From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 21:02:58 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:02:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Egypt's last ISP, Noor, just went offline Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Finley Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:50 PM To: Jillian C. York Cc: Liberation Technologies Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Egypt's last ISP, Noor, just went offline An article about tweeting by phone. http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/31/twitter-by-phone-egypt/ It was only last week that Google acquired SayNow, a voice messaging startup, They're already putting them to good use. I mean really good use. As they've just announced on the Google Blog, the search giant has teamed up with the incoming SayNow team and Twitter to create a simple speak-to-tweet service for people currently engulfed in the turmoil in Egypt. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jillian C. York wrote: SMS is unavailable by all accounts. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Erik Sundelof wrote: All, Is there any text message capabilities in Egypt currently or is that completely shut down? If there is still some SMS service , is international SMS available? Best, Erik ----------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.sundelof.com Jillian C. York wrote: Reports just now that Noor, the last remaining ISP online in Egypt over the past few days, has just gone down. -- Berkman Center for Internet and Society | https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jyork jilliancyork.com | @jilliancyork | tel: +1-857-891-4244 _____ _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech -- Berkman Center for Internet and Society | https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jyork jilliancyork.com | @jilliancyork | tel: +1-857-891-4244 _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 21:51:49 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:51:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <418971A1-B213-4B42-BCB6-422A493CA585@ciroap.org> 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. -- 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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Mon Jan 31 22:37:03 2011 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:37:03 -0600 Subject: [governance] EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations In-Reply-To: <4D45CB0B.7050307@eff.org> References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <4D45CB0B.7050307@eff.org> Message-ID: 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 22:52:41 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 06:52:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [afnog] 39/8 and 106/8 allocated to APNIC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For those of you who don't pay close attention, what the below message means is that IANA IPv4 exhaustion will probably happen today. One of each of the last 5 blocks goes to each respective RIR. , -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Leo Vegoda Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:02 AM Subject: [afnog] 39/8 and 106/8 allocated to APNIC To: AfNOG Hi, The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of two IPv4 /8 blocks to APNIC in January 2011: 39/8 and 106/8.  39/8   APNIC   2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED 106/8   APNIC   2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED You can find the IANA IPv4 registry at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt Please update your filters as appropriate. Only five unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s remain. Regards, Leo Vegoda Number Resources Manager, IANA ICANN _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -- 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 katitza at eff.org Mon Jan 31 23:07:12 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:07:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations In-Reply-To: References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <4D45CB0B.7050307@eff.org> Message-ID: <4D4786F0.2090802@eff.org> 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 report > > released 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 > effort to 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 Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 2 06:01:01 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 19:01:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username Message-ID: This is long, but important, so please read it. Before the next poll or election is called, anyone who wishes to participate will have to have an account in the new database that I have created to record IGC membership. All those who voted in the last election will also be entered into this database. We are doing this because, until now, there has been no proper IGC membership list, other than the list of subscribers to the governance mailing list (which contains many non-member lurkers, duplicate subscriptions and some defunct accounts). The advantages of a maintaining a centralised database is that we can use a single list of members (and potential members) for purposes including: mailing list subscription editing content on the IGC Web site determining eligibility to vote for coordination elections and charter amendments Also, we will finally be able to associate names and (optionally) organisations with email addresses. Our inability to do this in the past has been a problem for the coordinators. I will be entering existing members into this database shortly, but I am first giving everyone the opportunity to create their own database entry so that they can choose their own username. If you don't choose your own username, you will end up with a username like "john.doe". The username won't be used on the mailing list, but will be associated with any content you may create on our Web site, and possibly for other purposes in the future. To create your own entry in the IGC membership database please visit this new page of our Web site: http://www.igcaucus.org/user/register When registering, please use the same email address with which you are subscribed to the governance list. This is important because it will enable me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in the last coordinator elections), if indeed you are one. (If not, please register anyway - especially if you intend to vote at the next coordinator elections.) Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately due to software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you may have had there before.) Existing subscribers to the governance mailing list who have not voted in the list election will not automatically be added to the database. So, if you did not vote but are nonetheless an active participant, you should register yourself using the link above. If you don't, your mailing list subscription won't be touched, but you won't have access to participate in polls or to add content to our Web site. Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. You have one month from now to create your own database entry if you wish, before I will create entries for all the missing members. PS. Since this email is long enough already, I'll be writing separately about some of the other "phase 2" improvements to our Web site. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Jan 2 08:12:05 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 09:12:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: First of all - thank you everyone for all the good wishes for the holidays. I should like to add my "Happy New Year!" and a wish for the absence of earthquakes, epidemics, hurricanes, floods, landslides and volcanic eruptions globally in 2011. Second - there are several things that are not clear to me about this message from Jeremy and I would be grateful for clarification. On 2 January 2011 07:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Before the next poll or election is called, anyone who wishes to > participate will have to have an account in the new database that I have > created to record IGC membership. All those who voted in the last election > will also be entered into this database. > My understanding is that eligibility to vote is defined by a subscription of at least 2 months to the IGC mailing list. If that changes, in the sense of there being additional requirements, surely it needs to be in the charter? > > We are doing this because, until now, there has been no proper IGC > membership list, other than the list of subscribers to the governance > mailing list (which contains many non-member lurkers, duplicate > subscriptions and some defunct accounts). > By the existing rules it is, I thought, not possible to be a "non-member lurker" since the rules define membership by "subscription to the list"? > > The advantages of a maintaining a centralised database is that we can use a > single list of members (and potential members) for purposes including: > > > - mailing list subscription > - editing content on the IGC Web site > - determining eligibility to vote for coordination elections and > charter amendments > > > Also, we will finally be able to associate names and (optionally) > organisations with email addresses. Our inability to do this in the past > has been a problem for the coordinators. > > I will be entering existing members into this database shortly, but I am > first giving everyone the opportunity to create their own database entry so > that they can choose their own username. If you don't choose your own > username, you will end up with a username like "john.doe". The username > won't be used on the mailing list, but will be associated with any content > you may create on our Web site, and possibly for other purposes in the > future. > > To create your own entry in the IGC membership database please visit this > new page of our Web site: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/user/register > > When registering, please use the same email address with which you are > subscribed to the governance list. This is important because it will enable > me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in the last > coordinator elections), > "Official IGC members" are those who subscribe to the list, NOT those "who voted in the last coordinator elections". The definition in Jeremy's message seems to me to be a fundamental change in the intention of the charter. if indeed you are one. (If not, please register anyway - especially if you > intend to vote at the next coordinator elections.) > > Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or > unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately due to > software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be > automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - > you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you > may have had there before.) > > Existing subscribers to the governance mailing list who have not voted in > the list election will not automatically be added to the database. So, if > you did not vote but are nonetheless an active participant, you should > register yourself using the link above. If you don't, your mailing list > subscription won't be touched, but you won't have access to participate in > polls or to add content to our Web site. > > Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. You have one > month from now to create your own database entry if you wish, before I will > create entries for all the missing members. > > PS. Since this email is long enough already, I'll be writing separately > about some of the other "phase 2" improvements to our Web site. > Research has demonstrated that mailing lists are like icebergs, with the greatest proportion invisible "below water level". There have also been studies that demonstrate that this "invisible majority" plays an important part in the production of results, particularly by dissemination of information from the discussions carried on by the minority. The issue of reviewing the charter keeps recurring. Perhaps we have come to the point where that review MUST be carried out. We should not press for inclusion and transparency in others while working towards something which can appear to be exclusion and opacity in our own affairs. Deirdre > -- > > *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, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jan 2 09:40:19 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 14:40:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 19:01:01 on Sun, 2 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >When registering, please use the same email address with which you are >subscribed to the governance list.  This is important because it will >enable me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in >the last coordinator elections), if indeed you are one.  (If not, >please register anyway - especially if you intend to vote at the next >coordinator elections.) Having registered and validated (an extra step not mentioned above) it then says the account has to be "authorised". Which is perhaps why... >Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to >or unsubscribe from the governance mailing list.  (Unfortunately due to >software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't >be automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database >entry - you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any >password you may have had there before.) ... when it goes on to ask for a username and password, it doesn't recognise either my username or email address (and, of course, I have no password, or if I did it was forgotten years ago). [This report sent to the list, in case others are puzzling over the same issue]. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Jan 2 10:22:06 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 10:22:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi, same experience. my assumption is that Jeremy has set it up so that an admin, in this case Jeremy, has to approve us. btw, I do not understand the statement in Jeremy's original note that this is the only way to subscribe to the email list. has the list moved? if not what stops direct subscription? and do we as a group want people to have to run a gauntlet to subscribe to the list? i wonder to what degree is gate-keeping consistent with the letter and spirit of the IGC charter. a. On 2 Jan 2011, at 09:40, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 19:01:01 on Sun, 2 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >> When registering, please use the same email address with which you are subscribed to the governance list. This is important because it will enable me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in the last coordinator elections), if indeed you are one. (If not, please register anyway - especially if you intend to vote at the next coordinator elections.) > > Having registered and validated (an extra step not mentioned above) it then says the account has to be "authorised". Which is perhaps why... > >> Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately due to software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you may have had there before.) > > ... when it goes on to ask for a username and password, it doesn't recognise either my username or email address (and, of course, I have no password, or if I did it was forgotten years ago). > > [This report sent to the list, in case others are puzzling over the same issue]. > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Jan 2 10:24:30 2011 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 2, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at > 19:01:01 on Sun, 2 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >> When registering, please use the same email address with which you >> are subscribed to the governance list. This is important because >> it will enable me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one >> who voted in the last coordinator elections), if indeed you are >> one. (If not, please register anyway - especially if you intend to >> vote at the next coordinator elections.) > > Having registered and validated (an extra step not mentioned above) > it then says the account has to be "authorised". Which is perhaps > why... > >> Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe >> to or unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately >> due to software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web >> site won't be automatically set to the one you choose when creating >> your database entry - you'll need to set it again when logging in >> there, or use any password you may have had there before.) > > ... when it goes on to ask for a username and password, it doesn't > recognise either my username or email address (and, of course, I > have no password, or if I did it was forgotten years ago). > > [This report sent to the list, in case others are puzzling over the > same issue]. Roland, Surely good questions. I believe we are seeing a standard Drupal mechanism for a protected site. If this is correct, a password will come along subsequently. Awaiting, of course, Jeremy's direction in the matter. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 2 11:17:32 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 19:17:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > same experience. > > my assumption is that Jeremy has set it up so that an admin, in this case Jeremy, has to approve us. > > btw, I do not understand the statement in Jeremy's original note that this is the only way to subscribe to the email list.  has the list moved?  if not what stops direct subscription? and do we as a group want people to have to run a gauntlet to subscribe to the list? no > > i wonder to what degree is gate-keeping consistent with the letter and spirit of the IGC charter. I don't feel it is consistent with either. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Jan 2 11:30:47 2011 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 10:30:47 -0600 Subject: RES: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005a01cbaa9a$6cb2e520$4618af60$@uol.com.br> Same points Avri, I see no point in have someone deciding who will ente ror not. 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 Avri Doria Enviada em: domingo, 2 de janeiro de 2011 09:22 Para: IGC Assunto: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username hi, same experience. my assumption is that Jeremy has set it up so that an admin, in this case Jeremy, has to approve us. btw, I do not understand the statement in Jeremy's original note that this is the only way to subscribe to the email list. has the list moved? if not what stops direct subscription? and do we as a group want people to have to run a gauntlet to subscribe to the list? i wonder to what degree is gate-keeping consistent with the letter and spirit of the IGC charter. a. On 2 Jan 2011, at 09:40, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 19:01:01 on Sun, 2 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >> When registering, please use the same email address with which you are subscribed to the governance list. This is important because it will enable me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in the last coordinator elections), if indeed you are one. (If not, please register anyway - especially if you intend to vote at the next coordinator elections.) > > Having registered and validated (an extra step not mentioned above) it then says the account has to be "authorised". Which is perhaps why... > >> Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately due to software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you may have had there before.) > > ... when it goes on to ask for a username and password, it doesn't recognise either my username or email address (and, of course, I have no password, or if I did it was forgotten years ago). > > [This report sent to the list, in case others are puzzling over the same issue]. > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 3 06:13:05 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 03:13:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [fcf_discussion] Websites Black-out as Drastic Internet Censorship is Introduced in Hungary Message-ID: <07C6D4FC1C1C4224AB2EBB96C04D4BDB@userPC> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: stef Date: Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:11 PM Subject: [fcf_discussion] Websites Black-out as Drastic Internet Censorship is Introduced in Hungary To: face , fcforum_discussion , iindep info exchange hub blackout4hungary - For immediate release Permanent Link: http://blackout4hungary.net/en/Websites_Black-out_as_Drastic_Internet_Censor ship_is_Introduced_in_Hungary.html ** Websites Black-out as Drastic Internet Censorship is Introduced in Hungary Will the upcoming Hungarian Presidency of the EU attack the Net? Budapest, January 2nd 2001 -- A new media law in Hungary creates a powerful censorship authority without oversight and excessive powers under control of the governing party, which endangers the freedom of speech, the Internet and journalism as a whole. Citizens are called to black-out the Internet from the 5th January - when Hungary is taking over the EU presidency on the 6th January 2011. The new Hungarian media law entered into force on January the 1st 2011. This law enables the ruling party to gain control of the Internet through the creation of a powerful censorship authority. While destroying journalistic source protection the text also fails to distinguish between different types of media, mixing online platforms and traditional broadcasters and making them obey the same standards. The Hungarian ruling party deliberately avoided public consultation on the new media law. It is plain to see their will to control and censor the Internet while bypassing democracy and suppressing dissent, opposition and transparency. Concerned citizens' opinion is confirmed by the joint analysis http://www.ekint.org/ekint/ekint_angol.news.page?nodeid=395 of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, the Eötvös Károly Institute and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, who observe that "...the Bill will enact a compulsory registration system for all content providers. The maximum amount of fines for national television broadcaster is set to 200 million HUF, and to 25 million HUF[1] for national printed and online newspapers (including blogs with advertisements). The media authority will have the power to suspend or even shut down Internet websites that does not meet the requirements. The Bill will establish legal responsibility beyond the press for intermediary providers. This shift would be in sharp contrast with EU regulation. According to the original plans, decisions of the authority may be subject to judicial review, but submitting a motion to the court would not have any suspending effect as far as the execution of sentences is concerned." Hungary will take over the EU presidency on the 6th of January, while various Member States are attempting to impose Internet censorship, amongst widespread local and international protest about the new media legislation[2]. As the "Child Protection" EU directive will attempt to sneakily impose censorship of the Net, it is now very likely that the Hungarian Presidency will participate in the global EU effort of censoring the Internet. "All citizens, in Hungary and beyond, should react to this blatant attack against the Internet! When the Hungarian government opens the box of Net censorship, after the French and the Italian ones, it's all of EU should be afraid. We must warn EU citizens and reject any scheme of Internet censorship altogether!" conludes Vince Kovács, spokesperson of blackout4hungary. Citizens of Blackout4Hungary call on everyone on the Hungarian Internet and beyond, to oppose Internet censorship by displaying an image, or turning their whole website black (examples and images are available on http://blackout4hungary.net) from January the 5th. ** References ** [1] Around 10 000 EUR [2] EU presses Hungary on media law: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6408bc8a-0f65-11e0-b336-00144feabdc0.html#axzz194B xml94 ** About blackout4hungary ** blackout4hungary is a group of concerned internet citizens with strong ties to Hungary and Freedom. ** Contact, Press ** @blackout4hu Vince Kovacs thanks for everyones support! s ps: for a detailed analysis see a post by Jan Albrecht: http://janalbrecht.eu/2011/01/02/whats-the-problem-with-the-hungarian-media- law/ -- gpg: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/stef.gpg gpg fp: F617 AC77 6E86 5830 08B8 BB96 E7A4 C6CF A84A 7140 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQGcBAEBCAAGBQJNIId1AAoJEOekxs+oSnFAloAL/30EEvhkPx2fK0IGgIFnaujL 3N77A36kgmwBcSmwfNM4DFP0BgSGWCHztRPXuQNKuUxUBt9uKkDUyInINDdY9yws 5Pgr/TcJ2Zsb3sCw/Ey7rq3Eo9l2oyu7uTkelp5/DVcfw+XbJhfpl1mW3/U2SRrE yuQvJ0+PR8rpRZGwIysFokNi5vawvz2p6QclCbBWmwhMIX/MEGtaJPqfAiKLLSf7 WqpJx+G5SkhhUaug2DqI8gr9hKYKNK9wxP4gg+1ieWhPSO1MtB9V21/R5AGoWXa6 yEJYeOB3QgcdV9VH0iGRDzh3yPaPY30Mur3OQBv1Vey9g+IcJ1Y6eUt9mJb6hZt2 aHwRCK6DZvw6sHC753PKHYTQiK8GOA120n+0yO+mYNAKBGCJUzb8wnlEVducArtG 0KNeJ97+Bu/nlL69CumWx55IB3JeXjWIk4kEaA5C2C7US/dwfoiNtvC7fxov2dhm 6fVXAE7gTNESzEkt9FhivMEo3U5CggR26F5CsalDow== =DdQN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- +info http://list.fcforum.net/wws/info/fcforum_discussion ---- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jan 3 07:15:57 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:15:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 02/01/2011, at 10:40 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > Having registered and validated (an extra step not mentioned above) it then says the account has to be "authorised". Which is perhaps why... > >> Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately due to software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you may have had there before.) > > ... when it goes on to ask for a username and password, it doesn't recognise either my username or email address (and, of course, I have no password, or if I did it was forgotten years ago). Yes, that's why. You'll need to wait for confirmation of your registration before you can log in. This may take 24 hours or so, since it has to be done manually. