >>> >>> At the very least it does look like we are on a very slippery slope sliding toward having the CSTD recommending UN control , by ECOSOC and the GA since that is who CSTD reports, over Internet governance with at least some of the CS representatives advocating that point of view. >>> >>> In my opinion this is frightening. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:52, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Avri, thank you for the clarification question, It helps. >>>> Now at CDG airport, I have the luxury of spending >>>> three hours in the lounge with access to wifi, electricity >>>> and some foods and drinks. >>>> >>>> My crude note is as follows - please understand this is very rough and >>>> just for reference only. I also made some editing so as not to create >>>> problems by some members. >>>> >>>> Parminder, allow me to "quote" your comments - I mean please correct >>>> here if my note is not accurate. >>>> >>>> India >>>> How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap >>>> need more tangible outcome, or recommendations >>>> continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public >>>> policy issues, asking for an answer >>>> questions be agreed upon by MAGs, policy concerns only on global level >>>> >>>> Outcome documents - to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> desire to move to this direction >>>> non-binding, through MAG process, open prep process, IGF, post IGF >>>> >>>> >>>> Brazil >>>> support Indian proposal - >>>> have ability to gather different opinions from different stakeholders >>>> we need to go further >>>> means for participation - from developing countries >>>> >>>> National and regional IGFs >>>> seek inputs for basic guidelines for National and Regional IGFs >>>> not bureaucratic, formal structure >>>> from Izumi's remarks, we learn from civil society, or business, but >>>> also you can learn from governments, on transparency, accountability >>>> etc >>>> >>>> Chair >>>> Summing: >>>> 1) How to bring outcomes, bring more visibility, better >>>> 2) Collaboration with other fora, including national and regional >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> Message goes to CSTD, not negotiated, but just a report of IGF without >>>> having parity of CSTD document, as such >>>> Idea of process is quite flexible >>>> >>>> Izumi >>>> CS have diverse views on Indian proposal direction, >>>> personally it's in the right direction. >>>> but be it flexible, lightweight and decentralized >>>> lightweight - use Internet applications as much as possible, if not facebook >>>> >>>> [end of note on this part] >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> What I meant with my comment is "right direction" for outcome >>>> oriented, but "decentralized" - not going to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA in a >>>> mechanical manner for their >>>> decision making at all. >>>> >>>> India was asked to make their proposal in writing by the Chair, but at >>>> least I have not seen that happened until I have left the room. >>>> >>>> Brazil came up with the following language *as draft* >>>> >>>> "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these >>>> outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related >>>> to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be >>>> considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect >>>> convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where >>>> there are differing views and alternative suggestions." >>>> >>>> While Indian proposal clearly mentioned about CSTD - ECOSOC - GA, the >>>> phrase above does not include these specific UN bodies for the >>>> outcome. In this sense Brazil >>>> captured the sense of the room collectively, and did not >>>> give explicit support to Indian' proposal in details. >>>> >>>> But some governments did not accept that Brazil writes the summary of >>>> the meeting. >>>> >>>> And we did not have time to discuss around this further, and >>>> I don't think we reached any consensus on these points. >>>> >>>> To me, t was more of brain-storming than, say negotiation, I felt. I >>>> might be naiive, but this is what I brought back. >>>> >>>> Please also note that IGC made the following statement in the >>>> questionnaire in November as our consensus document. >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 >>>> >>>> "As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF >>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction >>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be >>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF >>>> which contributed a great deal." >>>> >>>> "a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of >>>> recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] >>>> consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as >>>> model, reference or common framework. Working process towards >>>> achieving the consensus will create better and deeper understandings >>>> amongst different stakeholders." >>>> >>>> I was quite aware of these and tried to stick with these lines. >>>> >>>> I hope these will provide some more clarification. >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> 2011/2/27 Avri Doria : >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary style outcomes, true? >>>>> >>>>> If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that position. >>>>> >>>>> If not, glad to hear it. >>>>> >>>>> a. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Feb 27 08:49:46 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:49:46 -0300 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <7053E09D-4915-4642-90CE-A1442A0DFC5D@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <44CB846979C24585A11F5F063CBD381D@userPC> I agree with Avri and c.a. on this... I fail to see how an externally selected group drawn from a self-selected group reporting to a top down appointed group and communicating with a group whose provenance I have no idea of can be understood to be "bottom up", but maybe I've missed something along the way. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:51 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Cc: IGC Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Re: moving more Right on, Avri. Your concerns are mine too. --c.a. sent from a dumbphone On 27/02/2011, at 06:40, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > We probably have a different definition of top down versus bottom-up. > Something for a discussion some evening at the IG Summer School and > elsewhere. > > When a select group in full transparency makes its recommendations > based on discussions held by an open consultative process that are > open to comment and revision by that open consultative process we have > something that approaches bottom-up (though of course there is always > a movement in public policy process between the people and those > chosen to represent - when those chosen to represent admit to being > representatives - and back to the people and back to the > representatives until an annealing point is reached) we have something > that I think approaches a bottom-up process. I think many of the I* > organization (including the IGF itself) show variations on this > dynamic. > > On the other hand when there is a group of people, even if they are > not all government employees, acting in their own capacity making > recommendations to an intergovernmental body for another > intergovernmental body to approve, i tend to think it is an > essentially top-down process. True not all top-down processes are > bad, some can be quite benevolent, but that does not stop them from > being essentially top-down. I have every hope that the CSTD WG > process will be benevolent, and from what you and Izumi are saying it > sounds like it started out that way. And yes, we are all so grateful > that they let you in the room and treated you as peers. That was > generous of them, and I am sure that as long as you all behave, they > will continue to let you speak as equals. > > a. > > On 27 Feb 2011, at 10:05, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Avri >> >> Montreux was not "top down". In contrary, I was positively surprised >> that "bottom up" is seen now by everybody (who spoke) as a consensus principle for the IGF. I do not see - at the moment - that somebody wants to put an oversightr body over the IGF. However, you are right, the IGF operates under a mechanism which gives the UN General Assembly (via UNCSTD and ECOSOC) a special role. But this is the case since 2005. >> >> One conclustion is to strengthen the collaboration with governments >> who favour MS and bottom up. >> >> w >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Avri Doria >> Sent: Sun 2/27/2011 9:46 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Re: moving more >> >> Hi Wolfgang, >> >> I appreciate your comments. >> >> It is, however, often a very small wording change from something >> tolerable to something intolerable. And as you know, probably better >> than me, it is in the review of text and in the end game that these >> simple word substitutions get made. A blink at the wrong moment >> could seriously threaten the bottom-up people centered nature of the >> Internet. >> >> So I truly appreciate your vigilance as a member of the CSTD WG. that >> is currently messing with the IGF's evolving bottom-up nature in a >> top-down manner. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 27 Feb 2011, at 07:03, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> Avri >>> >>> your concerns are valid but this was t so decided. There was no >>> discussion about an formal reporting mechanism. However it depends >>> now from the concrete formulations in the report what is the >>> understanding of "linking". BTW there is no formal drafting group >>> but an open working group which will discuss the draft of the >>> secretariat two days before the next meeting. >>> >>> w >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >>> Gesendet: Sa 26.02.2011 23:19 >>> An: IGC >>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: moving more >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the update. >>> >>> Personally I think that there is a pretty large difference between: >>> >>> "outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations >>> related to Internet Governance issues. " >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Message goes to CSTD," >>> >>> - One can be seen as sending messages to the organization >>> responsible for Internet governance such as those who are dong the >>> job how >>> >>> - And one can be seen as reporting to a UN body as if it were an >>> organization responsible for Internet governance. >>> >>> At the very least it does look like we are on a very slippery slope >>> sliding toward having the CSTD recommending UN control , by ECOSOC >>> and the GA since that is who CSTD reports, over Internet governance >>> with at least some of the CS representatives advocating that point >>> of view. >>> >>> In my opinion this is frightening. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:52, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Avri, thank you for the clarification question, It helps. Now at >>>> CDG airport, I have the luxury of spending three hours in the >>>> lounge with access to wifi, electricity and some foods and drinks. >>>> >>>> My crude note is as follows - please understand this is very rough >>>> and just for reference only. I also made some editing so as not to >>>> create problems by some members. >>>> >>>> Parminder, allow me to "quote" your comments - I mean please >>>> correct here if my note is not accurate. >>>> >>>> India >>>> How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap >>>> need more tangible outcome, or recommendations >>>> continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public >>>> policy issues, asking for an answer questions be agreed upon by >>>> MAGs, policy concerns only on global level >>>> >>>> Outcome documents - to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> desire to move to this direction >>>> non-binding, through MAG process, open prep process, IGF, post IGF >>>> >>>> >>>> Brazil >>>> support Indian proposal - >>>> have ability to gather different opinions from different >>>> stakeholders we need to go further means for participation - from >>>> developing countries >>>> >>>> National and regional IGFs >>>> seek inputs for basic guidelines for National and Regional IGFs not >>>> bureaucratic, formal structure from Izumi's remarks, we learn from >>>> civil society, or business, but also you can learn from >>>> governments, on transparency, accountability etc >>>> >>>> Chair >>>> Summing: >>>> 1) How to bring outcomes, bring more visibility, better >>>> 2) Collaboration with other fora, including national and regional >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> Message goes to CSTD, not negotiated, but just a report of IGF >>>> without having parity of CSTD document, as such Idea of process is >>>> quite flexible >>>> >>>> Izumi >>>> CS have diverse views on Indian proposal direction, personally it's >>>> in the right direction. but be it flexible, lightweight and >>>> decentralized lightweight - use Internet applications as much as >>>> possible, if not facebook >>>> >>>> [end of note on this part] >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> What I meant with my comment is "right direction" for outcome >>>> oriented, but "decentralized" - not going to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA in a >>>> mechanical manner for their decision making at all. >>>> >>>> India was asked to make their proposal in writing by the Chair, but >>>> at least I have not seen that happened until I have left the room. >>>> >>>> Brazil came up with the following language *as draft* >>>> >>>> "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these >>>> outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations >>>> related to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings >>>> shall be considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that >>>> will reflect convergence where they exist and capture alternative >>>> options where there are differing views and alternative >>>> suggestions." >>>> >>>> While Indian proposal clearly mentioned about CSTD - ECOSOC - GA, >>>> the phrase above does not include these specific UN bodies for the >>>> outcome. In this sense Brazil captured the sense of the room >>>> collectively, and did not give explicit support to Indian' proposal >>>> in details. >>>> >>>> But some governments did not accept that Brazil writes the summary >>>> of the meeting. >>>> >>>> And we did not have time to discuss around this further, and I >>>> don't think we reached any consensus on these points. >>>> >>>> To me, t was more of brain-storming than, say negotiation, I felt. >>>> I might be naiive, but this is what I brought back. >>>> >>>> Please also note that IGC made the following statement in the >>>> questionnaire in November as our consensus document. >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 >>>> >>>> "As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF >>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented >>>> direction might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this >>>> should be carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free >>>> spirit of IGF which contributed a great deal." >>>> >>>> "a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of >>>> recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] >>>> consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as >>>> model, reference or common framework. Working process towards >>>> achieving the consensus will create better and deeper >>>> understandings amongst different stakeholders." >>>> >>>> I was quite aware of these and tried to stick with these lines. >>>> >>>> I hope these will provide some more clarification. >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> 2011/2/27 Avri Doria : >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil >>>>> Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary >>>>> style outcomes, true? >>>>> >>>>> If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be >>>>> interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that >>>>> position. >>>>> >>>>> If not, glad to hear it. >>>>> >>>>> a. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Feb 27 09:32:15 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:32:15 +0300 Subject: AW: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: <19800.36956.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D668086.90106@apc.org> <4D66D12E.9090906@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D67953A.6000507@gih.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Whether we choose to see it or not, the internet is regulated by virtue of > licensing and regulating authorities regulation != control -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Feb 27 09:34:59 2011 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:34:59 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB46@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <4732A78C-3F51-4C4A-8C7B-939448939668@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB45@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <62F424A9-AFE5-45F8-B759-E5CE42AD8577@ella.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB46@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 27 Feb 2011, at 10:05, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > However, you are right, the IGF operates under a mechanism which gives the UN General Assembly (via UNCSTD and ECOSOC) a special role. But this is the case since 2005. I would contend that initiated by the UN as was the case in the 2005 GA resolution and improved by ECOSOC/CSTD as was approved in the 2010 is a loss of ground and to some degree a diminution in the IGF independence. Yes, it is possible that the CSTD and all the powers that be say, good job, keep doing what you are doing and here are a few recommendations for you all to consider. So i will hold out hope that at the end of the CSTD WG -> CSTD -> ECOSOC -> GA journey we will still have an independent IGF initiated by the UNSG. I will consider anything less a sad loss. Good luck to the CS representatives. I mean people in their own capacity who got their nomination from a CS decision process. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Feb 27 20:53:51 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:53:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello all, I am writing to share my impressions on the CSTD IGFWG meeting with you, and I am glad to see that I focused some on some points that were different from Izumi's and Wolfgang's. The first day, dedicated to procedure is better documented below. On the second day, I found it diffcult to take notes while following the meeting and intervening at the same time. In any case, the meeting was being recorded and I asked the Secretariat to make the transcript available as soon as possible on the website, together with all contributions received in the past or yet to be received (about the new version of the questionnaire, see below) *1 - General impressions* Multistakeholder participation and equal chance to intervene on this space seems to be something widely accepted now. India, Iran and others welcomed the participation of other stakeholders, which was very positive. Non-gov actors could speak on equal footing. The mood was not very good at the beginning of the meeting. The Secretariat’s lack of responsiveness, the fact that they conevened the meeting in Montreux during Saturday and the fact that the questions that would supposedly structure report were not discussed in advance all gave place to criticism, which the Chair did not take well. Saying it short, we are dealing with an unskilled Chair/Secretariat and this is something to worry, given the huge amount of work ahead and the lack of time. *2- Structure of the report (jump this topic if you don't want to hear about procedure)* The meeting begun with a procedural clarification asked by India and Egypt. They asked if the questions of the draft structure were the ones that would guide the writing of the report and asked who would actually take the task of writing it. Some people argued the draft structure was an agenda for the WG meeting only, not the actual structure of the report. Personally, I found this approach a bit nonsense. The chair said that we would only discuss that at the end of the meeting, but suggested that maybe an ad hoc group could be created to write the report. India made a point that we could not go into substantive matters if we were not sure that we were actually discussing points that would table the report. In my opinion, the points made by India were very pertinent, but unfortunately lead us to be caught in procedural matters again on the first day. Suggestions were made about new questions that should be introduced if the points were going to guide the writing of the report. Ex: the first question should be an evaluation of the fullfillment of te IGF mandate vis-a-vis the Tunis Agenda, so we would know and document exactly which are the key-areas for improvement. India distributed a proposal that changed a bit the structure from the questionnaire proposed by the secretariat. The business sector also presented a proposal. Both proposals were successfully merged during coffee brake. After new disgreements, the draft structure was approved on the beginning of day 2, being called as” key elements for the report”, which give us room to believe that new issues can be included if the relevant (I dont think any of the issues can be removed, though). * * *3 – Outcomes of the IGF* As I said, I did not manage to take many notes on day 2, while speaking and listening, but my impression was that there was general support that the IGF would have as outcome something that would cover convergence and divergence on policy matters and be apt to feed into the process of police making taking place in other relevant bodies. The actual ways to do it were not consensus, the approach mentioned by Wolfgang (a lot of messages emerged from workshops) was one of the possibilities on the table, some others were advanced as well. *4- Remote participation* Huge support about it. It was really important to talk about RP in the CSTD WG environment, since some representatives did not know it in details. RP was recognized as key element for inclusion, a key innovation from the IGF that deserved more support and joint efforts to enhancement. Workshops conducted completely online during the IGF (including from hubs) were suggestd. Some meetings of the MAG and OC could take place online as well. *5- How to write the report* As said before, at the beginning of the meeting, the chair suggested the creation of a smaller drafting group for the report, that seemed to have been generally accpeted. Many people spoke for it, no one spoke against it On the second day a proposal circulated that the drafting group would have the role to compile the points raised in all consultations and write a first version of the report, then circulate online for comments. In depth discussions would take place in the next meeting of the WG. Everybody agreed and then we discussed the composition during lunch. The proposal advanced by Brazil was that there should be 1 country per region (total of 5) plus 1 from the business sector plus 1 from technical and academic community and 2 from civil society. The reason of the 2 reps from CS, according to them, was that CS represented many diferent views that are difficult to capture. India supported. This proposal seems to have disagreed very much the business sector, but instead of discussing and making a conter-proposal they took a step back and decided to be against the draft group. They argued that we should leave for the secretariat to come with a report and our role should be to discuss it. Developed countries (Finland, US, Portugal) and Russia backed the proposal. I think it is a pitty and a dangerous political move in face of the faults commited by the secretariat and the chair. In addition, Brazil raised a good point about the incoherence to preach that multistakeholders can take issues and do things collaboratively and then leave this important matter in the hands of the secretariat. DESA asked the WG to also portrait the lessons learned. highlight more in the report things such as the multistakeholder carachteristic and remote participation *6 – Next steps* (please someone correct me if I am wrong, it was mentioned fast): - The new structure of the questionnaire will be placed online, comments will be open until March 15 - The Secretariat will compile older contributions, new contributions and the points raised in this WG meeting and write a draft report - The report will be sent to WG members. They can offer comments - The text will be discussed on 24 and 25 March in Geneva. *7- Submission of the report* DESA said they had contacted the office in NY and postponed the delivery of the report to April 1st. Still tight! The report should have 17 pages maximum On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thank you Wolfgang for your quite precise and concise summary. > > Since I had to leave earlier than the meeting's closure, I could not > capture what was the closing, especially with > regard to the "drafting group" since several members including USG and > business were not supporting the > creation of such drafting group consist of WG members, > but rather to task it to the secretariat, to me that is not > the right path. > > I would like to underscore what Wolfgang mentioned here > about the good acceptance and recognition of Civil society > members and our inputs - compared with December where > it was very different. I spoke with India, Egypt, and some > other gov members informally during brakes and they are > really trying to accommodate us as peer members, and > valuing our input (and other stakeholders input). > > No one questioned the composition of drafting group > include non-gov stakeholders - yes, we had some difference > between CS and business for the number of members to the > drafting group. CS wanted to have more numbers than other > stakeholders since we are much more diverse than, say business or > academic/tech community. They disagreed and tried to keep equal > number. > > This does not mean, please, that CS members were supporting G77 > position on outcome. As far as I can tell, no > CS members took that position per se. > > izumi > > 2011/2/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > : > > Hi everybody > > > > here are some observations from the IGF Improvement meeting in Montreux. > > > > 1. The first and most important point is that nobody challenged the > participation of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders as > equals in the discussion and in the future drafting of the final report. > After the two December meetings of the UNCSTD this was not so obviously > expected. Even the government of Iran said that it values the contribution > of non-governmental stakeholders in the process since 2003. There was no > hostile climate. In contrary, contributions from all five CS reps in the WG > were taken as very helpful and reasonable input. > > > > 2. A lot of time was wasted with the discussion on procedureal issues. > The discussion on substantial issues circeled for hours around the questions > of the "linkage" of the IGF. India, Egypt but also Brazil used the languge > of the UNGA resolution which says that the IGF should be linked to the > "broader dialogue on Internet Governance". Some pepole in the room had the > impression that this is not a good language because the broadest dialogue is > the IGF itself. And there was some mistrust that this could become a formula > to put the IGF under the "enhanced cooperation" discussion in the UNGA. > Alternative proposed language was to link the IGF to "other dialogues" but > India and Egypt insisted in the "accepted language" which, BTW, was > introduced by the US government during the negotiations in the 2nd Committee > of the UNGA in New York in November 2010. However both Egypt and India > accepted an interpretiaton that one of the functions of the IGF is to bring > information to other dialogues and that this formulation (in the headline of > Chapter 2 of the forthcoming report) will not include any formal > sub-ordination of the IGF under "another dialogue". My comment here is that > it is rather obvious that on the one hand IGF and EC are two different > processes which are not formally interlinked but there are some trade offs > on the other hand. The IBSA was not discussed in detail. This will remain an > open question. Russia proposed again to link the IGF with the WSIS Forum but > produced protest against any form of "merger". In a second interventon > Russia clarified that they did not propose "merger" but wanted to use > "synergies" to avoid the waste of resources. There was no support for a > closer linkage between the two fora. > > > > 3. The debate about outcome did not create any new ideas. There was a > broad consensus that the IGF should not become a "negotiation body", should > not produce any "negotiated language" or "binding recommendations", but > should produce something which people can take home and read within "ten > minutes" and show their constituencies as "outcome". My impression was that > more and more stakeholders, including governments, can live with "messages". > The proposed procedure to generate the messages was not discussed in detail > but the proposal to have nominated rapporteurs for each workshop and plenary > who have to produce one to three "short messages" from the discussion was > seen as a reasonable approach. This would guaratee that there is a > distributed system of messages production which would reduce the risk of > capture of the drafting by one single group. 50 workshops would mean 50 - > 150 messages from 50 rapporteurs. > > > > 4. Another key issues was the role and function of the MAG. The idea to > have the MAG (or the secretariat) like a bureau was mentioned but got no > suprport. The majority was in favour of a more open MAG, more open > consultations and a right mixture between continuation and rotation in the > membership. A related question was the financing of the secretariat. India > and Egypt called for a stable public funding (to become independen from > voluntary contributions) but they did not say where the money should come > from. > > > > 5. The broader involvement of developing countries was discussed at > length. There was a broad consensus among all participants that the > participation of developing countries - both governments and > non-govenrmental stakeholders - has to be broadend. There was an outspoken > wish to strengthen in particular civil society organisations and small and > medium enterprises in developing countries and to enable them to participate > more actively in IGF activities. > > > > 6. There was a clear support for a stronger linkage between the global > IGF and national and regional IGFs. On the other hand, dynamic coalitions > were not really discussed. There was a proposal to have in between the > global IGFs also "thematic IGFs" but also here no concrete step was planned. > > > > 7. The meeting decided not to go into the details of how to organize > workshops, plenaries, feeder workshops etc. Some proposals were made how to > improve the planning and the linkage between the various sessions within an > IGF, but this has to be further discussed. > > > > 8. The only thing (but this is not bad) the group could agree after two > days is the structure of the planned report to the UNCSTD meeting in May > 2011. There is now an informal drafting group which will work together with > the Secretariat to draft the report for the next meeting, scheduled for > March 24/25, 2011 in Geneva. > > > > I want to thank all friends of the IGC and the civil society for their > input. CS played and active and recognized role and made very valuable > contributions to the process. At the end Anriette, Parminder and other > raised even the issue to increase the number of CS people in the various > forthcoming groups because CS is different from the other non-governmentwl > stakeholders (broader, more diverse etc.). Nobody really objetced this but > there was no time left for a discussion, Lets wait and see where we will go > from here. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Feb 28 03:12:28 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:12:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D6B58EC.5020005@apc.org> Hi all Back in sane Johannesburg :) In response to Adam, I also liked Brazil's proposal to begin to discuss public policy principles of IG and progressively over time, capturing where there is agreement, and differences on these principles . This can be captured in the IGF's outcome 'documents'. The Brazilian's are drawing on their national experience of thrashing out key principles among all stakeholders. It has worked really well for them, and I do think the IGF should try something similar. While there was a lot of discussion about capturing the discussion that takes place at the IGF more effectively, there is still need for much more detailed thinking on how this will work, and how it will not produce an unsustainable workload. Some important points that I think were mostly agreed on aside from what was already posted by Wolfgang and Izumi: - we need an IGF 'report' that is shorted and easier to digest than the current one. This is particularly important for newcomers to the process, and also to enable those of use who care about it and who want to communicate it to the media and to our networks. - the IGF needs to reach out more effectively to other IG bodies - outcomes/messages should capture convergence and divergence I think these documents should be separate from the chair's summary which has a certain status and value of its own. I agree with Avri that the channeling through the CSTD is very problematic. If it is simply a case of the IGF 'messages document' being tabled at a CSTD meeting for information, and then being referred to in the CSTD resolution to ECOSOC as an important document perhaps that is not so problematic. But if CSTD was to consider the contents of the messages, and decide to pick out some that they feel should be brought to ECOSOC's attention, it could end up in: - a huge amount of negotiation about what to pick out which will be time consuming and lead to a lot of disagreement among governments - very selective messages being highlighted to ECOSOC which will not provide it with a balanced or holistic view of what was discussed. However, a very general resolution by the CSTD encouraging ECOSOC to reflect on IGF outcome documents related to issues that ECOSOC will be discussing in the future will be useful. But I feel strongly that such a resolution should not select specific messages, or point to them in a specific manner. Something like: "... bring to ECOSOC's attention IGF discussion and key messages that relate to child protection and which can be found in XXXX document" would be acceptable. But nothing more. I agree that the key role for the IGF is to get is messages to other IG bodies, not to 'report to' the CSTD. Sometimes these IG decision-making bodies are national governmental agencies, like regulators, or particular ministries, so we need to find effective ways of reaching them too, through National and Regional IGFs, but also through other means, such as regional regulatory agencies, IGOs such as the ITU, or the regional economic commissions. This would be much more effective, and appropriate, than channeling these messages through ECOSOC. This does not preclude the IGF coming out with messages directed at ECOSOC or the GA. Suggestions for how those can be most effectively channeled? Anriette On 26/02/11 22:48, Adam Peake wrote: > Wolfgang, thanks for the report. > > In relation to outcomes you mention in 3. below, was the Chair's summary > mentioned? > > I also liked Brazil's suggestion during the open consultation on > Wednesday to try and develop principles from discussions at the IGF, not > as something to be produced as a specific outcome of each meeting, but > develop/emerge overtime . > > Adam > > > > >> Hi everybody >> >> here are some observations from the IGF Improvement meeting in Montreux. >> >> 1. The first and most important point is that nobody challenged the >> participation of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders >> as equals in the discussion and in the future drafting of the final >> report. After the two December meetings of the UNCSTD this was not so >> obviously expected. Even the government of Iran said that it values >> the contribution of non-governmental stakeholders in the process since >> 2003. There was no hostile climate. In contrary, contributions from >> all five CS reps in the WG were taken as very helpful and reasonable >> input. >> >> 2. A lot of time was wasted with the discussion on procedureal issues. >> The discussion on substantial issues circeled for hours around the >> questions of the "linkage" of the IGF. India, Egypt but also Brazil >> used the languge of the UNGA resolution which says that the IGF should >> be linked to the "broader dialogue on Internet Governance". Some >> pepole in the room had the impression that this is not a good language >> because the broadest dialogue is the IGF itself. And there was some >> mistrust that this could become a formula to put the IGF under the >> "enhanced cooperation" discussion in the UNGA. Alternative proposed >> language was to link the IGF to "other dialogues" but India and Egypt >> insisted in the "accepted language" which, BTW, was introduced by the >> US government during the negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA >> in New York in November 2010. However both Egypt and India accepted an >> interpretiaton that one of the functions of the IGF is to bring >> information to other dialogues and that this formulation (in the >> headline of Chapter 2 of the forthcoming report) will not include any >> formal sub-ordination of the IGF under "another dialogue". My comment >> here is that it is rather obvious that on the one hand IGF and EC are >> two different processes which are not formally interlinked but there >> are some trade offs on the other hand. The IBSA was not discussed in >> detail. This will remain an open question. Russia proposed again to >> link the IGF with the WSIS Forum but produced protest against any form >> of "merger". In a second interventon Russia clarified that they did >> not propose "merger" but wanted to use "synergies" to avoid the waste >> of resources. There was no support for a closer linkage between the >> two fora. >> >> 3. The debate about outcome did not create any new ideas. There was a >> broad consensus that the IGF should not become a "negotiation body", >> should not produce any "negotiated language" or "binding >> recommendations", but should produce something which people can take >> home and read within "ten minutes" and show their constituencies as >> "outcome". My impression was that more and more stakeholders, >> including governments, can live with "messages". The proposed >> procedure to generate the messages was not discussed in detail but the >> proposal to have nominated rapporteurs for each workshop and plenary >> who have to produce one to three "short messages" from the discussion >> was seen as a reasonable approach. This would guaratee that there is a >> distributed system of messages production which would reduce the risk >> of capture of the drafting by one single group. 50 workshops would >> mean 50 - 150 messages from 50 rapporteurs. >> >> 4. Another key issues was the role and function of the MAG. The idea >> to have the MAG (or the secretariat) like a bureau was mentioned but >> got no suprport. The majority was in favour of a more open MAG, more >> open consultations and a right mixture between continuation and >> rotation in the membership. A related question was the financing of >> the secretariat. India and Egypt called for a stable public funding >> (to become independen from voluntary contributions) but they did not >> say where the money should come from. >> >> 5. The broader involvement of developing countries was discussed at >> length. There was a broad consensus among all participants that the >> participation of developing countries - both governments and >> non-govenrmental stakeholders - has to be broadend. There was an >> outspoken wish to strengthen in particular civil society organisations >> and small and medium enterprises in developing countries and to enable >> them to participate more actively in IGF activities. >> >> 6. There was a clear support for a stronger linkage between the global >> IGF and national and regional IGFs. On the other hand, dynamic >> coalitions were not really discussed. There was a proposal to have in >> between the global IGFs also "thematic IGFs" but also here no concrete >> step was planned. >> >> 7. The meeting decided not to go into the details of how to organize >> workshops, plenaries, feeder workshops etc. Some proposals were made >> how to improve the planning and the linkage between the various >> sessions within an IGF, but this has to be further discussed. >> >> 8. The only thing (but this is not bad) the group could agree after >> two days is the structure of the planned report to the UNCSTD meeting >> in May 2011. There is now an informal drafting group which will work >> together with the Secretariat to draft the report for the next >> meeting, scheduled for March 24/25, 2011 in Geneva. >> >> I want to thank all friends of the IGC and the civil society for their >> input. CS played and active and recognized role and made very valuable >> contributions to the process. At the end Anriette, Parminder and other >> raised even the issue to increase the number of CS people in the >> various forthcoming groups because CS is different from the other >> non-governmentwl stakeholders (broader, more diverse etc.). Nobody >> really objetced this but there was no time left for a discussion, Lets >> wait and see where we will go from here. >> >> 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 28 03:27:56 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:27:56 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <44CB846979C24585A11F5F063CBD381D@userPC> References: <44CB846979C24585A11F5F063CBD381D@userPC> Message-ID: <4D6B5C8C.5020407@apc.org> Hi all I agree completely that the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements is not bottom-up :) What was encouraging at the Montreux meeting were three things: * the importance giving to the 'open consultation' process in preparing IGF meetings, and also in getting input for the working group's report * agreement on the IGF's basic character as a forum for dialogue on policy, not for negotiating policy * agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder participation The points we agreed on as 'key elements for the working group's report' will be opened to the IGF community at large. This will happen in the next few days. I think that EVERYONE on this list should respond in their individual, and institutional capacities. Anriette On 27/02/11 15:49, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I agree with Avri and c.a. on this... I fail to see how an externally > selected group drawn from a self-selected group reporting to a top down > appointed group and communicating with a group whose provenance I have no > idea of can be understood to be "bottom up", but maybe I've missed something > along the way. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:51 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Cc: IGC > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Re: moving more > > > Right on, Avri. Your concerns are > mine too. > > --c.a. > > sent from a dumbphone > > On 27/02/2011, at 06:40, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We probably have a different definition of top down versus bottom-up. >> Something for a discussion some evening at the IG Summer School and >> elsewhere. >> >> When a select group in full transparency makes its recommendations >> based on discussions held by an open consultative process that are >> open to comment and revision by that open consultative process we have >> something that approaches bottom-up (though of course there is always >> a movement in public policy process between the people and those >> chosen to represent - when those chosen to represent admit to being >> representatives - and back to the people and back to the >> representatives until an annealing point is reached) we have something >> that I think approaches a bottom-up process. I think many of the I* >> organization (including the IGF itself) show variations on this >> dynamic. >> >> On the other hand when there is a group of people, even if they are >> not all government employees, acting in their own capacity making >> recommendations to an intergovernmental body for another >> intergovernmental body to approve, i tend to think it is an >> essentially top-down process. True not all top-down processes are >> bad, some can be quite benevolent, but that does not stop them from >> being essentially top-down. I have every hope that the CSTD WG >> process will be benevolent, and from what you and Izumi are saying it >> sounds like it started out that way. And yes, we are all so grateful >> that they let you in the room and treated you as peers. That was >> generous of them, and I am sure that as long as you all behave, they >> will continue to let you speak as equals. >> >> a. >> >> On 27 Feb 2011, at 10:05, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Hi Avri >>> >>> Montreux was not "top down". In contrary, I was positively surprised >>> that "bottom up" is seen now by everybody (who spoke) as a consensus > principle for the IGF. I do not see - at the moment - that somebody wants to > put an oversightr body over the IGF. However, you are right, the IGF > operates under a mechanism which gives the UN General Assembly (via UNCSTD > and ECOSOC) a special role. But this is the case since 2005. >>> >>> One conclustion is to strengthen the collaboration with governments >>> who favour MS and bottom up. >>> >>> w >>> >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Sun 2/27/2011 9:46 AM >>> To: IGC >>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Re: moving more >>> >>> Hi Wolfgang, >>> >>> I appreciate your comments. >>> >>> It is, however, often a very small wording change from something >>> tolerable to something intolerable. And as you know, probably better >>> than me, it is in the review of text and in the end game that these >>> simple word substitutions get made. A blink at the wrong moment >>> could seriously threaten the bottom-up people centered nature of the >>> Internet. >>> >>> So I truly appreciate your vigilance as a member of the CSTD WG. that >>> is currently messing with the IGF's evolving bottom-up nature in a >>> top-down manner. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> On 27 Feb 2011, at 07:03, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> >>>> Avri >>>> >>>> your concerns are valid but this was t so decided. There was no >>>> discussion about an formal reporting mechanism. However it depends >>>> now from the concrete formulations in the report what is the >>>> understanding of "linking". BTW there is no formal drafting group >>>> but an open working group which will discuss the draft of the >>>> secretariat two days before the next meeting. >>>> >>>> w >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >>>> Gesendet: Sa 26.02.2011 23:19 >>>> An: IGC >>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: moving more >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the update. >>>> >>>> Personally I think that there is a pretty large difference between: >>>> >>>> "outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations >>>> related to Internet Governance issues. " >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> "Message goes to CSTD," >>>> >>>> - One can be seen as sending messages to the organization >>>> responsible for Internet governance such as those who are dong the >>>> job how >>>> >>>> - And one can be seen as reporting to a UN body as if it were an >>>> organization responsible for Internet governance. >>>> >>>> At the very least it does look like we are on a very slippery slope >>>> sliding toward having the CSTD recommending UN control , by ECOSOC >>>> and the GA since that is who CSTD reports, over Internet governance >>>> with at least some of the CS representatives advocating that point >>>> of view. >>>> >>>> In my opinion this is frightening. >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26 Feb 2011, at 21:52, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Avri, thank you for the clarification question, It helps. Now at >>>>> CDG airport, I have the luxury of spending three hours in the >>>>> lounge with access to wifi, electricity and some foods and drinks. >>>>> >>>>> My crude note is as follows - please understand this is very rough >>>>> and just for reference only. I also made some editing so as not to >>>>> create problems by some members. >>>>> >>>>> Parminder, allow me to "quote" your comments - I mean please >>>>> correct here if my note is not accurate. >>>>> >>>>> India >>>>> How to link to public policy dialogue- address gap >>>>> need more tangible outcome, or recommendations >>>>> continue MAG format, but select around 4 key questions on public >>>>> policy issues, asking for an answer questions be agreed upon by >>>>> MAGs, policy concerns only on global level >>>>> >>>>> Outcome documents - to be fed to CSTD, EOSOC, GA >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> desire to move to this direction >>>>> non-binding, through MAG process, open prep process, IGF, post IGF >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brazil >>>>> support Indian proposal - >>>>> have ability to gather different opinions from different >>>>> stakeholders we need to go further means for participation - from >>>>> developing countries >>>>> >>>>> National and regional IGFs >>>>> seek inputs for basic guidelines for National and Regional IGFs not >>>>> bureaucratic, formal structure from Izumi's remarks, we learn from >>>>> civil society, or business, but also you can learn from >>>>> governments, on transparency, accountability etc >>>>> >>>>> Chair >>>>> Summing: >>>>> 1) How to bring outcomes, bring more visibility, better >>>>> 2) Collaboration with other fora, including national and regional >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> Message goes to CSTD, not negotiated, but just a report of IGF >>>>> without having parity of CSTD document, as such Idea of process is >>>>> quite flexible >>>>> >>>>> Izumi >>>>> CS have diverse views on Indian proposal direction, personally it's >>>>> in the right direction. but be it flexible, lightweight and >>>>> decentralized lightweight - use Internet applications as much as >>>>> possible, if not facebook >>>>> >>>>> [end of note on this part] >>>>> ---- >>>>> >>>>> What I meant with my comment is "right direction" for outcome >>>>> oriented, but "decentralized" - not going to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA in a >>>>> mechanical manner for their decision making at all. >>>>> >>>>> India was asked to make their proposal in writing by the Chair, but >>>>> at least I have not seen that happened until I have left the room. >>>>> >>>>> Brazil came up with the following language *as draft* >>>>> >>>>> "The plenary also agreed that IGF shall have outcomes and these >>>>> outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations >>>>> related to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings >>>>> shall be considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that >>>>> will reflect convergence where they exist and capture alternative >>>>> options where there are differing views and alternative >>>>> suggestions." >>>>> >>>>> While Indian proposal clearly mentioned about CSTD - ECOSOC - GA, >>>>> the phrase above does not include these specific UN bodies for the >>>>> outcome. In this sense Brazil captured the sense of the room >>>>> collectively, and did not give explicit support to Indian' proposal >>>>> in details. >>>>> >>>>> But some governments did not accept that Brazil writes the summary >>>>> of the meeting. >>>>> >>>>> And we did not have time to discuss around this further, and I >>>>> don't think we reached any consensus on these points. >>>>> >>>>> To me, t was more of brain-storming than, say negotiation, I felt. >>>>> I might be naiive, but this is what I brought back. >>>>> >>>>> Please also note that IGC made the following statement in the >>>>> questionnaire in November as our consensus document. >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 >>>>> >>>>> "As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF >>>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented >>>>> direction might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this >>>>> should be carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free >>>>> spirit of IGF which contributed a great deal." >>>>> >>>>> "a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of >>>>> recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] >>>>> consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as >>>>> model, reference or common framework. Working process towards >>>>> achieving the consensus will create better and deeper >>>>> understandings amongst different stakeholders." >>>>> >>>>> I was quite aware of these and tried to stick with these lines. >>>>> >>>>> I hope these will provide some more clarification. >>>>> >>>>> izumi >>>>> >>>>> 2011/2/27 Avri Doria : >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the rumor coming out of the CSTD IGF WG meeting that the Civil >>>>>> Society representatives bought into G77 proposals for plenary >>>>>> style outcomes, true? >>>>>> >>>>>> If so, since this isn't a consensus view in the IGC, I would be >>>>>> interested in knowing why the CS representatives took that >>>>>> position. >>>>>> >>>>>> If not, glad to hear it. >>>>>> >>>>>> a. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 28 04:37:58 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:37:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D6B6CF6.6080700@apc.org> Dear all Thanks to Wolfgang, Izumi and Marilia for their reports on the meeting. Having different perspectives is extremely useful. Below are some more reactions from me, and information, in response to Marilia's report. Anriette On 28/02/11 03:53, Marilia Maciel wrote: [snip] > > *1 - General impressions* > > > Multistakeholder participation and equal chance to intervene on this > space seems to be something widely accepted now. India, Iran and others > welcomed the participation of other stakeholders, which was very > positive. Non-gov actors could speak on equal footing. > > The mood was not very good at the beginning of the meeting. The > Secretariat’s lack of responsiveness, the fact that they conevened the > meeting in Montreux during Saturday and the fact that the questions that > would supposedly structure report were not discussed in advance all gave > place to criticism, which the Chair did not take well. Saying it short, > we are dealing with an unskilled Chair/Secretariat and this is something > to worry, given the huge amount of work ahead and the lack of time. I agree that the Chair and Secretariat could, and should, have handled procedural issues better. At the same time I think that the procedural issues were a bit over-politicised. Some of the governments felt that the working group should have met earlier (when most of us non-governmental stakeholders would not have been able to be there), and some said that 'no work had been done for 2 months) when many people worked hard on their submissions to the list of topics posted in January. Sala, you asked what the procedural issues were. They were, in summary: a) Format of the list of topics for input going out to working group members without working group members being able to first comment ON THE FORMAT. I agree that it would have been better to first ask for input on the structure. The structure of topics had several big gaps in it. At the same time, one could have added your comments on the structure in your submission for the sake of progress, or raise them as additional points on the first day of the working group meeting, rather than halt the process. But again, more skilled management would have helped. b) Duration, and venue of the meeting. Several governments felt the meeting should have been in Geneva, and longer. If it is in Geneva they can keep in touch with other important negotiations, e.g. the Human Rights Council and WIPO. They also need special permissions from their missions to go and stay at a hotel in Montreux. My opinion is that the first point is legitimate for small missions. The second is not really, it is just an hour by train and easy to commute from Geneva to Montreux. c) Overall process of how the report is to be drafted not discussed before the gathering of inputs started. My opinion is again that this is a valid point, but there was no need to overstate it, or politicise it to such an extent as people did. So what? Let's discuss the core content issues, and then get back to it. My feeling is that it is only once you have all the content in front of you that you can come up with a really good structure for the document, and that, once everyone has given their inputs, that you will get a sense of what kind of drafting process will be best. I was reminded of my political naivety repeatedly during the meeting :) Being practical does not have much room in a process where so much is intensely political. And, the structure of the document is extremely political. This I do agree on. In the defense of the chair I want to say that he is not an experienced UN bureaucrat, and felt he was taking on a convening role, rather than a negotiating role. I understand that he got fedup. At one point he said that if the room wanted to continue to discuss procedures they could get another chair. I was very pleased that the Iranian delegated responded with a very clear expression of support for him, and a call that he should stay on as chair. As for the CSTD secretariat.. I agree.. they need to put much more effort into managing this process and giving the chair the support he needs. Their capacity is very limited though... essentially one staff member and a bundle of interns (who are all really excellent by the way). >> *2- Structure of the report (jump this topic if you don't want to hear > about procedure)* > > The meeting begun with a procedural clarification asked by India and > Egypt. They asked if the questions of the draft structure were the ones > that would guide the writing of the report and asked who would actually > take the task of writing it. Some people argued the draft structure was > an agenda for the WG meeting only, not the actual structure of the > report. Personally, I found this approach a bit nonsense. I did not really find this 'nonsense'. To me it made sense to have those topics as a starting point. The agenda was open for discussion. I agreed with India and Egypt that key topics were missing. But, why not just propose that they were added to the agenda, rather than open up the entire process and waste a day? One of these 'missing' topics were: key characteristics of the IGF as contained in the Tunis Agenda. I also felt we should start discussion with this topic. But really!! The way in which they expressed their concerns was unnecessarily confrontational. > The chair said that we would only discuss that at the end of the > meeting, but suggested that maybe an ad hoc group could be created to > write the report. > > India made a point that we could not go into substantive matters if we > were not sure that we were actually discussing points that would table > the report. In my opinion, the points made by India were very pertinent, > but unfortunately lead us to be caught in procedural matters again on > the first day. > Suggestions were made about new questions that should be introduced if > the points were going to guide the writing of the report. Ex: the first > question should be an evaluation of the fullfillment of te IGF mandate > vis-a-vis the Tunis Agenda, so we would know and document exactly which > are the key-areas for improvement. > > India distributed a proposal that changed a bit the structure from the > questionnaire proposed by the secretariat. The business sector also > presented a proposal. > Both proposals were successfully merged during > coffee brake. The business sector did not really present a proposal. One individual from business and one from ISOC tried to help by working with the secretariat to do a merger of the Indian proposal and the original agenda, using 'track changes' and brackets and they bamed it 'Room Document'. This unfortunately did not address some of Indian's primary concerns, such as the sequence of the discussion (they wanted to start with Tunis Agenda, and with the link of the IGF to agreed development goals). I was personally quite annoyed :) I had just got India to agree to the original agenda, but with their key points inserted in the sequence where they felt they should belong. The creating of the agenda as a 'room document' with bracketed text resulted, unintentionally, in the meeting starting to negotiate the text of the agenda! Which some people saw as the draft structure of the report, and others just as an agenda. For me this was the most frustrating part of the meeting. Again, not having clear direction from the chair on 'what' we were doing did not help to make things simpler. Although, I am not sure anything could have helped at that point :) After new disgreements, the draft structure was approved > on the beginning of day 2, being called as” key elements for the > report”, which give us room to believe that new issues can be included > if the relevant (I dont think any of the issues can be removed, though). After the session on day 1 a few of us stayed behind and I talked with the three different groups that were discussion the agenda. Moving from one to the other, I managed to get them to agree to a merger, without hierachy, of the India/Egypt proposal and the original, in a new sequence. Basically this was the 'room document' but in a new order. I made it clear to all the parties it would not be a structure, and it was with that understanding that they agreed on the list of topics. India said, in fairness I thought, that they would accept this compromise but if it was opened for discussion the next day they would insist on their 'day one proposal' being accepted. Here I made a mistake. When working with the secretariat on typing this, myself, someone from the Indian delegation and someone from the US delegation and a business representative tried to come up with a non-contentious title for the document. I proposed: Schedule of topics for discussion on 26 Feb' thinking it was sufficiently neutral :) The document was emailed to all working group members by the secretariat. To my surprise when it was tabled the next morning, Egypt objected to the title, saying it should also be the structure. This took up another hour.. but in the end, India, Brazil, Pakistan presented compromise proposals and a very constructive phase of the meeting started. > > *3 – Outcomes of the IGF* > > As I said, I did not manage to take many notes on day 2, while speaking > and listening, but my impression was that there was general support that > the IGF would have as outcome something that would cover convergence and > divergence on policy matters and be apt to feed into the process of > police making taking place in other relevant bodies. The actual ways to > do it were not consensus, the approach mentioned by Wolfgang (a lot of > messages emerged from workshops) was one of the possibilities on the > table, some others were advanced as well. Yes, consensus on the idea, but work to be done on how to do this. The detail might well be delegated to the MAG and the secretariat. > > *4- Remote participation* > > Huge support about it. It was really important to talk about RP in the > CSTD WG environment, since some representatives did not know it in > details. RP was recognized as key element for inclusion, a key > innovation from the IGF that deserved more support and joint efforts to > enhancement. Workshops conducted completely online during the IGF > (including from hubs) were suggestd. Some meetings of the MAG and OC > could take place online as well. Agree.. lots of support for remote participation. I think to some extent more support from developed countries, than developing countries. I think this is not so much because they