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george_todoroff at imap.cc Mon Jan 3 10:30:41 2011 From: george_todoroff at imap.cc (George Todoroff) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 07:30:41 -0800 Subject: RES: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B1=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <020b01cb9663$b9e40bd0$2dac2370$@uol.com.br> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia> <4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg> <020b01cb9663$b9e40bd0$2dac2370$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: <1294068641.1643.1413261317@webmail.messagingengine.com> -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george_todoroff at imap.cc Mon Jan 3 10:45:59 2011 From: george_todoroff at imap.cc (George Todoroff) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 07:45:59 -0800 Subject: RES: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B1=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1294068641.1643.1413261317@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com><75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org><1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local><05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org><05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org><0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia> <4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg><020b01cb9663$b9e40bd0$2dac2370$@uol.com.br> <1294068641.1643.1413261317@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1294069559.5329.1413265115@webmail.messagingengine.com> Something has gone terribly wrong with my mailer, so I`m deeply sorry for double posting. I wanted to revive the thread, by sharing my comments after reading this news from today: http://domainincite.com/icann-rejects-bulgarian-idn-info-request/ I read the ICANN response at http://domainincite.com/docs/DIDP-Response-Bazlyankov-20101201-1.pdf and I believe that with this reply, ICANN ran over its policy of becoming more transparent. They have refused to share any details of how the decision to reject the Bulgarian IDN domain was taken, by actually citing legal reasons for non-transparency. -- George Todoroff george_todoroff at imap.cc -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Jan 3 12:25:13 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:25:13 +0100 Subject: RES: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic . бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs? In-Reply-To: <1294069559.5329.1413265115@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia> <4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg> <020b01cb9663$b9e40bd0$2dac2370$@uol.com.br> <1294068641.1643.1413261317@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1294069559.5329.1413265115@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110103175903.04e71968@jefsey.com> At 16:45 03/01/2011, George Todoroff wrote: >Something has gone terribly wrong with my mailer, so I`m deeply sorry >for double posting. > >I wanted to revive the thread, by sharing my comments after reading this >news from today: > http://domainincite.com/icann-rejects-bulgarian-idn-info-request/ > >I read the ICANN response at >http://domainincite.com/docs/DIDP-Response-Bazlyankov-20101201-1.pdf and >I believe that with this reply, ICANN >ran over its policy of becoming more transparent. They have refused to >share any details of how the decision to reject the Bulgarian IDN domain >was taken, by actually citing legal reasons for non-transparency. All this ICANN crap is only BS, just to stay very polite. As I explained to you, ICANN carry no other weight than the one its believers give to them. The whole Fast Track and gTLD processes are based upon an undue forced respect of the International US policy and the lapse of memory about RFC 1034/1035. I suggest you just forget about them, work on the basis of a "6g" TLD, and gives time to the IUse (Intelligent Use) emerging community to sort its acts together (or may be join). The only International Network Character Set (INCS) of reference can be a visual character set. It must be based upon a transposition of RFC 5892 to ISO 10646 (to stay independent from commercial interests associated in the US industry Unicode consortium, whatever their competences and lacks). Then on a graphic community sorting, together with all the organizations neededing a visually secure graphic set of characters forms independent from the script (police, banks, customs, immigrations, etc.) Such an INCS will be used to register names in class 0 and defeat visual confusion. jfc http://iuse.eu http://incsa.org/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jan 3 20:34:57 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 09:34:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> On 03/01/2011, at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/01/2011, at 10:40 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> Having registered and validated (an extra step not mentioned above) it then says the account has to be "authorised". Which is perhaps why... I've just noticed I'm missing some emails (my work email address has been down), in which people are expressing a couple of concerns that I need to address. First, there is no change to the criteria for IGC membership. The requirement for registration applications to be approved by an administrator is inherent in the software that we are using. There is no discretion on my part to refuse applications (perhaps except for obvious spam registrations, of which there have been none so far). If it's a big concern, probably we could amend the software to remove the requirement for administrator's approval. Second, the list has not moved. But the list does not have all the facilities we need for a membership database, and neither does our Web site. So what I've done is to create an LDAP database on a third server (igf-online.net) which the other two servers (lists.cprs.org and www.igcaucus.org) use to access the list of IGC members. Ideally, we would have our own dedicated server which would host all these facilities... but we have no funding, so we are reliant on the generosity of sponsors. I'm happy to address any other concerns as they come up. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jan 3 22:31:23 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:31:23 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 02/01/2011, at 9:12 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > "Official IGC members" are those who subscribe to the list, NOT those "who voted in the last coordinator elections". The definition in Jeremy's message seems to me to be a fundamental change in the intention of the charter. There are so many different levels of membership in the charter that it is indeed confusing: * Those who self-identified as members and voted in the last coordinator elections, who are the only members entitled to vote on charter amendments. These are whom I was referring to above, though maybe "full" would have been a better choice of words than "official". * Those who self-identified as members prior to the last coordinator election, who are (perhaps?) also still members, but can't vote on charter amendments. The charter is ambiguous about whether you have to renew your self-identification every year. In favour of this view, a member may have moved into government service since their previous self-identification. Against, even if you do work for government, you may feel that you can still self-identify as an IGC member in your personal capacity. * Those who participate in the mailing list, but have never self-identified as members (whom I called "lurkers"). So, I disagree with your point that there is no such thing as a non-member lurker. But, I agree that it would be better to completely review the charter, if only we had a willing group of members to undertake this task. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Mon Jan 3 22:50:05 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:50:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, A Happy New year to all! This will be a crucial year and I hope we can manage that to advance our cause around IGF and WSIS. As Jeremy explained, we had no intention to change the Charter or its interpretation when trying to change the database management. And yes, it is somewhat confusing to have different levels of membership in our Carter. They are with good reasons, too, however, I think. I am not against the review of the Charter, but I agree with Jeremy in that we need a willing group of members and also a good deal of discussion on the list. izumi 2011/1/4 Jeremy Malcolm : > On 02/01/2011, at 9:12 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > "Official IGC members" are those who subscribe to the list, NOT those "who > voted in the last coordinator elections". The definition in Jeremy's message > seems to me to be a fundamental change in the intention of the charter. > > There are so many different levels of membership in the charter that it is > indeed confusing: > * Those who self-identified as members and voted in the last coordinator > elections, who are the only members entitled to vote on charter amendments. >  These are whom I was referring to above, though maybe "full" would have > been a better choice of words than "official". > * Those who self-identified as members prior to the last coordinator > election, who are (perhaps?) also still members, but can't vote on charter > amendments.  The charter is ambiguous about whether you have to renew your > self-identification every year.  In favour of this view, a member may have > moved into government service  since their previous self-identification. >  Against, even if you do work for government, you may feel that you can > still self-identify as an IGC member in your personal capacity. > * Those who participate in the mailing list, but have never self-identified > as members (whom I called "lurkers"). So, I disagree with your point that > there is no such thing as a non-member lurker. > But, I agree that it would be better to completely review the charter, if > only we had a willing group of members to undertake this task. > -- > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jan 3 22:52:28 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:52:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am I a lurker even though I subscribed to the list, please advise? On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/01/2011, at 9:12 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > "Official IGC members" are those who subscribe to the list, NOT those > "who voted in the last coordinator elections". The definition in Jeremy's > message seems to me to be a fundamental change in the intention of the > charter. > > > There are so many different levels of membership in the charter that it is > indeed confusing: > > * Those who self-identified as members and voted in the last coordinator > elections, who are the only members entitled to vote on charter amendments. > These are whom I was referring to above, though maybe "full" would have > been a better choice of words than "official". > > * Those who self-identified as members prior to the last coordinator > election, who are (perhaps?) also still members, but can't vote on charter > amendments. The charter is ambiguous about whether you have to renew your > self-identification every year. In favour of this view, a member may have > moved into government service since their previous self-identification. > Against, even if you do work for government, you may feel that you can > still self-identify as an IGC member in your personal capacity. > > * Those who participate in the mailing list, but have never > self-identified as members (whom I called "lurkers"). So, I disagree with > your point that there is no such thing as a non-member lurker. > > But, I agree that it would be better to completely review the charter, if > only we had a willing group of members to undertake this task. > > -- > > *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, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dg_cameron at bigpond.com Mon Jan 3 23:13:12 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:13:12 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username Message-ID: <14978931.6857.1294114392302.JavaMail.prodapps@nskntweba05-app> Hello from a ‘non-member lurker’ (given I have not previously posted to this list even though I thank all contributors for the tremendous value offered in recent discussions). Please accept my apologies for this omission and be assured of my support for the IGC and objectives of good governance. I do promote the work of the IGC within my domains of influence and remain hopeful the term lurker was not meant to be derogatory. While I am not sure why it is required, or under whose authority - I attempted to subscribe to the requested database however was unable to locate a database privacy policy. Could someone please provide a link? (better would be a URL to the policy on the subscription page) – Hopefully reluctance to enter personal details into an online database without such a policy or protections in place needs no explanation. Don ------------------------------------------ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; CC: roland at internetpolicyagency.com; Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username On 03/01/2011, at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/01/2011, at 10:40 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> Having registered and validated (an extra step not mentioned above) it then says the account has to be "authorised". Which is perhaps why... I've just noticed I'm missing some emails (my work email address has been down), in which people are expressing a couple of concerns that I need to address. First, there is no change to the criteria for IGC membership. The requirement for registration applications to be approved by an administrator is inherent in the software that we are using. There is no discretion on my part to refuse applications (perhaps except for obvious spam registrations, of which there have been none so far). If it's a big concern, probably we could amend the software to remove the requirement for administrator's approval. Second, the list has not moved. But the list does not have all the facilities we need for a membership database, and neither does our Web site. So what I've done is to create an LDAP database on a third server (igf-online.net) which the other two servers (lists.cprs.org and www.igcaucus.org) use to access the list of IGC members. Ideally, we would have our own dedicated server which would host all these facilities... but we have no funding, so we are reliant on the generosity of sponsors. I'm happy to address any other concerns as they come up. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jan 3 23:15:49 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 23:15:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330007021@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Jeremy, I'm now confused by your categories. List subscribers who self-identify as members of civil society are eligible to vote if they've been on the list a couple months; list members who joined more recently have to wait for the next go-round; list members who do not self-identify as cs are ineligible. Right? We need not call them 'lurkers,' if such folks want to speak up we can listen right. Your second category of people whose status may have changed over time is more a problem, possibly, for a nomcom considering whether a particular possible volunteer is a suitable rep of cs in this or that volunteer capacity. If there was a sudden influx of folks from a particular sector then we might worry about ballot-stuffing....which we have in the past; but somehow we muddle along anyway. So present safeguards seem to work well enough there. At least that's my understanding. But if you feel we need to make things more complicated than that....you better join that charter amendment group you're suggesting before doing so : ) Otherwise, just focusing on cleaning up duplicate and defunct email addresses is the main thing right; building out a more comprehensive database on list members is...maybe... a good thing but I'm note sure it is a top priority given plenty of other things to do. My 2 cents, and I am definitely not volunteering to join you on your charter amendment committee. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:31 PM To: Deirdre Williams Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username On 02/01/2011, at 9:12 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: "Official IGC members" are those who subscribe to the list, NOT those "who voted in the last coordinator elections". The definition in Jeremy's message seems to me to be a fundamental change in the intention of the charter. There are so many different levels of membership in the charter that it is indeed confusing: * Those who self-identified as members and voted in the last coordinator elections, who are the only members entitled to vote on charter amendments. These are whom I was referring to above, though maybe "full" would have been a better choice of words than "official". * Those who self-identified as members prior to the last coordinator election, who are (perhaps?) also still members, but can't vote on charter amendments. The charter is ambiguous about whether you have to renew your self-identification every year. In favour of this view, a member may have moved into government service since their previous self-identification. Against, even if you do work for government, you may feel that you can still self-identify as an IGC member in your personal capacity. * Those who participate in the mailing list, but have never self-identified as members (whom I called "lurkers"). So, I disagree with your point that there is no such thing as a non-member lurker. But, I agree that it would be better to completely review the charter, if only we had a willing group of members to undertake this task. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jan 3 23:18:50 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:18:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6402F5DA-822E-490D-8235-A4CAA6F1DEC7@ciroap.org> On 04/01/2011, at 11:52 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Am I a lurker even though I subscribed to the list, please advise? Along with everyone else who posts to the list, you are as good as a member for most purposes. The only things that you can't do are: (a) Vote in the next coordinator election until you self-affirm membership at that time. (b) Vote on any charter amendments between now and then, if you didn't vote in the last coordinator elections. But you can still contribute to discussions and consensus-building on the list. A difficult question that comes up in transitioning to a membership database is, do we have two entries in the database for those who are subscribed to the mailing list twice? I would answer no; although your multiple subscriptions remain intact, you should only fill in the membership form once. But since the mailing list subscription form is now the same as the membership database form, this presents a problem for new members who wish to subscribe under multiple addresses: to them, I would just ask that they contact me for help (I'll add a note to this effect to the Web site). -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jan 3 23:21:07 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:21:07 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <14978931.6857.1294114392302.JavaMail.prodapps@nskntweba05-app> References: <14978931.6857.1294114392302.JavaMail.prodapps@nskntweba05-app> Message-ID: On 04/01/2011, at 12:13 PM, Don Cameron wrote: > While I am not sure why it is required, or under whose authority - I attempted to subscribe to the requested database however was unable to locate a database privacy policy. Could someone please provide a link? (better would be a URL to the policy on the subscription page) – Hopefully reluctance to enter personal details into an online database without such a policy or protections in place needs no explanation. Will do. Please hang tight until the weekend. I will also fully explain the Web site's new facilities (blog and wiki space) then. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jan 3 23:27:13 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:27:13 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330007021@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: , <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330007021@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 04/01/2011, at 12:15 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > List subscribers who self-identify as members of civil society are eligible to vote if they've been on the list a couple months; list members who joined more recently have to wait for the next go-round; list members who do not self-identify as cs are ineligible. Right? We need not call them 'lurkers,' if such folks want to speak up we can listen right. Right. Some people (eg. members of the IGF secretariat and the ICC) are on the list and deliberately never participate in voting or list discussion. It was they whom I had in mind as lurkers (but without meaning any derogatory connotation by that). > Otherwise, just focusing on cleaning up duplicate and defunct email addresses is the main thing right; building out a more comprehensive database on list members is...maybe... a good thing but I'm note sure it is a top priority given plenty of other things to do. My 2 cents, and I am definitely not volunteering to join you on your charter amendment committee. Also because people had asked for improvements to the Web site, and I didn't want to have yet another category of people who are signed up on the Web site but not on the mailing list... it would be just too messy and confusing for words. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Jan 3 23:52:16 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 23:52:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 3 Jan 2011, at 20:34, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Second, the list has not moved. But the list does not have all the facilities we need for a membership database, and neither does our Web site. So what I've done is to create an LDAP database on a third server (igf-online.net) which the other two servers (lists.cprs.org and www.igcaucus.org) use to access the list of IGC members. Ideally, we would have our own dedicated server which would host all these facilities... but we have no funding, so we are reliant on the generosity of sponsors. i was wondering what happens when someone send subscribe message to list.cpsr.org? so i tried: > Command has been rejected : > >> subscribe governance > You are not allowed to subscribe to this list. I do not think this is a good thing. people should just be able to subscribe. they should not be told they are not allowed to subscribe. i think this needs to be undone. perhaps we need a subgroup to work with the co-ordinators, and then get list approval, before they make fundamental changes like this to the IGC list. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 4 01:05:15 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:05:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 04/01/2011, at 12:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > i was wondering what happens when someone send subscribe message to list.cpsr.org? > > so i tried: > >> Command has been rejected : >> >>> subscribe governance >> You are not allowed to subscribe to this list. > > I do not think this is a good thing. Does anyone subscribe to a mailing list by sending email to the list address anymore? Surely they will just visit the list's Web page. If they do that, they see a nice friendly message with a link to the new subscription page. (I can always make this link larger and friendly if needed.) -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Jan 4 01:28:26 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:28:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> hi, I always do it that way. I think many of us do. All you need to know is the name and address and of a list, and you know how to subscribe. Also the headers of each email from the list gives that as the instruction on how to do it. > > Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > X-No-Archive: yes > List-Id: > List-Archive: > List-Help: > List-Owner: > List-Post: > List-Subscribe: > List-Unsubscribe: > X-Pstn-Neptune: 0/0/0.00/0 > I think this is a severe change that needs to be undone. I also do not think this is the kind of change that co-coordinators should be making unilaterally, I am also very uneasy with the way you are changing what it means to be a member of the IGC. And with the way you are terming those who participate in the list passively as lurkers and making claims about members of the IGF secretariat being just lurkers. I know of at least 2 part time members of the IGF secretariat who are active list participants, though they may when on contract restrict the comments they make about the IGF. Besides, it is the nature of this list to be open, and I do not believe you are empowered to change that in any way or to denigrate those who have joined the list only to follow the discussions. a. On 4 Jan 2011, at 01:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/01/2011, at 12:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> i was wondering what happens when someone send subscribe message to list.cpsr.org? >> >> so i tried: >> >>> Command has been rejected : >>> >>>> subscribe governance >>> You are not allowed to subscribe to this list. >> >> I do not think this is a good thing. > > Does anyone subscribe to a mailing list by sending email to the list address anymore? Surely they will just visit the list's Web page. If they do that, they see a nice friendly message with a link to the new subscription page. (I can always make this link larger and friendly if needed.) > > -- > 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jan 4 01:42:25 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 22:42:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <279FA9BC489545D0B42F210FFE597ABB@userPC> Jeremy, I run several quite active and I think quite useful email lists that follow precisely the subscription procedure that you have indicated below. I've had no complaints and absolutely no confusion on how to sub (unsubbing is sometimes a problem because people being people and technology being technology, people forget their passwords or have their email addresses changed for them peremptorily by sysadmins who, with just a bit of arrogance, don't both informing them of this process). With best regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:05 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username On 04/01/2011, at 12:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > i was wondering what happens when someone send subscribe message to > list.cpsr.org? > > so i tried: > >> Command has been rejected : >> >>> subscribe governance >> You are not allowed to subscribe to this list. > > I do not think this is a good thing. Does anyone subscribe to a mailing list by sending email to the list address anymore? Surely they will just visit the list's Web page. If they do that, they see a nice friendly message with a link to the new subscription page. (I can always make this link larger and friendly if needed.) -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 4 01:47:46 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:47:46 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> Message-ID: On 04/01/2011, at 2:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I think this is a severe change that needs to be undone. I also do not think this is the kind of change that co-coordinators should be making unilaterally, Well, I don't agree that any severe change has been made. The list is still open, it's just the means of subscribing has changed. If enough people agree with you and disagree with me, then I can re-enable subscriptions via email and via the old Web page. However, we will then lose a lot of the benefits of having a single subscription page to both the list and the Web resources. > I am also very uneasy with the way you are changing what it means to be a member of the IGC. I am not doing that at all. > And with the way you are terming those who participate in the list passively as lurkers That is a value-neutral term, as far as I use it. But I've apologised if anyone was offended by use of that term. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dg_cameron at bigpond.com Tue Jan 4 03:10:13 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 19:10:13 +1100 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <001d01cbabe6$d06b1ea0$71415be0$@com> For the sake of discussion - yes I sub'd to this list (as I do all others) by means of the list-serv command. I also administer several lists, and like many people have had issues in the past with other lists and administrators that do not support sub and unsub requests via email; usually resulting in need to email the admin directly to find-out if a web interface exists and where it is, or when not, for the admin to manually action my request. This is commonly time consuming and unnecessary. Modern (and less-than-modern) email list software supports list-serv commands and these really should be available to people wishing to use them. Perhaps I should also mention it was only today that I first visited the web page for this forum - I doubt I will remember where it is come time to unsub from this list. Please keep the list-serv commands available. Don -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Tuesday, 4 January 2011 5:05 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username On 04/01/2011, at 12:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > i was wondering what happens when someone send subscribe message to list.cpsr.org? > > so i tried: > >> Command has been rejected : >> >>> subscribe governance >> You are not allowed to subscribe to this list. > > I do not think this is a good thing. slate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 4 03:19:25 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:19:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <001d01cbabe6$d06b1ea0$71415be0$@com> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <001d01cbabe6$d06b1ea0$71415be0$@com> Message-ID: <4331F3E4-5A2F-4B6F-AFFD-39FCE85F190D@ciroap.org> On 04/01/2011, at 4:10 PM, Don Cameron wrote: > Perhaps I should also mention it was only today that I first visited the web > page for this forum - I doubt I will remember where it is come time to unsub > from this list. Please keep the list-serv commands available. You are in luck, the unsubscribe command does still work, for when you need it. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 4 03:34:05 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 08:34:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message , at 14:05:15 on Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >Does anyone subscribe to a mailing list by sending email to the list >address anymore? Most people to most lists - yes. You also have to remember that email is a much more robust protocol than http, especially for those users experiencing long term access issues. (Although if you are losing emails to any of your email addresses, I suggest you take that up as a matter of urgency with your system administrators.) >Surely they will just visit the list's Web page. It's an EMAIL list. If the community prefers a web forum (I wouldn't, but others may disagree), then by all means have that; but this is a list about Internet Governance and there are accepted ways to govern a mailing list, which should not be changed lightly. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 4 03:43:34 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:43:34 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <6BE339B3-5FEF-47F4-813D-B4EFDE66F1EC@ciroap.org> On 04/01/2011, at 4:34 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> Surely they will just visit the list's Web page. > > It's an EMAIL list. > > If the community prefers a web forum (I wouldn't, but others may disagree), then by all means have that; but this is a list about Internet Governance and there are accepted ways to govern a mailing list, which should not be changed lightly. As a compromise, I have re-enabled the old interface for subscriptions (including by email), but made it subject to confirmation, so that I can alert them to the need to join on the Web page too (unless they intend to purely lurk). -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jan 4 05:03:15 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:03:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:47:46 +0800) References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> Message-ID: <20110104100315.8745F15C0E7@quill.bollow.ch> Dear all Having just yesterday re-subscribed to this list after a long absence (the absence was due to time constraints, not for reasons of any kind of disagreement), here are a few comments from my perspective: Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/01/2011, at 2:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > I think this is a severe change that needs to be undone. I also do > > not think this is the kind of change that co-coordinators should > > be making unilaterally, > > Well, I don't agree that any severe change has been made. The list > is still open, it's just the means of subscribing has changed. I would agree with Avri that it's a severe change that apparantly now subscription requests have to be approved manually, even if the policy is to accept all subscription requests. Reading the message that my account would have to be approved made me wonder how long it would take for anyone to get around to doing that... it reminded me of another list where I had subscribed some time back where manual approval of subscription requests was required, and where it took the list administrator literally months to get around to processing the subscription request. In fact, together with the fact that the wiki was totally empty, it made me wonder whether the IGC was still alive. I don't think that this is the kind of things that we'd want new subscribers to think about initally. > If enough people agree with you and disagree with me, then I can > re-enable subscriptions via email and via the old Web page. > However, we will then lose a lot of the benefits of having a single > subscription page to both the list and the Web resources. I think that it's quite acceptable to use a web-based subscription interface. However, the List-Subscribe: header should be fixed to point to the correct URI rather than to Sympa's email interface. Also the message from Sympa to people trying to use the email interface should be fixed to refer people to the web interface instead of giving the wrong and misleading and in a way even insulting message "You are not allowed to subscribe to this list." > > I am also very uneasy with the way you are changing what it means > > to be a member of the IGC. > > I am not doing that at all. > > > And with the way you are terming those who participate in the list > > passively as lurkers > > That is a value-neutral term, as far as I use it. But I've > apologised if anyone was offended by use of that term. I agree with Jeremy that at least among people who are experienced in using email lists, it'a totally value-neutral term. However, the term is likely to be misunderstood by people who do not come with a good working knowledge of "mailing list jargon". Therefore, in my opinion, if we're going to use this word, it would be important to at least explain its meaning in a "welcome message" that is emailed to new subscribers, together with the clarification that "lurking" on email lists is quite acceptable behavior, and in fact it is what most active mailing list users do most of the time on most of the lists to which they subscribe. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 4 05:24:16 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 10:24:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <6BE339B3-5FEF-47F4-813D-B4EFDE66F1EC@ciroap.org> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <6BE339B3-5FEF-47F4-813D-B4EFDE66F1EC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message <6BE339B3-5FEF-47F4-813D-B4EFDE66F1EC at ciroap.org>, at 16:43:34 on Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm remarked: >>> Surely they will just visit the list's Web page. >> >> It's an EMAIL list. >> >> If the community prefers a web forum (I wouldn't, but others may disagree), then by all means have that; but this is a list about Internet >>Governance and there are accepted ways to govern a mailing list, which should not be changed lightly. > >As a compromise, I have re-enabled the old interface for subscriptions (including by email), but made it subject to confirmation, so that I can >alert them to the need to join on the Web page too (unless they intend to purely lurk). There should be no need to "join on a web page too". Are you saying that having "joined" the list by email, they can immediately and without any further ado lurk (ie receive mail from the list); but if they want to post, they have to do more than confirm their registration by email? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 4 05:29:01 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:29:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <6BE339B3-5FEF-47F4-813D-B4EFDE66F1EC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <572966D0-D781-48A6-A6DC-8916193DF8C0@ciroap.org> On 04/01/2011, at 6:24 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > Are you saying that having "joined" the list by email, they can immediately and without any further ado lurk (ie receive mail from the list); but if they want to post, they have to do more than confirm their registration by email? No, only if they want to participate in an election or poll, post content to the IGC Web site, or comment on a pending statement using our Web-based tools. For those who subscribe via the IGC Web site, they can automatically do all those things, as well as receiving list mail. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 4 06:05:49 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:05:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <572966D0-D781-48A6-A6DC-8916193DF8C0@ciroap.org> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <6BE339B3-5FEF-47F4-813D-B4EFDE66F1EC@ciroap.org> <572966D0-D781-48A6-A6DC-8916193DF8C0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message <572966D0-D781-48A6-A6DC-8916193DF8C0 at ciroap.org>, at 18:29:01 on Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >... only if they want to... comment on a pending statement using our > Web-based tools. I hope people (all of them) will still be able to comment by email - some of these recent statements have been somewhat rushed through (by force of circumstances, but the charter needs to reflect this) and we should take care when restricting people's ability to participate. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Jan 4 06:39:55 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 07:39:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> Message-ID: On 4 January 2011 02:47, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/01/2011, at 2:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > And with the way you are terming those who participate in the list > passively as lurkers > > That is a value-neutral term, as far as I use it. But I've apologised if > anyone was offended by use of that term. > "We are doing this because, until now, there has been no proper IGC membership list, other than the list of subscribers to the governance mailing list (which contains many non-member lurkers, duplicate subscriptions and some defunct accounts)." The intention of my comment at least was not that I found the term itself offensive, but that in the context that was used (see above) the suggestion appeared to be that "lurkers" were undesirable and should be removed from the list of subscribers - since they were included in a list with "duplicate subscriptions" and "defunct accounts". Also that "lurkers", by definition, were not members. Since these views seem to disagree fundamentally with my understanding of the way the Internet Governance Caucus is supposed to work I felt that it was necessary to challenge them. I apologise in turn if I misunderstood your intention. :-) Deirdre > > -- > 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, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 4 06:46:21 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 19:46:21 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> Message-ID: <83157CF2-CEE5-426A-9328-E841AB376835@ciroap.org> On 04/01/2011, at 7:39 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > The intention of my comment at least was not that I found the term itself offensive, but that in the context that was used (see above) the suggestion appeared to be that "lurkers" were undesirable and should be removed from the list of subscribers - since they were included in a list with "duplicate subscriptions" and "defunct accounts". Also that "lurkers", by definition, were not members. Since these views seem to disagree fundamentally with my understanding of the way the Internet Governance Caucus is supposed to work I felt that it was necessary to challenge them. > I apologise in turn if I misunderstood your intention. :-) No problem. I intended to convey that every year it is necessary to separate the lurkers from the voters, in order to create the list of voter-members that the charter requires. Until now, this has been labour-intensive and error-prone. The new infrastructure I'm putting in place will make it faster and easier. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Jan 4 07:01:42 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 07:01:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <6BE339B3-5FEF-47F4-813D-B4EFDE66F1EC@ciroap.org> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <6BE339B3-5FEF-47F4-813D-B4EFDE66F1EC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <413DA943-7A0D-43E4-ABD2-33E2B87CC73D@acm.org> Hi, that is one step better, but still not adequate. you are still making subscription depend on the good graces of the co-coordinator. An extra power that was not assigned in the charter. If you want them to join your web interface, then just put a message in the signon message telling that when their subscription is confirmed with the email check. then they can do so or not as they please. Also, you get a confirmation message each time someone signs on. you could automate a web page signon process based on receipt of that message. a. On 4 Jan 2011, at 03:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/01/2011, at 4:34 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > >>> Surely they will just visit the list's Web page. >> >> It's an EMAIL list. >> >> If the community prefers a web forum (I wouldn't, but others may disagree), then by all means have that; but this is a list about Internet Governance and there are accepted ways to govern a mailing list, which should not be changed lightly. > > As a compromise, I have re-enabled the old interface for subscriptions (including by email), but made it subject to confirmation, so that I can alert them to the need to join on the Web page too (unless they intend to purely lurk). > > -- > 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, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Tue Jan 4 07:03:08 2011 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 13:03:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1D075DFBC9B54C09AE6100F17D5B85E1@MTBJ> Jeremy, I registered as you asked, and now, I received the username and the password. I noticed 3 anomalies: * Under “organization”, there is a name that I don’t know, and that is not the name of my organization * Under “Home page”, there is an URL which is my organization one * Under “History”, it’s mentioned that I’m member since 10 hours or so. Does it mean that I’m now considered a new member of the IGC? ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de Jeremy Malcolm Envoyé : mardi 4 janvier 2011 02:35 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc : Roland Perry Objet : Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username On 03/01/2011, at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/01/2011, at 10:40 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> Having registered and validated (an extra step not mentioned above) it then says the account has to be "authorised". Which is perhaps why... I've just noticed I'm missing some emails (my work email address has been down), in which people are expressing a couple of concerns that I need to address. First, there is no change to the criteria for IGC membership. The requirement for registration applications to be approved by an administrator is inherent in the software that we are using. There is no discretion on my part to refuse applications (perhaps except for obvious spam registrations, of which there have been none so far). If it's a big concern, probably we could amend the software to remove the requirement for administrator's approval. Second, the list has not moved. But the list does not have all the facilities we need for a membership database, and neither does our Web site. So what I've done is to create an LDAP database on a third server (igf-online.net) which the other two servers (lists.cprs.org and www.igcaucus.org) use to access the list of IGC members. Ideally, we would have our own dedicated server which would host all these facilities... but we have no funding, so we are reliant on the generosity of sponsors. I'm happy to address any other concerns as they come up. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jan 4 10:41:35 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:41:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> Message-ID: I agree with Avri, drastic change, unilaterally done, would like to see it undone. Am on safari right now, actually surrounded by elephants, so im not going to spend time quoting the charter, but i dont think this change is inline with it. Rgds, mctim On 1/4/11, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > I always do it that way. I think many of us do. All you need to know is > the name and address and of a list, and you know how to subscribe. Also the > headers of each email from the list gives that as the instruction on how to > do it. > >> >> Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> X-No-Archive: yes >> List-Id: >> List-Archive: >> List-Help: >> List-Owner: >> List-Post: >> List-Subscribe: >> >> List-Unsubscribe: >> >> X-Pstn-Neptune: 0/0/0.00/0 >> > > > I think this is a severe change that needs to be undone. I also do not think > this is the kind of change that co-coordinators should be making > unilaterally, > > I am also very uneasy with the way you are changing what it means to be a > member of the IGC. And with the way you are terming those who participate > in the list passively as lurkers and making claims about members of the IGF > secretariat being just lurkers. I know of at least 2 part time members of > the IGF secretariat who are active list participants, though they may when > on contract restrict the comments they make about the IGF. Besides, it is > the nature of this list to be open, and I do not believe you are empowered > to change that in any way or to denigrate those who have joined the list > only to follow the discussions. > > a. > > > On 4 Jan 2011, at 01:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 04/01/2011, at 12:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> i was wondering what happens when someone send subscribe message to >>> list.cpsr.org? >>> >>> so i tried: >>> >>>> Command has been rejected : >>>> >>>>> subscribe governance >>>> You are not allowed to subscribe to this list. >>> >>> I do not think this is a good thing. >> >> Does anyone subscribe to a mailing list by sending email to the list >> address anymore? Surely they will just visit the list's Web page. If >> they do that, they see a nice friendly message with a link to the new >> subscription page. (I can always make this link larger and friendly if >> needed.) >> >> -- >> 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, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Sent from my mobile device Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Tue Jan 4 13:37:07 2011 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:37:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 4 Jan 2011, at 06:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Does anyone subscribe to a mailing list by sending email to the list address anymore? Surely they will just visit the list's Web page. If they do that, they see a nice friendly message with a link to the new subscription page. (I can always make this link larger and friendly if needed.) Most of the lists I subscribe to I do via email. Please at least change the message to something other than "go away" - i.e. please come over here and register via the website. Life is to short to then start trying to guess the list's web page having been told I can't subscribe. However I do think the move is generally in the right direction. Thanks f____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Tue Jan 4 13:39:12 2011 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:39:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> Message-ID: <49B40EE4-136E-4B68-8468-C4843869EFB1@st-kilda.org> On 4 Jan 2011, at 06:47, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If enough people agree with you and disagree with me, then I can re-enable subscriptions via email and via the old Web page. However, we will then lose a lot of the benefits of having a single subscription page to both the list and the Web resources. You can send information in the welcome mail asking people to visit the website to provide the extra information so that they can partake in all the new community features. f____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jan 4 14:08:26 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 07:08:26 +1200 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <49B40EE4-136E-4B68-8468-C4843869EFB1@st-kilda.org> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> <49B40EE4-136E-4B68-8468-C4843869EFB1@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: Jeremy, I subscribed to this list via email. There are numerous scenarios, one is if your website always has visibility, the reality is that it could be 2 or three clicks away for a person to access it. I was on another site and it made reference to some groups and I sent an email and hence my membership in the Mailing List. >From a consumer perspective, think of the consumer who is unfamiliar with the world of Internet Governance and wishes to educate him or herself, yes you can educate them via having an excellent website but you also need to make membership hassle free and as easy as sending an email, I suppose. Within the Welcome Message, you can include the website as part of the welcome message so people can still have the option of whether they wish to visit the website and you could invite them to bookmark the page. Just a Thought. Sala On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Fearghas McKay wrote: > > On 4 Jan 2011, at 06:47, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > If enough people agree with you and disagree with me, then I can > re-enable subscriptions via email and via the old Web page. However, we > will then lose a lot of the benefits of having a single subscription page to > both the list and the Web resources. > > You can send information in the welcome mail asking people to visit the > website to provide the extra information so that they can partake in all the > new community features. > > f____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dg_cameron at bigpond.com Tue Jan 4 15:17:40 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 07:17:40 +1100 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> Message-ID: <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> Fascinating how questions of good list governance stem from the very list designed to promote good Internet governance through participatory contribution. If nothing else this is surely a trigger for increased participation here! (or for the lurkers to arise from the woodwork as it were :-) I also queried use of the term 'lurker' because of context and association (with defunct accounts etc.). My apologies if this misunderstood, however the association was probably inappropriate. I'm still not sure the term is being used in proper context in conversation when suggesting that 'lurkers' should be separated from 'voter-members'. Until this furore erupted I was a lurker on this list, and would probably have remained as such had these dramatic changes not been proposed (implemented without consensus?) - however being a lurker does not mean I fail to identify with and associate with civil society, nor do I withdraw my right to vote (as a member voter) should I so choose - a right is not an obligation. I lurk because I choose to lurk. I will vote if I choose to vote. Why is a lurker deemed different from a voter? Perhaps what is really intended is to identify and define people who do not identify as civil society members? (some of whom may lurk; some of whom may not) I think care needs to be taken that rights are not removed from people through these actions. Don From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams Sent: Tuesday, 4 January 2011 10:40 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username On 4 January 2011 02:47, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 04/01/2011, at 2:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > And with the way you are terming those who participate in the list passively as lurkers That is a value-neutral term, as far as I use it. But I've apologised if anyone was offended by use of that term. "We are doing this because, until now, there has been no proper IGC membership list, other than the list of subscribers to the governance mailing list (which contains many non-member lurkers, duplicate subscriptions and some defunct accounts)." The intention of my comment at least was not that I found the term itself offensive, but that in the context that was used (see above) the suggestion appeared to be that "lurkers" were undesirable and should be removed from the list of subscribers - since they were included in a list with "duplicate subscriptions" and "defunct accounts". Also that "lurkers", by definition, were not members. Since these views seem to disagree fundamentally with my understanding of the way the Internet Governance Caucus is supposed to work I felt that it was necessary to challenge them. I apologise in turn if I misunderstood your intention. :-) Deirdre -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Jan 4 16:09:21 2011 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:09:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <1D075DFBC9B54C09AE6100F17D5B85E1@MTBJ> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <1D075DFBC9B54C09AE6100F17D5B85E1@MTBJ> Message-ID: As a long-time reader, if rather quiet one, I too went through the web hoops just now. I do hope it doesn't mean I'll get duplicate copies of the messages to the list. I also join with those who -- while appreciating the energy and possible advantages -- would have admired it more if it had all happened with a bit more consultation and warning. As regards the suggestion that membership might be dis-approved ("Your e-mail account xxxx has been validated. Please wait until your account is approved. You will receive login information to your e-mail account.") I did find it unsettling. Approved by whom and according to what criteria. Oh well, back to lurking. On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > Jeremy, > >   > > I registered as you asked, and now, I received the username and the password. I noticed 3 anomalies: > > ·         Under ?organization?, there is a name that I don?t know, and that is not the name of my organization > > ·         Under ?Home page?, there is an URL which is my organization one > > ·         Under ?History?, it?s mentioned that I?m member since 10 hours or so. Does it mean that I?m now considered a new member > of the IGC? > >   > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Vice Chairman of CIC > > World Federation of Engineering Organizations > > Phone : + 216 70 825 231 > > Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax     : + 216 70 825 231 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de Jeremy Malcolm > Envoyé : mardi 4 janvier 2011 02:35 > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc : Roland Perry > Objet : Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username > >   > > On 03/01/2011, at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >   > > > On 02/01/2011, at 10:40 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > > > >> Having registered and validated (an extra step not mentioned above) it then says the account has to be "authorised". Which is > perhaps why... > >   > > I've just noticed I'm missing some emails (my work email address has been down), in which people are expressing a couple of > concerns that I need to address. > >   > > First, there is no change to the criteria for IGC membership.  The requirement for registration applications to be approved by an > administrator is inherent in the software that we are using.  There is no discretion on my part to refuse applications (perhaps > except for obvious spam registrations, of which there have been none so far).  If it's a big concern, probably we could amend the > software to remove the requirement for administrator's approval. > >   > > Second, the list has not moved.  But the list does not have all the facilities we need for a membership database, and neither does > our Web site.  So what I've done is to create an LDAP database on a third server (igf-online.net) which the other two servers > (lists.cprs.org and www.igcaucus.org) use to access the list of IGC members.  Ideally, we would have our own dedicated server > which would host all these facilities... but we have no funding, so we are reliant on the generosity of sponsors. > >   > > I'm happy to address any other concerns as they come up. > >   > > -- > > 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, send any message to: > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >   > > For all list information and functions, see: > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >   > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > > > -- A. Michael Froomkin, http://www.law.tm Blog: http://www.discourse.net Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law Coordinator of Faculty Research Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), jotwell.com U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | froomkin at law.tm -->It's cool here.<--____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From javier at funredes.org Tue Jan 4 17:09:57 2011 From: javier at funredes.org (javier at funredes.org) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:09:57 -0500 (COT) Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> Message-ID: <3628.200.118.8.134.1294178997.squirrel@funredes.org> > > - however being a lurker does not mean I fail to identify with > and associate with civil society, nor do I withdraw my right to vote > (as a member voter) should I so choose - a right is not an obligation. > I lurk because I choose to lurk. I will vote if I choose to vote. I agree! Javier ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hongxueipr at gmail.com Tue Jan 4 20:29:34 2011 From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 09:29:34 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <1D075DFBC9B54C09AE6100F17D5B85E1@MTBJ> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <1D075DFBC9B54C09AE6100F17D5B85E1@MTBJ> Message-ID: I have the similar problem on web interface. But both my Organization name and homepage URL are wrong, not what I had input. I tried to correct them but my edition triggered a warning. " * warning: ldap_modify() [function.ldap-modify]: Modify: Object class violation in /home/igc/www/drupal-6.20/sites/all/modules/ldap_integration/includes/LDAPInterface.inc on line 260. * The data was not written to LDAP." Now the wrong information is automatically resumed. It seems a bug. How can it be fixed? Hong On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > Jeremy, > > > > I registered as you asked, and now, I received the username and the > password. I noticed 3 anomalies: > > ·         Under “organization”, there is a name that I don’t know, and that > is not the name of my organization > > ·         Under “Home page”, there is an URL which is my organization one > > ·         Under “History”, it’s mentioned that I’m member since 10 hours or > so. Does it mean that I’m now considered a new member of the IGC? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Vice Chairman of CIC > > World Federation of Engineering Organizations > > Phone : + 216 70 825 231 > > Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax     : + 216 70 825 231 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de Jeremy Malcolm > Envoyé : mardi 4 janvier 2011 02:35 > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc : Roland Perry > Objet : Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username > > > > On 03/01/2011, at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > >> On 02/01/2011, at 10:40 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> > >>> Having registered and validated (an extra step not mentioned above) it >>> then says the account has to be "authorised". Which is perhaps why... > > > > I've just noticed I'm missing some emails (my work email address has been > down), in which people are expressing a couple of concerns that I need to > address. > > > > First, there is no change to the criteria for IGC membership.  The > requirement for registration applications to be approved by an administrator > is inherent in the software that we are using.  There is no discretion on my > part to refuse applications (perhaps except for obvious spam registrations, > of which there have been none so far).  If it's a big concern, probably we > could amend the software to remove the requirement for administrator's > approval. > > > > Second, the list has not moved.  But the list does not have all the > facilities we need for a membership database, and neither does our Web > site.  So what I've done is to create an LDAP database on a third server > (igf-online.net) which the other two servers (lists.cprs.org and > www.igcaucus.org) use to access the list of IGC members.  Ideally, we would > have our own dedicated server which would host all these facilities... but > we have no funding, so we are reliant on the generosity of sponsors. > > > > I'm happy to address any other concerns as they come up. > > > > -- > > 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, send any message to: > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Jan 4 22:00:09 2011 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:00:09 +0700 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4D23DEB9.1090008@gmx.net> On 01/05/2011 01:37 AM, Fearghas McKay wrote: > > Most of the lists I subscribe to I do via email. > > Same. And though this may be a thing of the distant past for most on this list: in some places it is significantly more expensive to log into a Web site and look around and work there, than sending an e-mail. I am often surprised how difficult it is to get an understanding for the huge differences in Internet access cost by people who live in a different economic environment. Greetings from Cambodia. Norbert Klein c-- 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 weekly editorial of The Mirror: Christmas Forgotten Sunday, 26.12.2010 http://tinyurl.com/2dyhnt2 (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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 4 22:13:36 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:13:36 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <6A4E7D94-177F-491A-A1FF-EF1E53792061@ciroap.org> On 05/01/2011, at 2:37 AM, Fearghas McKay wrote: > Please at least change the message to something other than "go away" - i.e. please come over here and register via the website. Life is to short to then start trying to guess the list's web page having been told I can't subscribe. We can't do that where the list is currently hosted because of limited access to the server. But the point is moot, because I've reversed the change that caused the message. In the longer term, we need to look into raising some funds for our own virtual server, so that we can customise our mailing list and Web site more completely. > However I do think the move is generally in the right direction. Thanks. > You can send information in the welcome mail asking people to visit the website to provide the extra information so that they can partake in all the new community features. Yes, that's now what we have. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 4 22:28:04 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:28:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> Message-ID: On 05/01/2011, at 4:17 AM, Don Cameron wrote: > Until this furore erupted I was a lurker on this list, and would probably have remained as such had these dramatic changes not been proposed (implemented without consensus?) – however being a lurker does not mean I fail to identify with and associate with civil society, nor do I withdraw my right to vote (as a member voter) should I so choose – a right is not an obligation. I lurk because I choose to lurk. I will vote if I choose to vote. > > Why is a lurker deemed different from a voter? For what it's worth, I still maintain that there was no dramatic change - I essentially just moved the subscription page from the CPSR Web page onto our own Web site. I just didn't explain this well. Also I overlooked that many Internet old timers would prefer to maintain the ability to subscribe by email (unsubscribing by email had not been affected). That change has since been reversed. Also, carelessly using the word "lurker" that some people found offensive. But the whole debate over lurkers and members is a non-issue. I changed nothing in that regard; neither could or would I do so. > Perhaps what is really intended is to identify and define people who do not identify as civil society members? (some of whom may lurk; some of whom may not) > > I think care needs to be taken that rights are not removed from people through these actions. This concern, though valid, is unfounded. The purpose of the changes was simply: 1. To simplify and automate the process of creating the list of eligible voters each year. 2. To simplify and automate the process of creating the list of members who did vote. 3. To open up new avenues of participation on the Web without the need to register twice. I hope this helps to allay some peoples' concerns. -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 4 22:31:46 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:31:46 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <1D075DFBC9B54C09AE6100F17D5B85E1@MTBJ> Message-ID: On 05/01/2011, at 5:09 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > As a long-time reader, if rather quiet one, I too went through the web hoops just now. I do hope it doesn't mean I'll get duplicate copies of the messages to the list. If you used the same email address, then no you won't. Sympa (or mailing list software) is smart enough to consolidate your original subscription with the new subscription via the Web site. You can make changes to your subscription (eg. going into "digest mode") using the Sympa Web interface as per usual, albeit that you might need to reset your password. > I also join with those who -- while appreciating the energy and possible advantages -- would have admired it more if it had all happened with a bit more consultation and warning. As regards the suggestion that membership might be dis-approved ("Your e-mail account xxxx has been validated. Please wait until your account is approved. You will receive login information to your e-mail account.") I did find it unsettling. Approved by whom and according to what criteria. We do have enough access to our Web site (though not to our mailing list) to fix such unsettling messages. I'll work on something more comforting. I'm also working on a privacy policy which I'll post to the list (though any contributions there would be valued). -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 4 22:44:43 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:44:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <1D075DFBC9B54C09AE6100F17D5B85E1@MTBJ> Message-ID: On 05/01/2011, at 9:29 AM, Hong Xue wrote: > I have the similar problem on web interface. But both my Organization > name and homepage URL are wrong, not what I had input. I tried to > correct them but my edition triggered a warning. > > " * warning: ldap_modify() [function.ldap-modify]: Modify: Object > class violation in > /home/igc/www/drupal-6.20/sites/all/modules/ldap_integration/includes/LDAPInterface.inc > on line 260. > * The data was not written to LDAP." > > Now the wrong information is automatically resumed. It seems a bug. > How can it be fixed? For technical problems like these, please just contact me off-list and I can deal with them one-on-one. I will reply to Hong Xue and Ben off-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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jan 5 02:50:19 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 07:50:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> Message-ID: In message , at 11:28:04 on Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >Also I overlooked that many Internet old timers ...another rather prejudicial label :( See Norbert's comments on why it's not just tradition, and a desire to "do things properly" that causes us to want to work like this. >would prefer to maintain the ability to subscribe by email -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 5 04:54:45 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:24:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] some notes on the CSTD inter-sessional on 17th Dec Message-ID: <4D243FE5.4050907@itforchange.net> Hi A happy new year to all! Since much has been lamented about what came out of the CSTD inter-sessional, let me start my notes by trying to give it a positive spin. My impression is that something very remarkable and perhaps unprecedented happened on the 17th in the CSTD inter-sessional meeting which is an important step forward in global governance (I have some misgivings too about 'this step' forward which I will discuss in another email). I may be wrong and those more well versed with UN system may correct me, but this may be the very first time that a 'substantive' UN body, with political membership and status and not just an expert group, will have some specified non-gov permanent 'invited participants' who 'will remain engaged through-out the process'. Importantly, these participants are not just 'outside experts' but 'representatives' of groups other than states. To the extent that I think this is a big step, in the end, in some ways it may even be better that the WG group is not a Chair's WG, which would have meant an 'experts group' only giving advise which does not constitute a substantive UN body's report, but it is actually a CSTD WG, and thus based on political representation and not expertise alone. ( I may be reading too much into this, and would be happy for a discussion on this issue.) In any case, our (my organisation's) initial position was a WGIG kind of a group. (The WGIG model for the new WG on IGF improvements, incidentally, was opposed by many business and technical community members at Vilnius.) I have been a great fan of WGIG model and have suggested a few times that MAG should rather try to work more in that model than its typical abdicating mode when faced with substantive issues, which alone can make the IGF more productive. However there has been little engagement from the IGC to forward such a model within the IGF system. Anyway, this is just to affirm my support for the WGIG model. Much of the contestation during ther CSTD meeting, whose real substance and motives perhaps lie elsewhere, took place around whether the proposed WG was a Chair's WG or a CSTD WG. The former could be formed more or less in whichever manner the Chair decides, and would be an expert group advising the CSTD, after which the commission could decide to do what it liked in its substantive communication to ECOSOC and GA. A CSTD WG on the other hand will be a political body with membership based on political status. The text of the UN GA resolution indeed had some amount of ambiguity about it being a experts group or an substantive CSTD WG. 18. Welcomes the decision by the Economic and Social Council in paragraph 30 of its resolution 2010/2 to invite the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum, in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda,4 and which would submit a report to the Commission at its fourteenth session, in 2011, with recommendations, as appropriate, that would constitute an input by the Commission to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council; While it was the Chair who was invited to form a WG (which could be a Chair's WG or as well be a CSTD WG), the last part of the above para is significant in saying that the report of the WG will 'constitute an input by the Commission to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council'. To me, it really does look very unlikely that an expert group assembled by the chair could give a report which will be considered 'an input *by *the commission to the GA'. While I was still rooting for a WGIG model during the meeting, I could see that the developing countries group was clear - they were no way going to shift from their conviction that it was to be a CSTD WG. (Sure, it served their political objective too for it to be a CSTD WG. I dont say they were not pressing their politics here as were other actors who were present.) This dev countries group pointed to the description 'CSTD WG' that has been mentioned in all documents regarding various meetings etc on this issue, apart from their interpretation of the text. If it indeed was to be a substantive CSTD WG with political membership, their stand that non-gov participants cannot be equal and full members looked difficult to argue against (though I was still trying to argue that this is a very new context etc). That would be in violation of all rules and precedents, even perhaps of general political sensibilities. So either this group agreed that it was a Chair's expert group, which I realized was not going to happen, or we tried to find what best could be done within the CSTD WG formula. Within this formula there were two options being proposed at this point. One was Egypt's proposal of multistakeholder task forces around specific sub-issues that would input their report/ recommendations to the WG proper which was to be inter-gov. Second was Brazil's proposal of each meeting of WG having speaker/ participants from stakeholder groups, leaving it to the stakeholders to decide the speakers/ participants. (This later proposal has the problem that only a continuous participation of the same non-gov participants throughout the WG's life is really meaningful.) To proceed from what looked like a Chair's WG versus CSTD WG stalemate, seeing that dev countries were not going to move from their understanding of it being a CSTD WG, I proposed a new formula to one of the most active developing country participant - that of permanent 'invited participants' 'who will remain fully engaged throughout the process'. To me, this appeared the best we could get, and still a considerable step forward. The mentioned dev country rep then suggested the text 'The Chair invites the following stakeholders to participate in the Working Group....' which is 'the' key part of the agreed document now. I directly suggested to the chair to add the part 'will remain fully engaged throughout the process' which she graciously did. I thought this statement can be used to assure a fair amount of space and rights within the WG. Later, a developed country rep, pursuing a similar line of thought, asked for inclusion of the word 'interactively' - as in 'interactively participate'. This was very useful. What we were trying here was to get some text in to try and guarantee that once the WG is set up, more excluding norms may not evolve by practise. Pushing it further towards greater equality of status of non-gov participants, Anriette suggested that the text be changed to 'chair invites to join' rather than participate. This text went up for a while but got removed later. I think that overall it may not be too bad a deal we got. I would much prefer that we now move on to discussing what substantive changes or improvements we want to see in the IGF. If we get a good set of 5 people in, we can use the civil society's greater readiness to come up with new ideas, develop implementable details around them etc to make some really good impact. We need to talk and collaborate with the business and technical community as we need to with gov reps for pushing what we want to see happen (and to figure that out is more important). However, developing any kind of grand alliance with a shrill anti dev country govs rhetoric may not be the best thing to do now. Yes, our interests are shared vis a vis greater openness of processes, and we will need to huddle together every time new efforts get made to demote the level of participation of nongov stakeholders in the WG processes. But that is a tactical thing we have always been doing. We may have known convergences in a few substantive areas - like our opposition to moving the IGF secretariat to NY and the desire for keeping it independent etc.... However, there are also a large number of divergences in key areas where the idea may be to make IGF as a more valuable institution to be able to really contribute to global IG related policies. These areas may be the more important ones to focus on in terms of real IGF improvements. In this regard, apart from mentioning how the IGF should complement, and thus contribute to, the proposed process of enhanced cooperation which would directly deal with global Internet policy issues, the relevant part of the GA resolution also gives a significant pointer of the directions in which it would like to see improvements in the IGF . "....... while recognizing at the same time the need to improve it (IGF), with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance". Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jan 5 05:27:27 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:27:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] some notes on the CSTD inter-sessional on 17th Dec In-Reply-To: <4D243FE5.4050907@itforchange.net> References: <4D243FE5.4050907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <+kgEdpWPeEJNFAyg@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4D243FE5.4050907 at itforchange.net>, at 15:24:45 on Wed, 5 Jan 2011, parminder writes "18. Welcomes the decision by the Economic and Social Council in paragraph 30 of its resolution 2010/2 to invite the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum, in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda,4 and which would submit a report to the Commission at its fourteenth session, in 2011, with recommendations, as appropriate, that would constitute an input by the Commission to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council; >While it was the Chair who was invited to form a WG (which could be a >Chair's WG or as well be a CSTD WG), the last part of the above para is >significant in saying that the report of the WG will 'constitute an >input by the Commission to the General Assembly, through the Economic >and Social Council'. To me,  it really does look very unlikely that an >expert group assembled by the chair could give a report which will be >considered 'an input by the commission to the GA'. From my experience of the way that the CSTD/ECOSOC works, I think the WG will produce a report, and that report will be presented[1] to the Commission, and the Commission will create[2] and agree[3] a separate "Draft ECOSOC Resolution", and it's that draft resolution which will be the 'recommendation' and 'input' sent to ECOSOC (for further discussion and later transmission to GA). R. [1] Both as an input paper and a discussion item [2] Most of this work done before the physical meeting, and would echo the report's conclusions closely. [3] Much of this work in late-night sessions, I expect -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jan 5 05:41:27 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:41:27 -0200 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <1D075DFBC9B54C09AE6100F17D5B85E1@MTBJ> Message-ID: <4D244AD7.2010102@cafonso.ca> I have registered per Jeremy's instructions. I find really funny that several people who are finding all kinds of problems may have happily subscribed to Facebook and other commercial social networking services without questioning. No, I did not subscribe to Facebook :) --c.a. On 01/05/2011 01:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 05/01/2011, at 5:09 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > >> As a long-time reader, if rather quiet one, I too went through the web hoops just now. I do hope it doesn't mean I'll get duplicate copies of the messages to the list. > > If you used the same email address, then no you won't. Sympa (or mailing list software) is smart enough to consolidate your original subscription with the new subscription via the Web site. You can make changes to your subscription (eg. going into "digest mode") using the Sympa Web interface as per usual, albeit that you might need to reset your password. > >> I also join with those who -- while appreciating the energy and possible advantages -- would have admired it more if it had all happened with a bit more consultation and warning. As regards the suggestion that membership might be dis-approved ("Your e-mail account xxxx has been validated. Please wait until your account is approved. You will receive login information to your e-mail account.") I did find it unsettling. Approved by whom and according to what criteria. > > We do have enough access to our Web site (though not to our mailing list) to fix such unsettling messages. I'll work on something more comforting. I'm also working on a privacy policy which I'll post to the list (though any contributions there would be valued). > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Jan 5 06:16:07 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:16:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] some notes on the CSTD inter-sessional on 17th Dec In-Reply-To: <4D243FE5.4050907@itforchange.net> References: <4D243FE5.4050907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: "One was Egypt's proposal of multistakeholder task forces around specific sub-issues that would input their report/ recommendations to the WG proper which was to be inter-gov. Second was Brazil's proposal of each meeting of WG having speaker/ participants from stakeholder groups, leaving it to the stakeholders to decide the speakers/ participants. (This later proposal has the problem that only a continuous participation of the same non-gov participants throughout the WG's life is really meaningful.)". the proposals of Egypt has a certain logic in which it agrees in the participation of non-governmental actors, but while leaving flexibility to governments the possibility of early decision on the recommendations. For Brazil, it is given latitude to stakeholders to decide on the choice of speakers or participants. In both cases, this requires an ongoing involvement of non-governmental participants in all meetings of the WG. It would even be wise to think also a good geographical representation of non-state actors in Africa. All this provision also requires that local and sub regional issues are discussed deeply in national and sub-regional IGF platforms. It is through this mechanism we can also know the members of government and other stakeholders who are competent, really active and controlling the process. I am referring to the African participants in any sector. And I believe we must also take into account the non gov actors who have remained constant, present and active since the process of Phase 1 of the World Summit to this stage. " I think that overall it may not be too bad a deal we got. I would much prefer that we now move on to discussing what substantive changes or improvements we want to see in the IGF. If we get a good set of 5 people in, we can use the civil society's greater readiness to come up with new ideas, develop implementable details around them etc to make some really good impact." The figure 5 is not a chance I think. If not, we can think of geographical representation is the 5 continents? Just a suggestion. Baudouin 2011/1/5 parminder > Hi > > A happy new year to all! > > Since much has been lamented about what came out of the CSTD > inter-sessional, let me start my notes by trying to give it a positive spin. > > > My impression is that something very remarkable and perhaps unprecedented > happened on the 17th in the CSTD inter-sessional meeting which is an > important step forward in global governance (I have some misgivings too > about 'this step' forward which I will discuss in another email). I may be > wrong and those more well versed with UN system may correct me, but this may > be the very first time that a 'substantive' UN body, with political > membership and status and not just an expert group, will have some > specified non-gov permanent 'invited participants' who 'will remain > engaged through-out the process'. Importantly, these participants are not > just 'outside experts' but 'representatives' of groups other than states. > > To the extent that I think this is a big step, in the end, in some ways it > may even be better that the WG group is not a Chair's WG, which would have > meant an 'experts group' only giving advise which does not constitute a > substantive UN body's report, but it is actually a CSTD WG, and thus based > on political representation and not expertise alone. ( I may be reading too > much into this, and would be happy for a discussion on this issue.) > > In any case, our (my organisation's) initial position was a WGIG kind of a > group. (The WGIG model for the new WG on IGF improvements, incidentally, was > opposed by many business and technical community members at Vilnius.) I have > been a great fan of WGIG model and have suggested a few times that MAG > should rather try to work more in that model than its typical abdicating > mode when faced with substantive issues, which alone can make the IGF more > productive. However there has been little engagement from the IGC to forward > such a model within the IGF system. Anyway, this is just to affirm my > support for the WGIG model. > > Much of the contestation during ther CSTD meeting, whose real substance and > motives perhaps lie elsewhere, took place around whether the proposed WG was > a Chair's WG or a CSTD WG. The former could be formed more or less in > whichever manner the Chair decides, and would be an expert group advising > the CSTD, after which the commission could decide to do what it liked in its > substantive communication to ECOSOC and GA. A CSTD WG on the other hand will > be a political body with membership based on political status. The text of > the UN GA resolution indeed had some amount of ambiguity about it being a > experts group or an substantive CSTD WG. > > 18. Welcomes the decision by the Economic and Social Council in paragraph > 30 of its resolution 2010/2 to invite the Chair of the Commission on Science > and Technology for Development to establish, in an open and inclusive > manner, a working group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all > Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet > Governance Forum, in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda,4 and > which would submit a report to the Commission at its fourteenth session, in > 2011, with recommendations, as appropriate, that would constitute an input > by the Commission to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social > Council; > > While it was the Chair who was invited to form a WG (which could be a > Chair's WG or as well be a CSTD WG), the last part of the above para is > significant in saying that the report of the WG will 'constitute an input by > the Commission to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social > Council'. To me, it really does look very unlikely that an expert group > assembled by the chair could give a report which will be considered 'an > input *by *the commission to the GA'. > > While I was still rooting for a WGIG model during the meeting, I could see > that the developing countries group was clear - they were no way going to > shift from their conviction that it was to be a CSTD WG. (Sure, it served > their political objective too for it to be a CSTD WG. I dont say they were > not pressing their politics here as were other actors who were present.) > This dev countries group pointed to the description 'CSTD WG' that has been > mentioned in all documents regarding various meetings etc on this issue, > apart from their interpretation of the text. > > If it indeed was to be a substantive CSTD WG with political membership, > their stand that non-gov participants cannot be equal and full members > looked difficult to argue against (though I was still trying to argue that > this is a very new context etc). That would be in violation of all rules and > precedents, even perhaps of general political sensibilities. > > So either this group agreed that it was a Chair's expert group, which I > realized was not going to happen, or we tried to find what best could be > done within the CSTD WG formula. Within this formula there were two options > being proposed at this point. > > One was Egypt's proposal of multistakeholder task forces around specific > sub-issues that would input their report/ recommendations to the WG proper > which was to be inter-gov. Second was Brazil's proposal of each meeting of > WG having speaker/ participants from stakeholder groups, leaving it to the > stakeholders to decide the speakers/ participants. (This later proposal has > the problem that only a continuous participation of the same non-gov > participants throughout the WG's life is really meaningful.) > > To proceed from what looked like a Chair's WG versus CSTD WG stalemate, > seeing that dev countries were not going to move from their understanding of > it being a CSTD WG, I proposed a new formula to one of the most active > developing country participant - that of permanent 'invited participants' > 'who will remain fully engaged throughout the process'. To me, this appeared > the best we could get, and still a considerable step forward. > > The mentioned dev country rep then suggested the text 'The Chair invites > the following stakeholders to participate in the Working Group....' which is > 'the' key part of the agreed document now. I directly suggested to the chair > to add the part 'will remain fully engaged throughout the process' which she > graciously did. I thought this statement can be used to assure a fair amount > of space and rights within the WG. Later, a developed country rep, pursuing > a similar line of thought, asked for inclusion of the word 'interactively' - > as in 'interactively participate'. This was very useful. What we were trying > here was to get some text in to try and guarantee that once the WG is set > up, more excluding norms may not evolve by practise. > > Pushing it further towards greater equality of status of non-gov > participants, Anriette suggested that the text be changed to 'chair invites > to join' rather than participate. This text went up for a while but got > removed later. > > I think that overall it may not be too bad a deal we got. I would much > prefer that we now move on to discussing what substantive changes or > improvements we want to see in the IGF. If we get a good set of 5 people in, > we can use the civil society's greater readiness to come up with new ideas, > develop implementable details around them etc to make some really good > impact. > > We need to talk and collaborate with the business and technical community > as we need to with gov reps for pushing what we want to see happen (and to > figure that out is more important). However, developing any kind of grand > alliance with a shrill anti dev country govs rhetoric may not be the best > thing to do now. Yes, our interests are shared vis a vis greater openness of > processes, and we will need to huddle together every time new efforts get > made to demote the level of participation of nongov stakeholders in the WG > processes. But that is a tactical thing we have always been doing. We may > have known convergences in a few substantive areas - like our opposition to > moving the IGF secretariat to NY and the desire for keeping it independent > etc.... However, there are also a large number of divergences in key areas > where the idea may be to make IGF as a more valuable institution to be able > to really contribute to global IG related policies. These areas may be the > more important ones to focus on in terms of real IGF improvements. > > In this regard, apart from mentioning how the IGF should complement, and > thus contribute to, the proposed process of enhanced cooperation which would > directly deal with global Internet policy issues, the relevant part of the > GA resolution also gives a significant pointer of the directions in which it > would like to see improvements in the IGF . > > "....... while recognizing at the same time the need to improve it (IGF), > with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet > governance". > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dg_cameron at bigpond.com Wed Jan 5 06:23:03 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 22:23:03 +1100 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> Message-ID: <000901cbacca$eb3d5e70$c1b81b50$@com> > Also I overlooked that many Internet old timers would prefer to maintain the ability to subscribe by email (unsubscribing by email had not been affected). That change has since been reversed. Thanks Jeremy, I feel somewhat elevated in status... from a lurker to an Internet Old Timer - might be worth mentioning my children also tend to sub to lists via list-serv commands, although this is possibly my influence on them J As with others I agree up to a point with the underlying premise of simplifying list and web subscriptions providing it doesn't come at the expense of access and/or simplicity (to either) - the point raised by Norbet is salient not only for Cambodia, it also applies to the millions who interact online with PDA's and mobiles where email is a much simpler medium to use than trying to access a web site on a 2" screen. Unfortunately the promoted/implemented changes do read like a fait accompli given the depths of concern expressed by a number of people. Pardon my ignorance - but I do not understand who authorised these changes - isn't the decision-making process of this group one of lazy consensus ala the FOSS/Apache model where changes are discussed prior to implementation? Are all the changes now reversed? It would be great if we could rewind and discuss the need and options - I'm sure there is an abundance of list management expertise on here. Don -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 6 06:33:43 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 19:33:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <000901cbacca$eb3d5e70$c1b81b50$@com> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> <000901cbacca$eb3d5e70$c1b81b50$@com> Message-ID: <1294313623.2420.3.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 22:23 +1100, Don Cameron wrote: > Pardon my ignorance - but I do not understand who authorised these > changes – isn’t the decision-making process of this group one of lazy > consensus ala the FOSS/Apache model where changes are discussed prior > to implementation? Are all the changes now reversed? It would be great > if we could rewind and discuss the need and options – I’m sure there > is an abundance of list management expertise on here. On policy decisions, of course. For operational decisions about the Web site and email list, not really. (Of course it can be argued that operational decisions are rarely devoid of policy implications; something that the IGC has argued long and often in a broader context.) -- 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jan 5 06:43:43 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 06:43:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <000901cbacca$eb3d5e70$c1b81b50$@com> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> ,<000901cbacca$eb3d5e70$c1b81b50$@com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033000702B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Don, And thanks Jeremy. First, Don, your and my gray hair is showing if we speak of 'PDAs' - which is so 90s - I am sure you meant to say 'tablets' as on display in abundance at CES this week. But point take,n whatever the form factor for 'mobile Internet devices' as Intel tried to get us all to call them a couple years back, they remain bandwidth constrained. Anyway. Second, there had been advance discussion and I would say consensus on the need for upgrading list maintenance and the website, which Jeremy had discussed on the list and there was general acceptance to. If one checks the archives. So I believe it was only a question of Jeremy not wishing to disturb everyone's holidays with a flood of messages, as he went about the work, and not anything more than that. Right Jeremy? : ) anyway, thanks Jeremy for taking the time over the holidays Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Don Cameron [dg_cameron at bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm' Subject: RE: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username > Also I overlooked that many Internet old timers would prefer to maintain the ability to subscribe by email (unsubscribing by email had not been affected). That change has since been reversed. Thanks Jeremy, I feel somewhat elevated in status... from a lurker to an Internet Old Timer - might be worth mentioning my children also tend to sub to lists via list-serv commands, although this is possibly my influence on them ☺ As with others I agree up to a point with the underlying premise of simplifying list and web subscriptions providing it doesn’t come at the expense of access and/or simplicity (to either) – the point raised by Norbet is salient not only for Cambodia, it also applies to the millions who interact online with PDA’s and mobiles where email is a much simpler medium to use than trying to access a web site on a 2” screen. Unfortunately the promoted/implemented changes do read like a fait accompli given the depths of concern expressed by a number of people. Pardon my ignorance - but I do not understand who authorised these changes – isn’t the decision-making process of this group one of lazy consensus ala the FOSS/Apache model where changes are discussed prior to implementation? Are all the changes now reversed? It would be great if we could rewind and discuss the need and options – I’m sure there is an abundance of list management expertise on here. Don ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jan 5 07:00:21 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 07:30:21 -0430 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033000702B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> ,<000901cbacca$eb3d5e70$c1b81b50$@com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033000702B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D245D55.8060305@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dg_cameron at bigpond.com Wed Jan 5 14:12:36 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:12:36 +1100 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033000702B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> ,<000901cbacca$eb3d5e70$c1b81b50$@com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033000702B@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <000701cbad0c$8386e660$8a94b320$@com> > First, Don, your and my gray hair is showing if we speak of 'PDAs' - which is so 90s Thanks Lee - I keyed an earlier response on my Blackberry PDA so perhaps the 90's is not quite as far off as we may think (tablets are way too bulky and annoying IMO :-) To your second point - and in hope of continuing to move in a forward direction - perhaps the proposed changes were not clearly communicated and associated with the sort of list maintenance you refer to, or as widely understood as first thought? Given the validity of recent concerns I would think some revisitation should be considered (albeit dodging recent discussion inhibitors such as satisfying the needs of 'old timers' :-) Don ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 14:27:55 2011 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:27:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <184690.36829.qm@web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi Jeremy I have been a member of IGF for many years now, I have attended several IGF s and have been part of WSIS since its inception. However for the last two years I have not received the ballot to vote, in a timely manner. I did get the ballot last time after a little scramble but am uncertain if it was included.  