don't think it is important, but because they are not convinced that an IGF where developing country participants participate mostly remotely, while those physically present are mostly from developed countries, will be an IGF that really reflects developing country interests. Agenda setting is a big thing here.. and we did not talk about it enough. Marilia made it clear to everyone present that the remote participation successes result from voluntary work, and she mentioned the names of the members of the working group. > *5- How to write the report* > > As said before, at the beginning of the meeting, the chair suggested the > creation of a smaller drafting group for the report, that seemed to have > been generally accpeted. Many people spoke for it, no one spoke against it > On the second day a proposal circulated that the drafting group would > have the role to compile the points raised in all consultations and > write a first version of the report, then circulate online for comments. > In depth discussions would take place in the next meeting of the WG. > Everybody agreed and then we discussed the composition during lunch. > > The proposal advanced by Brazil was that there should be 1 country per > region (total of 5) plus 1 from the business sector plus 1 from > technical and academic community and 2 from civil society. The reason of > the 2 reps from CS, according to them, was that CS represented many > diferent views that are difficult to capture. India supported. The background to this was a morning coffee break discussion where I proposed that civil society has more than one rep in the drafting group, as we have to represent more diversity. Brazil accepted this and continued to lobby for this during the rest of the day, but the private sector strongly opposed this idea, as it would diverge from the formula used to convene the CSTD working group. I found this quite bloody minded and procedural :) As civil society we need to keep in mind that if we want more influence in the IGF we will need to take on not just governments, but also some of our fellow non-governmental stakeholder groups. We have much in common with them, but we will not always agree with them. This is inevitable, if we are acting in civil society interests. But it should also not harm our generally constructive relationship with business. > > This proposal seems to have disagreed very much the business sector, but > instead of discussing and making a conter-proposal they took a step back > and decided to be against the draft group. I am not sure that is exactly what happened. They had supported the idea of an open voluntary drafting group from the outset. So for them a drafting group was always going to be a compromise. Same for some governments (led by the US) and for the technical community. They argued that we should > leave for the secretariat to come with a report and our role should be > to discuss it. Developed countries (Finland, US, Portugal) and Russia > backed the proposal. I think it is a pitty and a dangerous political > move in face of the faults commited by the secretariat and the chair. In > addition, Brazil raised a good point about the incoherence to preach > that multistakeholders can take issues and do things collaboratively and > then leave this important matter in the hands of the secretariat. I practice I don't think these are such mutually exclusive options. The secretariat will have to compile input anyway... so the first draft which will be made up of compiled input cannot be produced by anyone other than the secretariat. But then they need to work with others to give the process legitimacy, and to give the working group ownership. I think a smaller group is necessary... it will save time. So I do support the formation of a drafting group that people feel comfortable with. I believe that this drafting group should: - not include people who did not attend the Feb 25 and 26 meetings - not have the right to introduce new text - they should work with text from compiled inputs, and the proceedings of the first working group meeting - I support the Brazil proposal on composition of the working group, but would add to it the condition that it does not include people who were not at the meeting. > > DESA asked the WG to also portrait the lessons learned. highlight more > in the report things such as the multistakeholder carachteristic and > remote participation > This is an important point. DESA was proposing that multi-stakeholder participation, and remote participation, be added as 'headings' or key elements to the structure of the report. No one really supported them in a very explicit manner. But we should bring this up again before the questionnaire goes out to the community. I think the other key element that was missing is 'capacity building'. How the IGF can improve its capacity building role needs to be profiled in the working group report. > > *6 – Next steps* (please someone correct me if I am wrong, it was > mentioned fast): > > - The new structure of the questionnaire will be placed online, comments > will be open until March 15 I would propose we add to the structure the following topics (we can draw on text in the Tunis Agenda to frame these more effectively): IGF's contribution to capacity building in IG Multi-stakeholder participation in the IGF Enhancing remote participation in the IGF > > - The Secretariat will compile older contributions, new contributions > and the points raised in this WG meeting and write a draft report > > - The report will be sent to WG members. They can offer comments > > - The text will be discussed on 24 and 25 March in Geneva. > I left before the closing. At the time I left I thought that the Chair said he would decide on the drafting process, and whether, and how, a drafting group would be convened. But things might have changed after Izumi and I left. > > *7- Submission of the report* > > DESA said they had contacted the office in NY and postponed the delivery > of the report to April 1st. Still tight! > > The report should have 17 pages maximum > > > > > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Izumi AIZU > wrote: > > Thank you Wolfgang for your quite precise and concise summary. > > Since I had to leave earlier than the meeting's closure, I could not > capture what was the closing, especially with > regard to the "drafting group" since several members including USG and > business were not supporting the > creation of such drafting group consist of WG members, > but rather to task it to the secretariat, to me that is not > the right path. > > I would like to underscore what Wolfgang mentioned here > about the good acceptance and recognition of Civil society > members and our inputs - compared with December where > it was very different. I spoke with India, Egypt, and some > other gov members informally during brakes and they are > really trying to accommodate us as peer members, and > valuing our input (and other stakeholders input). > > No one questioned the composition of drafting group > include non-gov stakeholders - yes, we had some difference > between CS and business for the number of members to the > drafting group. CS wanted to have more numbers than other > stakeholders since we are much more diverse than, say business or > academic/tech community. They disagreed and tried to keep equal > number. > > This does not mean, please, that CS members were supporting G77 > position on outcome. As far as I can tell, no > CS members took that position per se. > > izumi > > 2011/2/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > >: > > Hi everybody > > > > here are some observations from the IGF Improvement meeting in > Montreux. > > > > 1. The first and most important point is that nobody challenged > the participation of civil society and other non-governmental > stakeholders as equals in the discussion and in the future drafting > of the final report. After the two December meetings of the UNCSTD > this was not so obviously expected. Even the government of Iran said > that it values the contribution of non-governmental stakeholders in > the process since 2003. There was no hostile climate. In contrary, > contributions from all five CS reps in the WG were taken as very > helpful and reasonable input. > > > > 2. A lot of time was wasted with the discussion on procedureal > issues. The discussion on substantial issues circeled for hours > around the questions of the "linkage" of the IGF. India, Egypt but > also Brazil used the languge of the UNGA resolution which says that > the IGF should be linked to the "broader dialogue on Internet > Governance". Some pepole in the room had the impression that this is > not a good language because the broadest dialogue is the IGF itself. > And there was some mistrust that this could become a formula to put > the IGF under the "enhanced cooperation" discussion in the UNGA. > Alternative proposed language was to link the IGF to "other > dialogues" but India and Egypt insisted in the "accepted language" > which, BTW, was introduced by the US government during the > negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA in New York in > November 2010. However both Egypt and India accepted an > interpretiaton that one of the functions of the IGF is to bring > information to other dialogues and that this formulation (in the > headline of Chapter 2 of the forthcoming report) will not include > any formal sub-ordination of the IGF under "another dialogue". My > comment here is that it is rather obvious that on the one hand IGF > and EC are two different processes which are not formally > interlinked but there are some trade offs on the other hand. The > IBSA was not discussed in detail. This will remain an open question. > Russia proposed again to link the IGF with the WSIS Forum but > produced protest against any form of "merger". In a second > interventon Russia clarified that they did not propose "merger" but > wanted to use "synergies" to avoid the waste of resources. There was > no support for a closer linkage between the two fora. > > > > 3. The debate about outcome did not create any new ideas. There > was a broad consensus that the IGF should not become a "negotiation > body", should not produce any "negotiated language" or "binding > recommendations", but should produce something which people can take > home and read within "ten minutes" and show their constituencies as > "outcome". My impression was that more and more stakeholders, > including governments, can live with "messages". The proposed > procedure to generate the messages was not discussed in detail but > the proposal to have nominated rapporteurs for each workshop and > plenary who have to produce one to three "short messages" from the > discussion was seen as a reasonable approach. This would guaratee > that there is a distributed system of messages production which > would reduce the risk of capture of the drafting by one single > group. 50 workshops would mean 50 - 150 messages from 50 rapporteurs. > > > > 4. Another key issues was the role and function of the MAG. The > idea to have the MAG (or the secretariat) like a bureau was > mentioned but got no suprport. The majority was in favour of a more > open MAG, more open consultations and a right mixture between > continuation and rotation in the membership. A related question was > the financing of the secretariat. India and Egypt called for a > stable public funding (to become independen from voluntary > contributions) but they did not say where the money should come from. > > > > 5. The broader involvement of developing countries was discussed > at length. There was a broad consensus among all participants that > the participation of developing countries - both governments and > non-govenrmental stakeholders - has to be broadend. There was an > outspoken wish to strengthen in particular civil society > organisations and small and medium enterprises in developing > countries and to enable them to participate more actively in IGF > activities. > > > > 6. There was a clear support for a stronger linkage between the > global IGF and national and regional IGFs. On the other hand, > dynamic coalitions were not really discussed. There was a proposal > to have in between the global IGFs also "thematic IGFs" but also > here no concrete step was planned. > > > > 7. The meeting decided not to go into the details of how to > organize workshops, plenaries, feeder workshops etc. Some proposals > were made how to improve the planning and the linkage between the > various sessions within an IGF, but this has to be further discussed. > > > > 8. The only thing (but this is not bad) the group could agree > after two days is the structure of the planned report to the UNCSTD > meeting in May 2011. There is now an informal drafting group which > will work together with the Secretariat to draft the report for the > next meeting, scheduled for March 24/25, 2011 in Geneva. > > > > I want to thank all friends of the IGC and the civil society for > their input. CS played and active and recognized role and made very > valuable contributions to the process. At the end Anriette, > Parminder and other raised even the issue to increase the number of > CS people in the various forthcoming groups because CS is different > from the other non-governmentwl stakeholders (broader, more diverse > etc.). Nobody really objetced this but there was no time left for a > discussion, Lets wait and see where we will go from here. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 28 05:05:54 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:05:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: <4D6B6CF6.6080700@apc.org> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D6B6CF6.6080700@apc.org> Message-ID: <4D6B7382.9070908@apc.org> Hello all... my last message on Montreux for a while.. I need to get back to the huge pile of work waiting. One point that I think was not stressed or explored enough during the discussion: - the IGF secretariat should be independent What this means, why it is important, and why it should be ensured, did not come up at all I think. This should be stressed in all further submissions, and I think we can benefit from coming up with concrete ideas on this in the IGF space. I had proposed that civil society representation in the MAG be doubled. Other CS reps supported this. A bit more on this: - my specific proposal was that the current number of civil society people in the MAG be doubled with: * half the number being drawn from civil society organisations that work specifically on internet policy issues, * and the other half drawn from civil society organisations working on substantial issue areas such as sustainable development, cultural and linguistic diversity, peacebuilding, etc. and who represent the interests of specific groups such as women's rights groups, people with disability, online workers, etc. I would like to know how members of the IGF feel about this proposal. My argument is that: - CS represents more diversity... etc. this has been elaborated on already by Wolfgang and others - Business and the tech community largely, not exclusively, but definitely largely, has common positions in the IGF context. This creates imbalance in the MAG, with business and the tech community being more influential than other groups. While there are loads of things that CS would have in common with these two groups, there are also differences, and it makes it difficult for us as CS to broaden the scope of the IGF. Wolfgang made a very important point in one of his inputs yesterday: - The tech community constituency in the IGF is supported to be the technical AND academic community.. but it has been made up mainly of technical community people, with academics dealing with non-tech aspects of IG being included in the CS slate This reduces the number of CS organisational representatives even further, and does not do the academic community justice. They have a lot to contribute. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 28 06:08:07 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:08:07 +1200 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: <4D6B6CF6.6080700@apc.org> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D6B6CF6.6080700@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, Seeing through all your lenses, helps us to get an enhanced perspective. Vinaka (Thanks), Sala On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Thanks to Wolfgang, Izumi and Marilia for their reports on the meeting. > Having different perspectives is extremely useful. Below are some more > reactions from me, and information, in response to Marilia's report. > > Anriette > > On 28/02/11 03:53, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > [snip] > > > > *1 - General impressions* > > > > > Multistakeholder participation and equal chance to intervene on this > > space seems to be something widely accepted now. India, Iran and others > > welcomed the participation of other stakeholders, which was very > > positive. Non-gov actors could speak on equal footing. > > > > The mood was not very good at the beginning of the meeting. The > > Secretariat’s lack of responsiveness, the fact that they conevened the > > meeting in Montreux during Saturday and the fact that the questions that > > would supposedly structure report were not discussed in advance all gave > > place to criticism, which the Chair did not take well. Saying it short, > > we are dealing with an unskilled Chair/Secretariat and this is something > > to worry, given the huge amount of work ahead and the lack of time. > > I agree that the Chair and Secretariat could, and should, have handled > procedural issues better. > > At the same time I think that the procedural issues were a bit > over-politicised. > > Some of the governments felt that the working group should have met > earlier (when most of us non-governmental stakeholders would not have > been able to be there), and some said that 'no work had been done for 2 > months) when many people worked hard on their submissions to the list of > topics posted in January.A bit sad that those governments did not > recognise the importance of non-governmental stakeholders. Interesting that > some said that no work had been done for 2 months. Hmmm. > > Sala, you asked what the procedural issues were. They were, in summary: > > a) Format of the list of topics for input going out to working group > members without working group members being able to first comment ON THE > FORMAT. OMG, no wonder it took ages. > > I agree that it would have been better to first ask for input on the > structure. The structure of topics had several big gaps in it. > > At the same time, one could have added your comments on the structure in > your submission for the sake of progress, or raise them as additional > points on the first day of the working group meeting, rather than halt > the process. > > But again, more skilled management would have helped. > > b) Duration, and venue of the meeting. Several governments felt the > meeting should have been in Geneva, and longer. If it is in Geneva they > can keep in touch with other important negotiations, e.g. the Human > Rights Council and WIPO. > > They also need special permissions from their missions to go and stay at > a hotel in Montreux. > > My opinion is that the first point is legitimate for small missions. The > second is not really, it is just an hour by train and easy to commute > from Geneva to Montreux. > > c) Overall process of how the report is to be drafted not discussed > before the gathering of inputs started. > > My opinion is again that this is a valid point, but there was no need to > overstate it, or politicise it to such an extent as people did. > > So what? Let's discuss the core content issues, and then get back to it. I > suppose if people have flown thousands of miles to discuss, you would want > to ensure that you maximise discussions on core content issues. > > My feeling is that it is only once you have all the content in front of > you that you can come up with a really good structure for the document, > and that, once everyone has given their inputs, that you will get a > sense of what kind of drafting process will be best. > > I was reminded of my political naivety repeatedly during the meeting :) > Being practical does not have much room in a process where so much is > intensely political. And, the structure of the document is extremely > political. This I do agree on. > > In the defense of the chair I want to say that he is not an experienced > UN bureaucrat, and felt he was taking on a convening role, rather than a > negotiating role. I understand that he got fedup. > > At one point he said that if the room wanted to continue to discuss > procedures they could get another chair. I was very pleased that the > Iranian delegated responded with a very clear expression of support for > him, and a call that he should stay on as chair. > > As for the CSTD secretariat.. I agree.. they need to put much more > effort into managing this process and giving the chair the support he > needs. Their capacity is very limited though... essentially one staff > member and a bundle of interns (who are all really excellent by the way). > > >> *2- Structure of the report (jump this topic if you don't want to hear > > about procedure)* > > > > The meeting begun with a procedural clarification asked by India and > > Egypt. They asked if the questions of the draft structure were the ones > > that would guide the writing of the report and asked who would actually > > take the task of writing it. Some people argued the draft structure was > > an agenda for the WG meeting only, not the actual structure of the > > report. Personally, I found this approach a bit nonsense. > > I did not really find this 'nonsense'. To me it made sense to have those > topics as a starting point. The agenda was open for discussion. I agreed > with India and Egypt that key topics were missing. But, why not just > propose that they were added to the agenda, rather than open up the > entire process and waste a day? > > One of these 'missing' topics were: key characteristics of the IGF as > contained in the Tunis Agenda. I also felt we should start discussion > with this topic. But really!! The way in which they expressed their > concerns was unnecessarily confrontational. > > > The chair said that we would only discuss that at the end of the > > meeting, but suggested that maybe an ad hoc group could be created to > > write the report. > > > > India made a point that we could not go into substantive matters if we > > were not sure that we were actually discussing points that would table > > the report. In my opinion, the points made by India were very pertinent, > > but unfortunately lead us to be caught in procedural matters again on > > the first day. > > > Suggestions were made about new questions that should be introduced if > > the points were going to guide the writing of the report. Ex: the first > > question should be an evaluation of the fullfillment of te IGF mandate > > vis-a-vis the Tunis Agenda, so we would know and document exactly which > > are the key-areas for improvement. > > > > India distributed a proposal that changed a bit the structure from the > > questionnaire proposed by the secretariat. The business sector also > > presented a proposal. > > > Both proposals were successfully merged during > > coffee brake. > > The business sector did not really present a proposal. One individual > from business and one from ISOC tried to help by working with the > secretariat to do a merger of the Indian proposal and the original > agenda, using 'track changes' and brackets and they bamed it 'Room > Document'. > > This unfortunately did not address some of Indian's primary concerns, > such as the sequence of the discussion (they wanted to start with Tunis > Agenda, and with the link of the IGF to agreed development goals). > > I was personally quite annoyed :) I had just got India to agree to the > original agenda, but with their key points inserted in the sequence > where they felt they should belong. > > The creating of the agenda as a 'room document' with bracketed text > resulted, unintentionally, in the meeting starting to negotiate the text > of the agenda! Which some people saw as the draft structure of the > report, and others just as an agenda. Sadly, this happens often as > sometimes people can be lazy listeners and rely on the drafters to capture > both the letter and the spirit. It takes a certain amount of vigilance, I > suppose t > > For me this was the most frustrating part of the meeting. Again, not > having clear direction from the chair on 'what' we were doing did not > help to make things simpler. Although, I am not sure anything could have > helped at that point :) > > After new disgreements, the draft structure was approved > > on the beginning of day 2, being called as” key elements for the > > report”, which give us room to believe that new issues can be included > > if the relevant (I dont think any of the issues can be removed, though). > > After the session on day 1 a few of us stayed behind and I talked with > the three different groups that were discussion the agenda. Moving from > one to the other, I managed to get them to agree to a merger, without > hierachy, of the India/Egypt proposal and the original, in a new sequence. > > Basically this was the 'room document' but in a new order. I made it > clear to all the parties it would not be a structure, and it was with > that understanding that they agreed on the list of topics. > > India said, in fairness I thought, that they would accept this > compromise but if it was opened for discussion the next day they would > insist on their 'day one proposal' being accepted. > > Here I made a mistake. When working with the secretariat on typing this, > myself, someone from the Indian delegation and someone from the US > delegation and a business representative tried to come up with a > non-contentious title for the document. I proposed: Schedule of topics > for discussion on 26 Feb' thinking it was sufficiently neutral :) > > The document was emailed to all working group members by the secretariat. > > To my surprise when it was tabled the next morning, Egypt objected to > the title, saying it should also be the structure. This took up another > hour.. but in the end, India, Brazil, Pakistan presented compromise > proposals and a very constructive phase of the meeting started. Bummer > > > > *3 – Outcomes of the IGF* > > > > As I said, I did not manage to take many notes on day 2, while speaking > > and listening, but my impression was that there was general support that > > the IGF would have as outcome something that would cover convergence and > > divergence on policy matters and be apt to feed into the process of > > police making taking place in other relevant bodies. The actual ways to > > do it were not consensus, the approach mentioned by Wolfgang (a lot of > > messages emerged from workshops) was one of the possibilities on the > > table, some others were advanced as well. > > Yes, consensus on the idea, but work to be done on how to do this. The > detail might well be delegated to the MAG and the secretariat. > > > > *4- Remote participation* > > > > Huge support about it. It was really important to talk about RP in the > > CSTD WG environment, since some representatives did not know it in > > details. RP was recognized as key element for inclusion, a key > > innovation from the IGF that deserved more support and joint efforts to > > enhancement. Workshops conducted completely online during the IGF > > (including from hubs) were suggestd. Some meetings of the MAG and OC > > could take place online as well. > > Agree.. lots of support for remote participation. I think to some extent > more support from developed countries, than developing countries. I > think this is not so much because they don't think it is important, but > because they are not convinced that an IGF where developing country > participants participate mostly remotely, while those physically present > are mostly from developed countries, will be an IGF that really reflects > developing country interests. :) > > Agenda setting is a big thing here.. and we did not talk about it enough. > > Marilia made it clear to everyone present that the remote participation > successes result from voluntary work, and she mentioned the names of the > members of the working group. > > > *5- How to write the report* > > > > As said before, at the beginning of the meeting, the chair suggested the > > creation of a smaller drafting group for the report, that seemed to have > > been generally accpeted. Many people spoke for it, no one spoke against > it > > > On the second day a proposal circulated that the drafting group would > > have the role to compile the points raised in all consultations and > > write a first version of the report, then circulate online for comments. > > In depth discussions would take place in the next meeting of the WG. > > Everybody agreed and then we discussed the composition during lunch. > > > > The proposal advanced by Brazil was that there should be 1 country per > > region (total of 5) plus 1 from the business sector plus 1 from > > technical and academic community and 2 from civil society. The reason of > > the 2 reps from CS, according to them, was that CS represented many > > diferent views that are difficult to capture. India supported. > > The background to this was a morning coffee break discussion where I > proposed that civil society has more than one rep in the drafting group, > as we have to represent more diversity. Brazil accepted this and > continued to lobby for this during the rest of the day, but the private > sector strongly opposed this idea, as it would diverge from the formula > used to convene the CSTD working group. > > I found this quite bloody minded and procedural :) > > As civil society we need to keep in mind that if we want more influence > in the IGF we will need to take on not just governments, but also some > of our fellow non-governmental stakeholder groups. > > We have much in common with them, but we will not always agree with > them. This is inevitable, if we are acting in civil society interests. > But it should also not harm our generally constructive relationship with > business. > > > > This proposal seems to have disagreed very much the business sector, but > > instead of discussing and making a conter-proposal they took a step back > > and decided to be against the draft group. > > I am not sure that is exactly what happened. They had supported the idea > of an open voluntary drafting group from the outset. So for them a > drafting group was always going to be a compromise. Same for some > governments (led by the US) and for the technical community. > > They argued that we should > > leave for the secretariat to come with a report and our role should be > > to discuss it. Developed countries (Finland, US, Portugal) and Russia > > backed the proposal. I think it is a pitty and a dangerous political > > move in face of the faults commited by the secretariat and the chair. In > > addition, Brazil raised a good point about the incoherence to preach > > that multistakeholders can take issues and do things collaboratively and > > then leave this important matter in the hands of the secretariat. > > I practice I don't think these are such mutually exclusive options. The > secretariat will have to compile input anyway... so the first draft > which will be made up of compiled input cannot be produced by anyone > other than the secretariat. > > But then they need to work with others to give the process legitimacy, > and to give the working group ownership. > > I think a smaller group is necessary... it will save time. So I do > support the formation of a drafting group that people feel comfortable > with. > > I believe that this drafting group should: > > - not include people who did not attend the Feb 25 and 26 meetings > - not have the right to introduce new text - they should work with text > from compiled inputs, and the proceedings of the first working group > meeting > - I support the Brazil proposal on composition of the working group, but > would add to it the condition that it does not include people who were > not at the meeting. > > > > > DESA asked the WG to also portrait the lessons learned. highlight more > > in the report things such as the multistakeholder carachteristic and > > remote participation > > > > This is an important point. DESA was proposing that multi-stakeholder > participation, and remote participation, be added as 'headings' or key > elements to the structure of the report. No one really supported them in > a very explicit manner. But we should bring this up again before the > questionnaire goes out to the community. > > I think the other key element that was missing is 'capacity building'. > > How the IGF can improve its capacity building role needs to be profiled > in the working group report. > > > > *6 – Next steps* (please someone correct me if I am wrong, it was > > mentioned fast): > > > > - The new structure of the questionnaire will be placed online, comments > > will be open until March 15 > > I would propose we add to the structure the following topics (we can > draw on text in the Tunis Agenda to frame these more effectively): > > IGF's contribution to capacity building in IG > > Multi-stakeholder participation in the IGF > > Enhancing remote participation in the IGF > > > > > - The Secretariat will compile older contributions, new contributions > > and the points raised in this WG meeting and write a draft report > > > > - The report will be sent to WG members. They can offer comments > > > > - The text will be discussed on 24 and 25 March in Geneva. > > > > I left before the closing. At the time I left I thought that the Chair > said he would decide on the drafting process, and whether, and how, a > drafting group would be convened. > > But things might have changed after Izumi and I left. > > > > > *7- Submission of the report* > > > > DESA said they had contacted the office in NY and postponed the delivery > > of the report to April 1st. Still tight! > > > > The report should have 17 pages maximum > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Izumi AIZU > > wrote: > > > > Thank you Wolfgang for your quite precise and concise summary. > > > > Since I had to leave earlier than the meeting's closure, I could not > > capture what was the closing, especially with > > regard to the "drafting group" since several members including USG > and > > business were not supporting the > > creation of such drafting group consist of WG members, > > but rather to task it to the secretariat, to me that is not > > the right path. > > > > I would like to underscore what Wolfgang mentioned here > > about the good acceptance and recognition of Civil society > > members and our inputs - compared with December where > > it was very different. I spoke with India, Egypt, and some > > other gov members informally during brakes and they are > > really trying to accommodate us as peer members, and > > valuing our input (and other stakeholders input). > > > > No one questioned the composition of drafting group > > include non-gov stakeholders - yes, we had some difference > > between CS and business for the number of members to the > > drafting group. CS wanted to have more numbers than other > > stakeholders since we are much more diverse than, say business or > > academic/tech community. They disagreed and tried to keep equal > > number. > > > > This does not mean, please, that CS members were supporting G77 > > position on outcome. As far as I can tell, no > > CS members took that position per se. > > > > izumi > > > > 2011/2/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > >: > > > Hi everybody > > > > > > here are some observations from the IGF Improvement meeting in > > Montreux. > > > > > > 1. The first and most important point is that nobody challenged > > the participation of civil society and other non-governmental > > stakeholders as equals in the discussion and in the future drafting > > of the final report. After the two December meetings of the UNCSTD > > this was not so obviously expected. Even the government of Iran said > > that it values the contribution of non-governmental stakeholders in > > the process since 2003. There was no hostile climate. In contrary, > > contributions from all five CS reps in the WG were taken as very > > helpful and reasonable input. > > > > > > 2. A lot of time was wasted with the discussion on procedureal > > issues. The discussion on substantial issues circeled for hours > > around the questions of the "linkage" of the IGF. India, Egypt but > > also Brazil used the languge of the UNGA resolution which says that > > the IGF should be linked to the "broader dialogue on Internet > > Governance". Some pepole in the room had the impression that this is > > not a good language because the broadest dialogue is the IGF itself. > > And there was some mistrust that this could become a formula to put > > the IGF under the "enhanced cooperation" discussion in the UNGA. > > Alternative proposed language was to link the IGF to "other > > dialogues" but India and Egypt insisted in the "accepted language" > > which, BTW, was introduced by the US government during the > > negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA in New York in > > November 2010. However both Egypt and India accepted an > > interpretiaton that one of the functions of the IGF is to bring > > information to other dialogues and that this formulation (in the > > headline of Chapter 2 of the forthcoming report) will not include > > any formal sub-ordination of the IGF under "another dialogue". My > > comment here is that it is rather obvious that on the one hand IGF > > and EC are two different processes which are not formally > > interlinked but there are some trade offs on the other hand. The > > IBSA was not discussed in detail. This will remain an open question. > > Russia proposed again to link the IGF with the WSIS Forum but > > produced protest against any form of "merger". In a second > > interventon Russia clarified that they did not propose "merger" but > > wanted to use "synergies" to avoid the waste of resources. There was > > no support for a closer linkage between the two fora. > > > > > > 3. The debate about outcome did not create any new ideas. There > > was a broad consensus that the IGF should not become a "negotiation > > body", should not produce any "negotiated language" or "binding > > recommendations", but should produce something which people can take > > home and read within "ten minutes" and show their constituencies as > > "outcome". My impression was that more and more stakeholders, > > including governments, can live with "messages". The proposed > > procedure to generate the messages was not discussed in detail but > > the proposal to have nominated rapporteurs for each workshop and > > plenary who have to produce one to three "short messages" from the > > discussion was seen as a reasonable approach. This would guaratee > > that there is a distributed system of messages production which > > would reduce the risk of capture of the drafting by one single > > group. 50 workshops would mean 50 - 150 messages from 50 rapporteurs. > > > > > > 4. Another key issues was the role and function of the MAG. The > > idea to have the MAG (or the secretariat) like a bureau was > > mentioned but got no suprport. The majority was in favour of a more > > open MAG, more open consultations and a right mixture between > > continuation and rotation in the membership. A related question was > > the financing of the secretariat. India and Egypt called for a > > stable public funding (to become independen from voluntary > > contributions) but they did not say where the money should come from. > > > > > > 5. The broader involvement of developing countries was discussed > > at length. There was a broad consensus among all participants that > > the participation of developing countries - both governments and > > non-govenrmental stakeholders - has to be broadend. There was an > > outspoken wish to strengthen in particular civil society > > organisations and small and medium enterprises in developing > > countries and to enable them to participate more actively in IGF > > activities. > > > > > > 6. There was a clear support for a stronger linkage between the > > global IGF and national and regional IGFs. On the other hand, > > dynamic coalitions were not really discussed. There was a proposal > > to have in between the global IGFs also "thematic IGFs" but also > > here no concrete step was planned. > > > > > > 7. The meeting decided not to go into the details of how to > > organize workshops, plenaries, feeder workshops etc. Some proposals > > were made how to improve the planning and the linkage between the > > various sessions within an IGF, but this has to be further discussed. > > > > > > 8. The only thing (but this is not bad) the group could agree > > after two days is the structure of the planned report to the UNCSTD > > meeting in May 2011. There is now an informal drafting group which > > will work together with the Secretariat to draft the report for the > > next meeting, scheduled for March 24/25, 2011 in Geneva. > > > > > > I want to thank all friends of the IGC and the civil society for > > their input. CS played and active and recognized role and made very > > valuable contributions to the process. At the end Anriette, > > Parminder and other raised even the issue to increase the number of > > CS people in the various forthcoming groups because CS is different > > from the other non-governmentwl stakeholders (broader, more diverse > > etc.). Nobody really objetced this but there was no time left for a > > discussion, Lets wait and see where we will go from here. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > > Japan > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To 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 > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 iza at anr.org Mon Feb 28 06:57:28 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:57:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: <4D6B5C8C.5020407@apc.org> References: <44CB846979C24585A11F5F063CBD381D@userPC> <4D6B5C8C.5020407@apc.org> Message-ID: Yes, I also am aware that CSTD WG is not open nor bottom-up. But then phrasing it as "top-down" is also somewhat mis-leading to us. I agree it is a closed meeting, but there was not discussion about that WG be under Chatham House rule. There were several observers who are not identified. Yet, one of the reasons why I have proposed that at least one of two IGC coordinators be in the CSTD WG, (as well as MAG), is to have better liaison between IGC and WG or MAG which were not there at the MAG. Thus on the one hand I feel obliged to liaise, report, between the two. I did not specifically said or confirmed that myself and other WG 4 members nominated by CS NocCom be the "representatives" of IGC. In fact, most of us mostly acted as in their own capacity unless we mention specifically that this is the IGC (even not CS)'s common position. So I am of course more responsible to represent the IGC as the coordinator than the other four members. But still I think I could make my informal comments on matters where IGC itself does not have strong consensus, as my own views inside WG meetings. This is my understanding. As others said, there seems to be the consensus in the WG that we should respect that IGF keeps its open and MSH nature including a good deal of bottom-up process of shaping it. Not for the decision making of Internet governance in general, as there is no such consensus, but at least for the making of IGF, including MAG, be open, bottom-up, transparent as much as possible. [not for the operating procedure of CSTD]. The WG did not agree with making a small drafting group. For work efficiency, I thought it is better than doing all by open-ended plenary meeting. But we agreed that we will seek for public input very openly, then compile these into the draft report and will work through it to make final report. Even when proposing the "drafting group" the intention is that it is an editorial group and will not create new text, but rather just compile inputs from all contributions. As for the Outcome of the IGF, it is true some proposed to bring them to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA at CSTD WG meeting, but there was no substantial discussion about this proposal, and there is no consensus at all. Bring outcomes to relevant bodies, instead were proposed, including that of Brazil: "IGF shall have outcomes and these outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where there are differing views and alternative suggestions." So, there was no "G77" position or move at the WG meeting. I have not seen "IBSA" join work either. India and Brazil were not always in the same position. South Africa was even not there. I understand Avri's and others' concern that the "outcome oriented" be crafted into such that it ultimately gives authority to UN on any or all Internet Governance policy issue decision making. But, at least myself and other CS members inside CSTD WG do not have such intention nor idea. Yes, Parminder and I have different views on this, and he is be more positive to bring public policy issues into more formal UN decision making policy process, but still, he did not go that far. izumi 2011/2/28 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Hi all > > I agree completely that the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements is > not bottom-up :) > > What was encouraging at the Montreux meeting were three things: > > * the importance giving to the 'open consultation' process in preparing > IGF meetings, and also in getting input for the working group's report > > * agreement on the IGF's basic character as a forum for dialogue on > policy, not for negotiating policy > > * agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder participation > > The points we agreed on as 'key elements for the working group's report' > will be opened to the IGF community at large. > > This will happen in the next few days.  I think that EVERYONE on this > list should respond in their individual, and institutional capacities. > > Anriette > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 28 07:40:34 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:40:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Spectrum for development and access Message-ID: <4D6B97C2.4010606@apc.org> Hi all.. APC proposed that spectrum feature in the access theme of this year's IGF. As part of our work on spectrum for development we have, working with partner organisations, produced a few research papers on spectrum allocation in Brazil (research done by Carlos Afonso and currently being finalied), Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and India (Morocco also to follow soon) and a general briefing paper on how spectrum work, and what the role of a spectrum commons could be. Tips for opening spectrum http://www.apc.org/en/news/eleven-tips-opening-spectrum Policy brief http://www.apc.org/en/node/11798/ Country report and stories http://www.apc.org/en/node/11863 We would really value feedback from people on this list. Anriette -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Feb 28 09:02:40 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:02:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more In-Reply-To: References: <44CB846979C24585A11F5F063CBD381D@userPC> <4D6B5C8C.5020407@apc.org>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993DF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Just a quick word of thanks to CSers able to participate in the various meetings last week. Under let's just say - suboptimal conditions - you all did great, bravo. As to all the time wasted on procedural/political minutia - as McTim might note - hey it's the UN, what did you expect? ; ) Lee PS: Seriously, it seems a requirement of UN negotiations that the first day (at least) be wasted largely on such matters; only when pressure/fear of going home having accomplished - zip - is in people's minds, does much happen. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:57 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [governance] Re: moving more Yes, I also am aware that CSTD WG is not open nor bottom-up. But then phrasing it as "top-down" is also somewhat mis-leading to us. I agree it is a closed meeting, but there was not discussion about that WG be under Chatham House rule. There were several observers who are not identified. Yet, one of the reasons why I have proposed that at least one of two IGC coordinators be in the CSTD WG, (as well as MAG), is to have better liaison between IGC and WG or MAG which were not there at the MAG. Thus on the one hand I feel obliged to liaise, report, between the two. I did not specifically said or confirmed that myself and other WG 4 members nominated by CS NocCom be the "representatives" of IGC. In fact, most of us mostly acted as in their own capacity unless we mention specifically that this is the IGC (even not CS)'s common position. So I am of course more responsible to represent the IGC as the coordinator than the other four members. But still I think I could make my informal comments on matters where IGC itself does not have strong consensus, as my own views inside WG meetings. This is my understanding. As others said, there seems to be the consensus in the WG that we should respect that IGF keeps its open and MSH nature including a good deal of bottom-up process of shaping it. Not for the decision making of Internet governance in general, as there is no such consensus, but at least for the making of IGF, including MAG, be open, bottom-up, transparent as much as possible. [not for the operating procedure of CSTD]. The WG did not agree with making a small drafting group. For work efficiency, I thought it is better than doing all by open-ended plenary meeting. But we agreed that we will seek for public input very openly, then compile these into the draft report and will work through it to make final report. Even when proposing the "drafting group" the intention is that it is an editorial group and will not create new text, but rather just compile inputs from all contributions. As for the Outcome of the IGF, it is true some proposed to bring them to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA at CSTD WG meeting, but there was no substantial discussion about this proposal, and there is no consensus at all. Bring outcomes to relevant bodies, instead were proposed, including that of Brazil: "IGF shall have outcomes and these outcomes shall be sent to relevant international organizations related to Internet Governance issues. The outcomes of IGF meetings shall be considered to be a non-binding, non-negotiated text that will reflect convergence where they exist and capture alternative options where there are differing views and alternative suggestions." So, there was no "G77" position or move at the WG meeting. I have not seen "IBSA" join work either. India and Brazil were not always in the same position. South Africa was even not there. I understand Avri's and others' concern that the "outcome oriented" be crafted into such that it ultimately gives authority to UN on any or all Internet Governance policy issue decision making. But, at least myself and other CS members inside CSTD WG do not have such intention nor idea. Yes, Parminder and I have different views on this, and he is be more positive to bring public policy issues into more formal UN decision making policy process, but still, he did not go that far. izumi 2011/2/28 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Hi all > > I agree completely that the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements is > not bottom-up :) > > What was encouraging at the Montreux meeting were three things: > > * the importance giving to the 'open consultation' process in preparing > IGF meetings, and also in getting input for the working group's report > > * agreement on the IGF's basic character as a forum for dialogue on > policy, not for negotiating policy > > * agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder participation > > The points we agreed on as 'key elements for the working group's report' > will be opened to the IGF community at large. > > This will happen in the next few days. I think that EVERYONE on this > list should respond in their individual, and institutional capacities. > > Anriette > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Feb 28 11:30:35 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:30:35 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Spectrum for development and access In-Reply-To: <4D6B97C2.4010606@apc.org> (message from Anriette Esterhuysen on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:40:34 +0200) References: <4D6B97C2.4010606@apc.org> Message-ID: <20110228163035.E1AF915C0E6@quill.bollow.ch> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all.. APC proposed that spectrum feature in the access theme of this > year's IGF. I strongly agree that this a good, very important and very timely topic. > Policy brief > http://www.apc.org/en/node/11798/ Hmm... I find it a bit disturbing that your paper, as well as many other writings about the subject, confuses rather than clarifies the distinction between the communication medium of electromagnetic waves, and the widespread thinking about this communication medium as consisting of a spectrum of electromagnetic waves with distinct wavelengths and frequences (where the product of the wavelength and the frequency is always equal to the speed of light). The fact is that in the age of analog electronics, there was a technical necessity for transmitters and receivers of electromagnetic transmissions to be constructed in such a way that they would send and receive electromagnetic transmissions at one or more specific frequencies. As a result of *that*, we now have regulation of "spectrum" that makes it illegal, for anyone besides the designated owner of the various regulated frequencies, to use most of the theorectical communication capacity. However, case for probably almost all if not all of the frequencies those owners makes so little use of all that communcation capacity that there would be no technical whatsoever with others also using those frequencies provided that the rules for avoiding problems were a bit more sophisticated than the simplistic rule of assigning each frequency to just one organization. Furthermore, I've read claims (but haven't persoanlly checked the details) that the "spectrum" approach of dividing up electromagnetic communication capacity (which starts by diving it up as a spectrum of different frequencies) is much less efficient than other ways of dividing it up which are nowadays also technically possible. Anyway, I'm fully in support of the "open spectrum for development" idea. 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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Mon Feb 28 11:35:16 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:35:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: moving more regarding which countries are part of the g77 In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993DF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <44CB846979C24585A11F5F063CBD381D@userPC> <4D6B5C8C.5020407@apc.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC993DF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, When we talk of g77, we should keep in mind that g77 has about 134 countries. Sometimes, a country position may be taken as a g77 position. Labeling positions may contribute to polarization. One of the difficulties g77 has, is to produce consensus which encompasses all countries' interests. best, Miguel Sent from my iPad On Feb 28, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Just a quick word of thanks to CSers able to participate in the various meetings last week. > > Under let's just say - suboptimal conditions - you all did great, bravo. > > As to all the time wasted on procedural/political minutia - as McTim might note - hey it's the UN, what did you expect? ; ) > > Lee > > PS: Seriously, it seems a requirement of UN negotiations that the first day (at least) be wasted largely on such matters; only when pressure/fear of going home having accomplished - zip - is in people's minds, does much happen. > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:57 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: moving more > > Yes, I also am aware that CSTD WG is not open nor bottom-up. > But then phrasing it as "top-down" is also somewhat mis-leading to us. > I agree it is a closed meeting, but there was not discussion about that > WG be under Chatham House rule. There were several observers > who are not identified. > > Yet, one of the reasons why I have proposed that at least one of > two IGC coordinators be in the CSTD WG, (as well as MAG), is to have > better liaison between IGC and WG or MAG which were not there at the > MAG. Thus on the one hand I feel obliged to liaise, report, between the > two. I did not specifically said or confirmed that myself and other WG 4 members > nominated by CS NocCom be the "representatives" of IGC. In fact, most > of us mostly acted as in their own capacity unless we mention specifically > that this is the IGC (even not CS)'s common position. > > So I am of course more responsible to represent the IGC as the coordinator > than the other four members. But still I think I could make my informal > comments on matters where IGC itself does not have strong consensus, > as my own views inside WG meetings. This is my understanding. > > As others said, there seems to be the consensus in the WG that we should > respect that IGF keeps its open and MSH nature including a good deal of > bottom-up process of shaping it. Not for the decision making of Internet > governance in general, as there is no such consensus, but at > least for the making of IGF, including MAG, be open, bottom-up, transparent > as much as possible. [not for the operating procedure of CSTD]. > > The WG did not agree with making a small drafting group. > For work efficiency, I thought it is better than doing all by > open-ended plenary meeting. But we agreed that we will > seek for public input very openly, then compile these into > the draft report and will work through it to make final report. > Even when proposing the "drafting group" the intention is that > it is an editorial group and will not create new text, but rather > just compile inputs from all contributions. > > As for the Outcome of the IGF, it is true some proposed to bring them > to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA at CSTD WG meeting, but there was no substantial > discussion about this proposal, and there is no consensus at all. > Bring outcomes to relevant bodies, instead were proposed, including > that of Brazil: > > "IGF shall have outcomes and these outcomes shall be sent to relevant > international organizations related to Internet Governance issues. The > outcomes of IGF meetings shall be considered to be a non-binding, > non-negotiated text that will reflect convergence where they exist and > capture alternative options where there are differing views and > alternative suggestions." > > So, there was no "G77" position or move at the WG meeting. I have not > seen "IBSA" join work either. India and Brazil were not always in the > same position. South Africa was even not there. > > I understand Avri's and others' concern that the "outcome oriented" be > crafted into such that it ultimately gives authority to UN on any or all > Internet Governance policy issue decision making. But, at least myself > and other CS members inside CSTD WG do not have such intention > nor idea. Yes, Parminder and I have different views on this, and he is > be more positive to bring public policy issues into more formal UN decision > making policy process, but still, he did not go that far. > > izumi > > 2011/2/28 Anriette Esterhuysen : >> Hi all >> >> I agree completely that the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements is >> not bottom-up :) >> >> What was encouraging at the Montreux meeting were three things: >> >> * the importance giving to the 'open consultation' process in preparing >> IGF meetings, and also in getting input for the working group's report >> >> * agreement on the IGF's basic character as a forum for dialogue on >> policy, not for negotiating policy >> >> * agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder participation >> >> The points we agreed on as 'key elements for the working group's report' >> will be opened to the IGF community at large. >> >> This will happen in the next few days. I think that EVERYONE on this >> list should respond in their individual, and institutional capacities. >> >> Anriette >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Feb 28 13:02:39 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 06:02:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] Spectrum for development and access In-Reply-To: <4D6B97C2.4010606@apc.org> References: <4D6B97C2.4010606@apc.org> Message-ID: All the best with your proposal Anriette. I think that this is critical as one cannot speak about access without addressing the regulatory frameworks in different jurisdictions surrounding spectrum as it directly impacts access. The way spectrum is managed directly affects cost, product/technology and ultimately level of access for the end user. There is a useful publication by the ITU: *The Application of Information and Communication Technologies in the Least Developed Countries for Sustained Economic Growth 2004.* However, there will be different perspectives for "Commercial Enterprises" and civil society. Commercial Enterprises are more likely to advocate to protect its survival and it would not be a commercially viable entity if it did not, especially if its purpose of existence is to make money and reduce its losses. On the other hand the regulator is free in choosing the method of regulation, sadly particularly in the absence of clear ICT Strategies as is common in developing countries with ill resourced regulators and this can also impinge on licensed operators rights. At the same time, the clarion voice of the rest in civil society is important as it would help the regulators or policy analysts see the bigger picture. On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all.. APC proposed that spectrum feature in the access theme of this > year's IGF. > > As part of our work on spectrum for development we have, working with > partner organisations, produced a few research papers on spectrum > allocation in Brazil (research done by Carlos Afonso and currently being > finalied), Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and India (Morocco also to > follow soon) and a general briefing paper on how spectrum work, and what > the role of a spectrum commons could be. > > Tips for opening spectrum > http://www.apc.org/en/news/eleven-tips-opening-spectrum > > Policy brief > http://www.apc.org/en/node/11798/ > > Country report and stories > http://www.apc.org/en/node/11863 > > We would really value feedback from people on this list. > > Anriette > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director > association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Mon Feb 7 00:34:27 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:34:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] =?BIG5?B?t3OmfqfWvNYsrqWz37VvsF0=?= Message-ID: Dear All, I would like to wish all our Chinese friends from all around the world: 新年快樂,恭喜發財 I was just thinking of how China has contributed and flavoured the world as we know it. I only wish there was more literature in English on Internet Governance challenges in China. Warm Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Feb 28 22:55:30 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 06:55:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Montreux In-Reply-To: <4D6B58EC.5020005@apc.org> References: <289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D6B58EC.5020005@apc.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all > > Back in sane Johannesburg :) > > In response to Adam, I also liked Brazil's proposal to begin to discuss > public policy principles of IG and progressively over time, capturing > where there is agreement, and differences on these principles .  This > can be captured in the IGF's outcome 'documents'. > > The Brazilian's are drawing on their national experience of thrashing > out key principles among all stakeholders. It has worked really well for > them, and I do think the IGF should try something similar. yes, but while it is much lauded, we still see some ugliness: http://observingbrazil.com/2011/02/21/the-right-to-information-in-brazil-censorship-fines-for-sharing-wi-fi/ -- 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