I too am a little concerned about the intent and direction of the changes. Having said this my concerns with the new format and criteria are as follows 1. How do we recognize members like myself who have been long standing members. So if my vote was not included in the last elections, am I "reassigned" ? how do I have this corrected so I receive the ballot for the next election. 2. Then there are others who also may be long standing members,but simply opt out of voting...does that diminish their status as members? 3. Then there are serious but non participating members who are observers who also should be counted as member  . 4.  Then there are the true" lurkers' whilst most of us would like to open up participation to all individuals who have genuine concern for our work, I admit that there is sometimes an uneasy feeling of wondering who is just lurking with a  purpose of some " ill doing" . So these categories of members raises some questions on what to put in place * Should we have some broad eligibility criteria ? * Should we have some sort of periodical scribe - un-scribe process ? * Should we establish some " organizational' elements ? * Should we have members discussion forum...blog pages or something ? I personally have followed most discussions with great interest and have found them to be very informative and thought provoking. Just havent always been able to squeeze in my two cents worth. I would like to be more active in this coming year and participate more as needed.    Warm regards to everyone and Happy New year to all !   Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco Interface Technology Jayco MMI Input Technology With A Human Touch   Vice President Public Policy National Association On Women Buisness Owners   Next Generation Convenor International Federation on University Women       ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 3:01:01 AM Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username This is long, but important, so please read it. Before the next poll or election is called, anyone who wishes to participate will have to have an account in the new database that I have created to record IGC membership.  All those who voted in the last election will also be entered into this database. We are doing this because, until now, there has been no proper IGC membership list, other than the list of subscribers to the governance mailing list (which contains many non-member lurkers, duplicate subscriptions and some defunct accounts). The advantages of a maintaining a centralised database is that we can use a single list of members (and potential members) for purposes including: * mailing list subscription * editing content on the IGC Web site * determining eligibility to vote for coordination elections and charter amendments Also, we will finally be able to associate names and (optionally) organisations with email addresses.  Our inability to do this in the past has been a problem for the coordinators. I will be entering existing members into this database shortly, but I am first giving everyone the opportunity to create their own database entry so that they can choose their own username.  If you don't choose your own username, you will end up with a username like "john.doe".  The username won't be used on the mailing list, but will be associated with any content you may create on our Web site, and possibly for other purposes in the future.   To create your own entry in the IGC membership database please visit this new page of our Web site: http://www.igcaucus.org/user/register When registering, please use the same email address with which you are subscribed to the governance list.  This is important because it will enable me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in the last coordinator elections), if indeed you are one.  (If not, please register anyway - especially if you intend to vote at the next coordinator elections.) Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the governance mailing list.  (Unfortunately due to software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you may have had there before.) Existing subscribers to the governance mailing list who have not voted in the list election will not automatically be added to the database.  So, if you did not vote but are nonetheless an active participant, you should register yourself using the link above.  If you don't, your mailing list subscription won't be touched, but you won't have access to participate in polls or to add content to our Web site. Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions.  You have one month from now to create your own database entry if you wish, before I will create entries for all the missing members. PS. Since this email is long enough already, I'll be writing separately about some of the other "phase 2" improvements to our Web site. --  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 1599begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +60 3 7726 1599      end_of_the_skype_highlighting 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 5 16:20:16 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 08:20:16 +1100 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <184690.36829.qm@web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Shaila raises some of the more interesting questions around membership ­ and the most interesting of all if how anyone ceases to be a member. Quite an important question, because charter amendments require a positive vote of two thirds of ³members². - not just two thirds of participants in the vote. Members certainly should include people who were members but didn¹t vote in last elections, as Shaila points out. But members could then be construed to include people who havent participated for years, because there is no way to cease being a member even if you die currently. These sorts of problems cant be solved technologically. Nor can the administrative issues which surround a list which serves a dual purpose of an open mailing list to discuss internet governance issues and also a forum for decision making by the subset of mailing list members who would define themselves as IGC members. So it¹s not easy. However, I personally think that the series of technology changes Jeremy had led over the last year or so have been great enhancements which have made us more efficient. Its great to be able to vote on accepting a position statement without flooding the mailing list with a hundred or so YES messages ­ and its good to have surveys, wikis and other tools to help us develop positions and discuss them. So, on the whole, I think the changes which have been introduced have been well worthwhile, and it is great to have a co ordinator such as Jeremy with the requisite technical skills to advance our use of on line tools. None of our recent co ordinators have had these skills, so Jeremy is making a great contriubution. This has been improved and enhanced by the input of others on this list ­ the recent changes did need some tweaking, and may need more to meet all needs. But the concept is good IMHO, even if unable to solve all our problems. Ian Peter From: shaila mistry Reply-To: , shaila mistry Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:27:55 -0800 (PST) To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username Hi Jeremy I have been a member of IGF for many years now, I have attended several IGF s and have been part of WSIS since its inception. However for the last two years I have not received the ballot to vote, in a timely manner. I did get the ballot last time after a little scramble but am uncertain if it was included. I too am a little concerned about the intent and direction of the changes. Having said this my concerns with the new format and criteria are as follows 1. How do we recognize members like myself who have been long standing members. So if my vote was not included in the last elections, am I "reassigned" ? how do I have this corrected so I receive the ballot for the next election. 2. Then there are others who also may be long standing members,but simply opt out of voting...does that diminish their status as members? 3. Then there are serious but non participating members who are observers who also should be counted as member . 4. Then there are the true" lurkers' whilst most of us would like to open up participation to all individuals who have genuine concern for our work, I admit that there is sometimes an uneasy feeling of wondering who is just lurking with a purpose of some " ill doing" . So these categories of members raises some questions on what to put in place * Should we have some broad eligibility criteria ? * Should we have some sort of periodical scribe - un-scribe process ? * Should we establish some " organizational' elements ? * Should we have members discussion forum...blog pages or something ? I personally have followed most discussions with great interest and have found them to be very informative and thought provoking. Just havent always been able to squeeze in my two cents worth. I would like to be more active in this coming year and participate more as needed. Warm regards to everyone and Happy New year to all ! Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco Interface Technology Jayco MMI Input Technology With A Human Touch Vice President Public Policy National Association On Women Buisness Owners Next Generation Convenor International Federation on University Women From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 3:01:01 AM Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username This is long, but important, so please read it. Before the next poll or election is called, anyone who wishes to participate will have to have an account in the new database that I have created to record IGC membership. All those who voted in the last election will also be entered into this database. We are doing this because, until now, there has been no proper IGC membership list, other than the list of subscribers to the governance mailing list (which contains many non-member lurkers, duplicate subscriptions and some defunct accounts). The advantages of a maintaining a centralised database is that we can use a single list of members (and potential members) for purposes including: * mailing list subscription * editing content on the IGC Web site * determining eligibility to vote for coordination elections and charter amendments Also, we will finally be able to associate names and (optionally) organisations with email addresses. Our inability to do this in the past has been a problem for the coordinators. I will be entering existing members into this database shortly, but I am first giving everyone the opportunity to create their own database entry so that they can choose their own username. If you don't choose your own username, you will end up with a username like "john.doe". The username won't be used on the mailing list, but will be associated with any content you may create on our Web site, and possibly for other purposes in the future. To create your own entry in the IGC membership database please visit this new page of our Web site: http://www.igcaucus.org/user/register When registering, please use the same email address with which you are subscribed to the governance list. This is important because it will enable me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in the last coordinator elections), if indeed you are one. (If not, please register anyway - especially if you intend to vote at the next coordinator elections.) Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately due to software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you may have had there before.) Existing subscribers to the governance mailing list who have not voted in the list election will not automatically be added to the database. So, if you did not vote but are nonetheless an active participant, you should register yourself using the link above. If you don't, your mailing list subscription won't be touched, but you won't have access to participate in polls or to add content to our Web site. Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. You have one month from now to create your own database entry if you wish, before I will create entries for all the missing members. PS. Since this email is long enough already, I'll be writing separately about some of the other "phase 2" improvements to our Web site. -- 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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +60 3 7726 1599 end_of_the_skype_highlighting Empowering Tomorrow¹s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 5 16:53:44 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:53:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Just for a point of confirmation, I had always assume that membership had to be confirmed annually by voting. Kind of like paying due annually to be a members of other some other membership groups. the charter is explicit on this: > The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter. That is part of the reason for why elections should have a non of the above category, so someone can take the act of voting without needing to actually pick someone. But this is not included in the charter and maybe it should be, though introducing it as a practice would not be contrary to anything i the charter. I personally think all elections should have a 'non of the above' category. In any case, I think including people as members who did not vote in the last election is a change that is not substantiated by the charter. a. On 5 Jan 2011, at 16:20, Ian Peter wrote: > > Shaila raises some of the more interesting questions around membership – and the most interesting of all if how anyone ceases to be a member. Quite an important question, because charter amendments require a positive vote of two thirds of “members”. - not just two thirds of participants in the vote. Members certainly should include people who were members but didn’t vote in last elections, as Shaila points out. But members could then be construed to include people who havent participated for years, because there is no way to cease being a member even if you die currently. > > These sorts of problems cant be solved technologically. Nor can the administrative issues which surround a list which serves a dual purpose of an open mailing list to discuss internet governance issues and also a forum for decision making by the subset of mailing list members who would define themselves as IGC members. > > So it’s not easy. However, I personally think that the series of technology changes Jeremy had led over the last year or so have been great enhancements which have made us more efficient. Its great to be able to vote on accepting a position statement without flooding the mailing list with a hundred or so YES messages – and its good to have surveys, wikis and other tools to help us develop positions and discuss them. So, on the whole, I think the changes which have been introduced have been well worthwhile, and it is great to have a co ordinator such as Jeremy with the requisite technical skills to advance our use of on line tools. None of our recent co ordinators have had these skills, so Jeremy is making a great contriubution. > > This has been improved and enhanced by the input of others on this list – the recent changes did need some tweaking, and may need more to meet all needs. > > But the concept is good IMHO, even if unable to solve all our problems. > > Ian Peter > > > From: shaila mistry > Reply-To: , shaila mistry > Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:27:55 -0800 (PST) > To: Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username > > Hi Jeremy > I have been a member of IGF for many years now, I have attended several IGF s and have been part of WSIS since its inception. However for the last two years I have not received the ballot to vote, in a timely manner. I did get the ballot last time after a little scramble but am uncertain if it was included. > > I too am a little concerned about the intent and direction of the changes. Having said this my concerns with the new format and criteria are as follows > • How do we recognize members like myself who have been long standing members. So if my vote was not included in the last elections, am I "reassigned" ? how do I have this corrected so I receive the ballot for the next election. > • Then there are others who also may be long standing members,but simply opt out of voting...does that diminish their status as members? > • Then there are serious but non participating members who are observers who also should be counted as member . > • Then there are the true" lurkers' whilst most of us would like to open up participation to all individuals who have genuine concern for our work, I admit that there is sometimes an uneasy feeling of wondering who is just lurking with a purpose of some " ill doing" . > So these categories of members raises some questions on what to put in place > • Should we have some broad eligibility criteria ? > • Should we have some sort of periodical scribe - un-scribe process ? > • Should we establish some " organizational' elements ? > • Should we have members discussion forum...blog pages or something ? > I personally have followed most discussions with great interest and have found them to be very informative and thought provoking. Just havent always been able to squeeze in my two cents worth. I would like to be more active in this coming year and participate more as needed. > > > > Warm regards to everyone and Happy New year to all ! > > > Shaila Rao Mistry > President > Jayco Interface Technology > Jayco MMI > Input Technology With A Human Touch > > Vice President Public Policy > National Association On Women Buisness Owners > > Next Generation Convenor > International Federation on University Women > > > > > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 3:01:01 AM > Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username > > This is long, but important, so please read it. > > Before the next poll or election is called, anyone who wishes to participate will have to have an account in the new database that I have created to record IGC membership. All those who voted in the last election will also be entered into this database. > > We are doing this because, until now, there has been no proper IGC membership list, other than the list of subscribers to the governance mailing list (which contains many non-member lurkers, duplicate subscriptions and some defunct accounts). > > The advantages of a maintaining a centralised database is that we can use a single list of members (and potential members) for purposes including: > > • mailing list subscription > • editing content on the IGC Web site > • determining eligibility to vote for coordination elections and charter amendments > > Also, we will finally be able to associate names and (optionally) organisations with email addresses. Our inability to do this in the past has been a problem for the coordinators. > > I will be entering existing members into this database shortly, but I am first giving everyone the opportunity to create their own database entry so that they can choose their own username. If you don't choose your own username, you will end up with a username like "john.doe". The username won't be used on the mailing list, but will be associated with any content you may create on our Web site, and possibly for other purposes in the future. > > To create your own entry in the IGC membership database please visit this new page of our Web site: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/user/register > > When registering, please use the same email address with which you are subscribed to the governance list. This is important because it will enable me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in the last coordinator elections), if indeed you are one. (If not, please register anyway - especially if you intend to vote at the next coordinator elections.) > > Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately due to software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you may have had there before.) > > Existing subscribers to the governance mailing list who have not voted in the list election will not automatically be added to the database. So, if you did not vote but are nonetheless an active participant, you should register yourself using the link above. If you don't, your mailing list subscription won't be touched, but you won't have access to participate in polls or to add content to our Web site. > > Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. You have one month from now to create your own database entry if you wish, before I will create entries for all the missing members. > > PS. Since this email is long enough already, I'll be writing separately about some of the other "phase 2" improvements to our Web site. > -- > 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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +60 3 7726 1599 end_of_the_skype_highlighting > > 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, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 5 17:11:46 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:11:46 +1100 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Avri, What you suggest is probably the most convenient way to determine membership. However, it does mean that if you miss voting you are no longer a member. If everyone is happy with that, a lot of problems are solved. > From: Avri > Reply-To: , Avri > Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:53:44 -0500 > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username > > Hi, > > Just for a point of confirmation, I had always assume that membership had to > be confirmed annually by voting. Kind of like paying due annually to be a > members of other some other membership groups. > > the charter is explicit on this: > >> The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most >> currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted >> in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter. > > > That is part of the reason for why elections should have a non of the above > category, so someone can take the act of voting without needing to actually > pick someone. But this is not included in the charter and maybe it should be, > though introducing it as a practice would not be contrary to anything i the > charter. I personally think all elections should have a 'non of the above' > category. > > In any case, I think including people as members who did not vote in the last > election is a change that is not substantiated by the charter. > > > a. > > On 5 Jan 2011, at 16:20, Ian Peter wrote: > >> >> Shaila raises some of the more interesting questions around membership ­ and >> the most interesting of all if how anyone ceases to be a member. Quite an >> important question, because charter amendments require a positive vote of two >> thirds of ³members². - not just two thirds of participants in the vote. >> Members certainly should include people who were members but didn¹t vote in >> last elections, as Shaila points out. But members could then be construed to >> include people who havent participated for years, because there is no way to >> cease being a member even if you die currently. >> >> These sorts of problems cant be solved technologically. Nor can the >> administrative issues which surround a list which serves a dual purpose of an >> open mailing list to discuss internet governance issues and also a forum for >> decision making by the subset of mailing list members who would define >> themselves as IGC members. >> >> So it¹s not easy. However, I personally think that the series of technology >> changes Jeremy had led over the last year or so have been great enhancements >> which have made us more efficient. Its great to be able to vote on accepting >> a position statement without flooding the mailing list with a hundred or so >> YES messages ­ and its good to have surveys, wikis and other tools to help us >> develop positions and discuss them. So, on the whole, I think the changes >> which have been introduced have been well worthwhile, and it is great to have >> a co ordinator such as Jeremy with the requisite technical skills to advance >> our use of on line tools. None of our recent co ordinators have had these >> skills, so Jeremy is making a great contriubution. >> >> This has been improved and enhanced by the input of others on this list ­ the >> recent changes did need some tweaking, and may need more to meet all needs. >> >> But the concept is good IMHO, even if unable to solve all our problems. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> From: shaila mistry >> Reply-To: , shaila mistry >> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:27:55 -0800 (PST) >> To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Cc: >> Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username >> >> Hi Jeremy >> I have been a member of IGF for many years now, I have attended several IGF s >> and have been part of WSIS since its inception. However for the last two >> years I have not received the ballot to vote, in a timely manner. I did get >> the ballot last time after a little scramble but am uncertain if it was >> included. >> >> I too am a little concerned about the intent and direction of the changes. >> Having said this my concerns with the new format and criteria are as follows >> € How do we recognize members like myself who have been long standing >> members. So if my vote was not included in the last elections, am I >> "reassigned" ? how do I have this corrected so I receive the ballot for the >> next election. >> € Then there are others who also may be long standing members,but simply opt >> out of voting...does that diminish their status as members? >> € Then there are serious but non participating members who are observers who >> also should be counted as member . >> € Then there are the true" lurkers' whilst most of us would like to open up >> participation to all individuals who have genuine concern for our work, I >> admit that there is sometimes an uneasy feeling of wondering who is just >> lurking with a purpose of some " ill doing" . >> So these categories of members raises some questions on what to put in place >> € Should we have some broad eligibility criteria ? >> € Should we have some sort of periodical scribe - un-scribe process ? >> € Should we establish some " organizational' elements ? >> € Should we have members discussion forum...blog pages or something ? >> I personally have followed most discussions with great interest and have >> found them to be very informative and thought provoking. Just havent always >> been able to squeeze in my two cents worth. I would like to be more active in >> this coming year and participate more as needed. >> >> >> >> Warm regards to everyone and Happy New year to all ! >> >> >> Shaila Rao Mistry >> President >> Jayco Interface Technology >> Jayco MMI >> Input Technology With A Human Touch >> >> Vice President Public Policy >> National Association On Women Buisness Owners >> >> Next Generation Convenor >> International Federation on University Women >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 3:01:01 AM >> Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username >> >> This is long, but important, so please read it. >> >> Before the next poll or election is called, anyone who wishes to participate >> will have to have an account in the new database that I have created to >> record IGC membership. All those who voted in the last election will also be >> entered into this database. >> >> We are doing this because, until now, there has been no proper IGC membership >> list, other than the list of subscribers to the governance mailing list >> (which contains many non-member lurkers, duplicate subscriptions and some >> defunct accounts). >> >> The advantages of a maintaining a centralised database is that we can use a >> single list of members (and potential members) for purposes including: >> >> € mailing list subscription >> € editing content on the IGC Web site >> € determining eligibility to vote for coordination elections and charter >> amendments >> >> Also, we will finally be able to associate names and (optionally) >> organisations with email addresses. Our inability to do this in the past has >> been a problem for the coordinators. >> >> I will be entering existing members into this database shortly, but I am >> first giving everyone the opportunity to create their own database entry so >> that they can choose their own username. If you don't choose your own >> username, you will end up with a username like "john.doe". The username >> won't be used on the mailing list, but will be associated with any content >> you may create on our Web site, and possibly for other purposes in the >> future. >> >> To create your own entry in the IGC membership database please visit this new >> page of our Web site: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/user/register >> >> When registering, please use the same email address with which you are >> subscribed to the governance list. This is important because it will enable >> me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in the last >> coordinator elections), if indeed you are one. (If not, please register >> anyway - especially if you intend to vote at the next coordinator elections.) >> >> Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or >> unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately due to software >> limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be >> automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - >> you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you >> may have had there before.) >> >> Existing subscribers to the governance mailing list who have not voted in the >> list election will not automatically be added to the database. So, if you >> did not vote but are nonetheless an active participant, you should register >> yourself using the link above. If you don't, your mailing list subscription >> won't be touched, but you won't have access to participate in polls or to add >> content to our Web site. >> >> Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. You have one month >> from now to create your own database entry if you wish, before I will create >> entries for all the missing members. >> >> PS. Since this email is long enough already, I'll be writing separately about >> some of the other "phase 2" improvements to our Web site. >> -- >> 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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +60 3 7726 >> 1599 end_of_the_skype_highlighting >> >> Empowering Tomorrow¹s Consumers >> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups >> from around the world >> for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to >> consumers. Register now! >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >> >> 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, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 5 17:34:44 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 17:34:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <515F563E-0ED7-475E-8C0E-F81F18F68657@acm.org> hi, by staying on the list and voting the next year. a. On 5 Jan 2011, at 17:29, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > how does one rejoin, then? > > -- > A. Michael Froomkin, http://www.law.tm Blog: http://www.discourse.net > Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law > Coordinator of Faculty Research > Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), jotwell.com > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA > +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | froomkin at law.tm > -->It's cool here.<-- > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 17:11:46 > From: Ian Peter > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri > Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username > > Hi Avri, > > What you suggest is probably the most convenient way to determine > membership. However, it does mean that if you miss voting you are no longer > a member. If everyone is happy with that, a lot of problems are solved. > > > >> From: Avri >> Reply-To: , Avri >> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:53:44 -0500 >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username >> >> Hi, >> >> Just for a point of confirmation, I had always assume that membership had to >> be confirmed annually by voting. Kind of like paying due annually to be a >> members of other some other membership groups. >> >> the charter is explicit on this: >> >>> The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most >>> currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted >>> in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter. >> >> >> That is part of the reason for why elections should have a non of the above >> category, so someone can take the act of voting without needing to actually >> pick someone. But this is not included in the charter and maybe it should be, >> though introducing it as a practice would not be contrary to anything i the >> charter. I personally think all elections should have a 'non of the above' >> category. >> >> In any case, I think including people as members who did not vote in the last >> election is a change that is not substantiated by the charter. >> >> >> a. >> >> On 5 Jan 2011, at 16:20, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> >>> Shaila raises some of the more interesting questions around membership and >>> the most interesting of all if how anyone ceases to be a member. Quite an >>> important question, because charter amendments require a positive vote of two >>> thirds of ³members². - not just two thirds of participants in the vote. >>> Members certainly should include people who were members but didn¹t vote in >>> last elections, as Shaila points out. But members could then be construed to >>> include people who havent participated for years, because there is no way to >>> cease being a member even if you die currently. >>> >>> These sorts of problems cant be solved technologically. Nor can the >>> administrative issues which surround a list which serves a dual purpose of an >>> open mailing list to discuss internet governance issues and also a forum for >>> decision making by the subset of mailing list members who would define >>> themselves as IGC members. >>> >>> So it¹s not easy. However, I personally think that the series of technology >>> changes Jeremy had led over the last year or so have been great enhancements >>> which have made us more efficient. Its great to be able to vote on accepting >>> a position statement without flooding the mailing list with a hundred or so >>> YES messages and its good to have surveys, wikis and other tools to help us >>> develop positions and discuss them. So, on the whole, I think the changes >>> which have been introduced have been well worthwhile, and it is great to have >>> a co ordinator such as Jeremy with the requisite technical skills to advance >>> our use of on line tools. None of our recent co ordinators have had these >>> skills, so Jeremy is making a great contriubution. >>> >>> This has been improved and enhanced by the input of others on this list the >>> recent changes did need some tweaking, and may need more to meet all needs. >>> >>> But the concept is good IMHO, even if unable to solve all our problems. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> From: shaila mistry >>> Reply-To: , shaila mistry >>> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:27:55 -0800 (PST) >>> To: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Cc: >>> Subject: Re: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username >>> >>> Hi Jeremy >>> I have been a member of IGF for many years now, I have attended several IGF s >>> and have been part of WSIS since its inception. However for the last two >>> years I have not received the ballot to vote, in a timely manner. I did get >>> the ballot last time after a little scramble but am uncertain if it was >>> included. >>> >>> I too am a little concerned about the intent and direction of the changes. >>> Having said this my concerns with the new format and criteria are as follows >>> ? How do we recognize members like myself who have been long standing >>> members. So if my vote was not included in the last elections, am I >>> "reassigned" ? how do I have this corrected so I receive the ballot for the >>> next election. >>> ? Then there are others who also may be long standing members,but simply opt >>> out of voting...does that diminish their status as members? >>> ? Then there are serious but non participating members who are observers who >>> also should be counted as member . >>> ? Then there are the true" lurkers' whilst most of us would like to open up >>> participation to all individuals who have genuine concern for our work, I >>> admit that there is sometimes an uneasy feeling of wondering who is just >>> lurking with a purpose of some " ill doing" . >>> So these categories of members raises some questions on what to put in place >>> ? Should we have some broad eligibility criteria ? >>> ? Should we have some sort of periodical scribe - un-scribe process ? >>> ? Should we establish some " organizational' elements ? >>> ? Should we have members discussion forum...blog pages or something ? >>> I personally have followed most discussions with great interest and have >>> found them to be very informative and thought provoking. Just havent always >>> been able to squeeze in my two cents worth. I would like to be more active in >>> this coming year and participate more as needed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Warm regards to everyone and Happy New year to all ! >>> >>> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >>> President >>> Jayco Interface Technology >>> Jayco MMI >>> Input Technology With A Human Touch >>> >>> Vice President Public Policy >>> National Association On Women Buisness Owners >>> >>> Next Generation Convenor >>> International Federation on University Women >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 3:01:01 AM >>> Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username >>> >>> This is long, but important, so please read it. >>> >>> Before the next poll or election is called, anyone who wishes to participate >>> will have to have an account in the new database that I have created to >>> record IGC membership. All those who voted in the last election will also be >>> entered into this database. >>> >>> We are doing this because, until now, there has been no proper IGC membership >>> list, other than the list of subscribers to the governance mailing list >>> (which contains many non-member lurkers, duplicate subscriptions and some >>> defunct accounts). >>> >>> The advantages of a maintaining a centralised database is that we can use a >>> single list of members (and potential members) for purposes including: >>> >>> ? mailing list subscription >>> ? editing content on the IGC Web site >>> ? determining eligibility to vote for coordination elections and charter >>> amendments >>> >>> Also, we will finally be able to associate names and (optionally) >>> organisations with email addresses. Our inability to do this in the past has >>> been a problem for the coordinators. >>> >>> I will be entering existing members into this database shortly, but I am >>> first giving everyone the opportunity to create their own database entry so >>> that they can choose their own username. If you don't choose your own >>> username, you will end up with a username like "john.doe". The username >>> won't be used on the mailing list, but will be associated with any content >>> you may create on our Web site, and possibly for other purposes in the >>> future. >>> >>> To create your own entry in the IGC membership database please visit this new >>> page of our Web site: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/user/register >>> >>> When registering, please use the same email address with which you are >>> subscribed to the governance list. This is important because it will enable >>> me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in the last >>> coordinator elections), if indeed you are one. (If not, please register >>> anyway - especially if you intend to vote at the next coordinator elections.) >>> >>> Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or >>> unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately due to software >>> limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be >>> automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - >>> you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you >>> may have had there before.) >>> >>> Existing subscribers to the governance mailing list who have not voted in the >>> list election will not automatically be added to the database. So, if you >>> did not vote but are nonetheless an active participant, you should register >>> yourself using the link above. If you don't, your mailing list subscription >>> won't be touched, but you won't have access to participate in polls or to add >>> content to our Web site. >>> >>> Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. You have one month >>> from now to create your own database entry if you wish, before I will create >>> entries for all the missing members. >>> >>> PS. Since this email is long enough already, I'll be writing separately about >>> some of the other "phase 2" improvements to our Web site. >>> -- >>> 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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +60 3 7726 >>> 1599 end_of_the_skype_highlighting >>> >>> Empowering Tomorrow¹s Consumers >>> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups >>> from around the world >>> for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to >>> consumers. Register now! >>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >>> >>> 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, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 6 01:45:39 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 14:45:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1294296339.1705.5.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 16:53 -0500, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just for a point of confirmation, I had always assume that membership had to be confirmed annually by voting. Kind of like paying due annually to be a members of other some other membership groups. > > the charter is explicit on this: > > > The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter. Whilst I agree with you Avri, and have been operating under that interpretation, I don't think the charter is as clear as it needs to be. The provision that you refer to states that one is deemed to be a member *for the purpose of amending the charter* only if one confirmed one's membership at the last election. However there is an earlier provision of the charter that is much broader, saying simply that "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus." So it can be argued that the narrower definition of membership only applies to charter amendments. We do need to get the charter reviewed to clarify this... -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Jan 6 19:43:12 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:43:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD priority themes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, I just found this request - buried in my mailbox - from CSTD secretariat, missing almost two weeks and the deadline is Jan 15. So sorry about that. Is there any volunteer to prepare draft for our submission? That will help. many thanks, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mongi Hamdi Date: 2010/12/24 Subject: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD priority themes Dear colleagues and participants, First of all, allow me to thank you for your participation in the inter-sessional panel of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) which took place 15-17 December 2010. I would like to remind you to please send us the "main findings and recommendations" on the priority themes of the CSTD before 15 January 2011, for us to include them for discussion at the 14th session of the CSTD, which will take place in May 2011. These priority themes are: -Technologies to address challenges in areas such as agriculture and water -Measuring the impact of information and communications technologies for development In this connection, I am attaching the issues papers which the Secretariat has prepared for this Panel for reference. I look forward to hearing from you soon and wishing you a very happy holidays and a prosperous new year. Mongi Hamdi ********************************************* Mongi Hamdi Head, Science, Technology and ICT Branch/DTL United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Head of the Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development Palais des Nations Room E-7077 Geneva, Switzerland Tel. 004122 917 5069 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: agriculture-f.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 186226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: water-f.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 328425 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: measuring-f.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 219006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 7 03:32:20 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 08:32:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: <1294313623.2420.3.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <7E3C4EF7-00CE-4312-A890-5D9BDAE010B8@ciroap.org> <958D4AE5-BCA1-46D9-9595-B23E8C6DB90F@acm.org> <001001cbac4c$701c83c0$50558b40$@com> <000901cbacca$eb3d5e70$c1b81b50$@com> <1294313623.2420.3.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: In message <1294313623.2420.3.camel at terminus-Aspire-L320>, at 19:33:43 on Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >Of course it can be argued that operational decisions are rarely devoid >of policy implications; something that the IGC has argued long and >often in a broader context. Operational decisions should be rigorously based on published policy, preferably agreed by the community. But I suspect you are referring to Public Policy, which is something else. As an "old timer" [my hands-on operational Internet experience dates back only to 1995, but I've been running online forums since 1984] I'll always ask that things are done 'properly'. We can discuss what that means, when the seemingly inevitable new charter/policy discussion starts! -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charityg at diplomacy.edu Fri Jan 7 10:10:10 2011 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:10:10 -0600 Subject: [governance] 2011 Philippine IPv6 Conference and Training In-Reply-To: <18A758A4C634483F9037DA359604993F@SATELLITE> References: <18A758A4C634483F9037DA359604993F@SATELLITE> Message-ID: Hi All, Sorry for cross-posting but I would like to forward this invitation to anyone interested to join ISOC PH for the 2011 Philippine IPv6 Conference and Training this coming 24-27 of January 2011 at Shangri-la Hotel, Ayala, Makati City, Philippines. More information on the training can be accessed here: http://ipv6.isoc.ph/ Thank you! Kind regards, Charity Gamboa-Embley ISOC PH ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rodel Urani Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:20 AM Subject: 2011 Philippine IPv6 Conference and Training To: Rodel Urani Dear All, A prosperous 2011 to you and family! I would like to personally invite you to join the 2011 Philippine Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Conference and Training to be held on 24-27 January 2011 at the Shangri-la Hotel, Ayala, Makati City. Please visit this site for more details. Reserve your seat now. You may forward this email to those you know who may be interested attending the event. Thank you. Kindest regards, -Rodel __________________________________________________ Rodel Urani +63.2.215.8861 _______________________________________________ FOUNDING mailing list FOUNDING at ISOC.PH http://box325.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/founding_isoc.ph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jan 7 15:24:10 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:24:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD priority themes In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330007053@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Izumi, I shouldn't volunteer anything a week before classes start. I did take a quick glance at the docs, and 2 out of 3 I at least have an opinion on, while water...I appreciate daily. But have no further comment on. So what are they asking for - a couple lines or paragraphs commentary on the reports concluding "issues for consideration" fed back to them as IGC's "main findings and recommendations" or something more elaborate? Because if it's elaborate they want and we need igc consensus on but have nothing to start with and it is due in a week...I have no further comment. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 7:43 PM To: Governance List Subject: [governance] Fwd: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD priority themes Dear list, I just found this request - buried in my mailbox - from CSTD secretariat, missing almost two weeks and the deadline is Jan 15. So sorry about that. Is there any volunteer to prepare draft for our submission? That will help. many thanks, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mongi Hamdi Date: 2010/12/24 Subject: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD priority themes Dear colleagues and participants, First of all, allow me to thank you for your participation in the inter-sessional panel of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) which took place 15-17 December 2010. I would like to remind you to please send us the "main findings and recommendations" on the priority themes of the CSTD before 15 January 2011, for us to include them for discussion at the 14th session of the CSTD, which will take place in May 2011. These priority themes are: -Technologies to address challenges in areas such as agriculture and water -Measuring the impact of information and communications technologies for development In this connection, I am attaching the issues papers which the Secretariat has prepared for this Panel for reference. I look forward to hearing from you soon and wishing you a very happy holidays and a prosperous new year. Mongi Hamdi ********************************************* Mongi Hamdi Head, Science, Technology and ICT Branch/DTL United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Head of the Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development Palais des Nations Room E-7077 Geneva, Switzerland Tel. 004122 917 5069 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 16:22:38 2011 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 23:22:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD priority themes In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330007053@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330007053@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Izumi, These requests refer to the traditional (since 1992) mandate of the CSTD, ie. science and technology for development in general. In 2005, WSIS gave the CSTD an additional, more specific task: to help the ECOSOC with the follow-up of the implementation of the outcomes of the WSIS. I understand that the IGC is mainly interested in the latter. The "traditional" CSTD themes, important as they are in themselves, are somewhat outside its immediate focus. Wishing a successful 2011 to all, Yrjö > From: lmcknigh at syr.edu > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; iza at anr.org > Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:24:10 -0500 > Subject: RE: [governance] Fwd: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD priority themes > > Izumi, > > I shouldn't volunteer anything a week before classes start. > > I did take a quick glance at the docs, and 2 out of 3 I at least have an opinion on, while water...I appreciate daily. But have no further comment on. > > So what are they asking for - a couple lines or paragraphs commentary on the reports concluding "issues for consideration" fed back to them as IGC's "main findings and recommendations" or something more elaborate? Because if it's elaborate they want and we need igc consensus on but have nothing to start with and it is due in a week...I have no further comment. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 7:43 PM > To: Governance List > Subject: [governance] Fwd: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD priority themes > > Dear list, > > I just found this request - buried in my mailbox - from CSTD secretariat, > missing almost two weeks and the deadline is Jan 15. So sorry about > that. > > Is there any volunteer to prepare draft for our submission? > That will help. > > many thanks, > > izumi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mongi Hamdi > Date: 2010/12/24 > Subject: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD > priority themes > > > Dear colleagues and participants, > > First of all, allow me to thank you for your participation in the > inter-sessional panel of the Commission on Science and Technology for > Development (CSTD) which took place 15-17 December 2010. > > I would like to remind you to please send us the "main findings and > recommendations" on the priority themes of the CSTD before 15 January > 2011, for us to include them for discussion at the 14th session of the > CSTD, which will take place in May 2011. > > These priority themes are: > > -Technologies to address challenges in areas such as agriculture and water > -Measuring the impact of information and communications technologies > for development > > In this connection, I am attaching the issues papers which the > Secretariat has prepared for this Panel for reference. > > I look forward to hearing from you soon and wishing you a very happy > holidays and a prosperous new year. > > Mongi Hamdi > > ********************************************* > Mongi Hamdi > Head, Science, Technology and ICT Branch/DTL > United Nations Conference on Trade and Development > Head of the Secretariat of the United Nations Commission > on Science and Technology for Development > Palais des Nations > Room E-7077 > Geneva, Switzerland > Tel. 004122 917 5069 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and for other IGC information, 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, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jan 8 05:36:38 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:36:38 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site Message-ID: Phase 2 of the improvements that I've been undertaking to the IGC Web site are complete. These include: A single interface for subscribing to the list and registering on the Web site, which also adds your details to an IGC membership database (subject to eligibility). I have fixed the LDAP errors that some people encountered when registering, and made that the correct information is now listed for everyone. Everyone now has the ability to create personal blog posts directly on the IGC Web site. The latest headlines from these are listed on the front page. To post to your blog, just log in to the site and then click "Create content" in the left hand column, then "Blog entry". There is a new Resources page which is editable as a wiki. You can also upload documents there. Instructions are given on that page. Click on the name of any contributor to the site (when you are logged in), and you can see their profile, including their organisation and Web site (if provided). Later, the list of members will also be hyperlinked to member profiles. There is a privacy policy. Please check this out to make sure that it is OK. If you have any changes to suggest, please post them to the list. Besides the Twitter feed that I added last time, headlines from external Internet governance blogs are now also included in a column on the front page. I've moved the list of recent IGC statements to the centre column of the Web site, to more clearly indicate that the centre contains official resources and the right column contains feeds from the broader community. There's a lot more that could be done, but that will do for now. Some help is needed: First and most importantly, we need a deputy Web administrator, who can share the load of building and maintaining our Web and database software, and take over from me when I'm unavailable. Some knowledge of Web content management software (Drupal and/or Wordpress) is desirable, and knowledge of databases (SQL and/or LDAP) and languages (HTML and PHP or Perl) would be beneficial too. The Twitter and blog feeds could use with more diversity. At the moment Twitter is just sourced from posts tagged "#igf". If you have a Twitter list that would be a better source of relevant posts than this, let me know. Also, if you have an Internet governance blog that should be added to the feeds we are aggregating (a list of which is at http://igf-online.net/gregarius), let me know. -- 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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it Sat Jan 8 08:15:08 2011 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 14:15:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] CFP: the 6th International Conference on Network and Information Systems Security (SAR-SSI 2011) Message-ID: <000a01cbaf36$17628b20$4627a160$@unimi.it> **************************************************************************** ********** Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP. **************************************************************************** ********** SAR/SSI-2011 CALL FOR PAPERS 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: February 14th, 2011 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 email at hakik.org Sat Jan 8 08:38:30 2011 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:38:30 +0600 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD priority themes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110108134012.8B8C84B509@npogroups.org> Dear Izumi, I will be pleased to volunteer, if opportunity exists, especially the second theme is relevant to my research area. Thanking you, Hakikur At 06:43 AM 1/7/2011, Izumi AIZU wrote: >Dear list, > >I just found this request - buried in my mailbox - from CSTD secretariat, >missing almost two weeks and the deadline is Jan 15. So sorry about >that. > >Is there any volunteer to prepare draft for our submission? >That will help. > >many thanks, > >izumi > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Mongi Hamdi >Date: 2010/12/24 >Subject: Contributions to the outcomes on the discussions on CSTD >priority themes > > >Dear colleagues and participants, > >First of all, allow me to thank you for your participation in the >inter-sessional panel of the Commission on Science and Technology for >Development (CSTD) which took place 15-17 December 2010. > >I would like to remind you to please send us the "main findings and >recommendations" on the priority themes of the CSTD before 15 January >2011, for us to include them for discussion at the 14th session of the >CSTD, which will take place in May 2011. > >These priority themes are: > >-Technologies to address challenges in areas such as agriculture and water >-Measuring the impact of information and communications technologies >for development > >In this connection, I am attaching the issues papers which the >Secretariat has prepared for this Panel for reference. > >I look forward to hearing from you soon and wishing you a very happy >holidays and a prosperous new year. > >Mongi Hamdi > >********************************************* >Mongi Hamdi >Head, Science, Technology and ICT Branch/DTL >United Nations Conference on Trade and Development >Head of the Secretariat of the United Nations Commission >on Science and Technology for Development >Palais des Nations >Room E-7077 >Geneva, Switzerland >Tel. 004122 917 5069 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and for other IGC information, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="agriculture-f.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="agriculture-f.pdf" >X-Attachment-Id: 5ea1268d0850f9be_0.1 > >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="water-f.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="water-f.pdf" >X-Attachment-Id: 5ea1268d0850f9be_0.2 > >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="measuring-f.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="measuring-f.pdf" >X-Attachment-Id: 5ea1268d0850f9be_0.3 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sat Jan 8 09:16:57 2011 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 15:16:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: * A single interface for subscribing to the list and registering on the Web site, which also adds your details to an IGC membership database (subject to eligibility). I have fixed the LDAP errors that some people encountered when registering, and made that the correct information is now listed for everyone. No Jeremy, I'm still unable to edit, and I always get the same error message. Only one thing changed: you have put the right name of my organization and its right URL. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dg_cameron at bigpond.com Sat Jan 8 21:33:27 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 13:33:27 +1100 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> Are we required to resubscribe to the list via the web interface or will current memberships remain in place? - To be honest I have little interest in blogging (or bloggers) however am keen to remain on this list. May I also reiterate that (hopefully) voting does not become a prerequisite for membership of the IGC (or for that matter, any other NGO) - or if this is contemplated that mechanisms exist for members wishing to abstain without losing membership rights. Don From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Saturday, 8 January 2011 9:37 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site Phase 2 of the improvements that I've been undertaking to the IGC Web site are complete. These include: * A single interface for subscribing to the list and registering on the Web site, which also adds your details to an IGC membership database (subject to eligibility). I have fixed the LDAP errors that some people encountered when registering, and made that the correct information is now listed for everyone. * Everyone now has the ability to create personal blog posts directly on the IGC Web site. The latest headlines from these are listed on the front page. To post to your blog, just log in to the site and then click "Create content" in the left hand column, then "Blog entry". * There is a new Resources page which is editable as a wiki. You can also upload documents there. Instructions are given on that page. * Click on the name of any contributor to the site (when you are logged in), and you can see their profile, including their organisation and Web site (if provided). Later, the list of members will also be hyperlinked to member profiles. * There is a privacy policy . Please check this out to make sure that it is OK. If you have any changes to suggest, please post them to the list. * Besides the Twitter feed that I added last time, headlines from external Internet governance blogs are now also included in a column on the front page. * I've moved the list of recent IGC statements to the centre column of the Web site, to more clearly indicate that the centre contains official resources and the right column contains feeds from the broader community. There's a lot more that could be done, but that will do for now. Some help is needed: * First and most importantly, we need a deputy Web administrator, who can share the load of building and maintaining our Web and database software, and take over from me when I'm unavailable. Some knowledge of Web content management software (Drupal and/or Wordpress) is desirable, and knowledge of databases (SQL and/or LDAP) and languages (HTML and PHP or Perl) would be beneficial too. * The Twitter and blog feeds could use with more diversity. At the moment Twitter is just sourced from posts tagged "#igf". If you have a Twitter list that would be a better source of relevant posts than this, let me know. Also, if you have an Internet governance blog that should be added to the feeds we are aggregating (a list of which is at http://igf-online.net/gregarius), let me know. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 9 05:09:29 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 18:09:29 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> Message-ID: <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> On 09/01/2011, at 10:33 AM, Don Cameron wrote: > Are we required to resubscribe to the list via the web interface or will current memberships remain in place? You don't have to if you don't want to vote, as it sounds like you don't. > May I also reiterate that (hopefully) voting does not become a prerequisite for membership of the IGC It is already a prerequisite of full membership. But if you don't care about voting, then you get all the other privileges of membership, such as they are. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Jan 9 05:29:31 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 11:29:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] CFP Internet of Things References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330007053@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07626@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Please distribute as widely as possible. Best regards Wolfgang Kleinwächter Call for Papers (CFP) The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things EURO-NF & GOVPIMINT Workshop (Leipzig II) in Cooperation with the Annual Meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition of the Internet of Things (IGF-DyCIT) Leipzig, Germany, March 24 - 25, 2011 The EURO-NF Network of Excellence Project under EU-FP 7 has sponsored a Joint Special Research Project (JSRP) on "Governance and Privacy Implications of the Internet of Things" (GOVPIMINT). The project invites now papers for a high level expert workshop on the "Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things", Leipzig, March 24 - 25, 2011. We call for Papers for the following six issues: * The role of the Domain Name System (DNS) in building networks which link objects together * The mechanisms and procedures for the allocation of critical Internet resources, in particular IP addresses, to objects * The design for an informal or formal governance mechanisms for the ONS and networks which link objects to the Internet, if needed * The options for privacy protection, in particular at the "Rendezvous Point" where on object meets a subject (the concept of "the right to silence the chip") * The challenges for security and stability of the Internet * The role of the various stakeholders (Private Sector, Technical Community, Government, Users/Civil Society) Please send a one page abstract until February 15, 2011 to info at hoferichter.eu . Background: While there is still a discussion, what the concept of the" Internet of Things" means in practice, the real process of connecting objects equipped with RFID chips to the Internet via an IPv6 address continues to move forward. The market is growing and so growths the debate about the governance implications of the "Internet of Things". The European Commission has established a "Task Force on the Internet of Things", the European parliament has published a report about the issue and the 5th UN sponsored Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has reactivated the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things (IGF-DyCIT) in Vilnjus, September 2010. Among the key issues under consideration is whether an "Internet of Things" needs a governance mechanisms and, if yes, how such a mechanism should be designed. Other key issues are privacy, security and the idea to introduce a "right to silence the chip". The EURO-NF research project, which operates under 6th FP of the European Commission, has sponsored in 2009 a workshop on the Internet of Things in Leipzig (Leipzig I). Furthermore it has supported a special joint research project (SJRP) under the title "Governance and Privacy Implications of the Internet of Things" (GOVPIMINT) in 2010 which produced an agenda for further research and potential political action (Aarhus Roadmap). The Leipzig II workshop will be used to disseminate the results of the SJPR. It is organized in collaboration with the reactivated IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things (IGF-DyCIT). The plan is that the IGF-DyCIT will use the Leipzig II workshop to draft a plan for further action with regard to the forthcoming 6th UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), scheduled for September 2011 in Nairobi. More information under: http://www.medienstadt-leipzig.org/euronf/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jan 9 05:37:05 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 02:37:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20146454.58313.1294569405421.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e22> ... and HOW will we know that we are (still) mùembers ? Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPT - France > Message du 09/01/11 11:13 > De : "Jeremy Malcolm" > A : "Don Cameron" > Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site > > On 09/01/2011, at 10:33 AM, Don Cameron wrote: Are we required to resubscribe to the list via the web interface or will current memberships remain in place? > You don't have to if you don't want to vote, as it sounds like you don't. > May I also reiterate that (hopefully) voting does not become a prerequisite for membership of the IGC > It is already a prerequisite of full membership.  But if you don't care about voting, then you get all the other privileges of membership, such as they are. > -- 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 KongBusinesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the worldfor four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congressTwitter #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 dg_cameron at bigpond.com Sun Jan 9 05:39:53 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 21:39:53 +1100 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> Thanks again Jeremy - It's not about not wanting to vote; it's about the right to abstain whilst retaining membership privileges. In my experience with NPO's and NGO's over the years many members abstain from voting at non-contentious elections or procedural change ballots. IMO this right should be maintained. Don From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 9:09 PM To: Don Cameron Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site On 09/01/2011, at 10:33 AM, Don Cameron wrote: Are we required to resubscribe to the list via the web interface or will current memberships remain in place? You don't have to if you don't want to vote, as it sounds like you don't. May I also reiterate that (hopefully) voting does not become a prerequisite for membership of the IGC It is already a prerequisite of full membership. But if you don't care about voting, then you get all the other privileges of membership, such as they are. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 9 05:44:48 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 18:44:48 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> Message-ID: On 09/01/2011, at 6:39 PM, Don Cameron wrote: > Thanks again Jeremy – It’s not about not wanting to vote; it’s about the right to abstain whilst retaining membership privileges. In my experience with NPO’s and NGO’s over the years many members abstain from voting at non-contentious elections or procedural change ballots. IMO this right should be maintained. Then the charter would have to be amended to effect this. Who would like to join the charter amendment working group? I can create a new mailing list right away if we have people who want to be on it. Bear in mind though that "member" is just a word. If you are a subscriber to the list, nobody is going to have a problem with you calling yourself an IGC member, even if by the letter of the charter you may not be. -- 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 dg_cameron at bigpond.com Sun Jan 9 06:09:12 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:09:12 +1100 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> Message-ID: <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> > Then the charter would have to be amended to effect this. Given I have expressed concerns in this area I will offer to participate in a 'chart amendment working group' if others deem it necessary, however I do not believe such is necessary as the current charter appears to provide adequate coverage. The charter defines a member as follows: "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties". The charter further defines self modification (moves to change the charter) as follows: "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter". This certainly impacts on the right to vote for charter modifications, however it otherwise has no impact on membership. Don From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 9:45 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Don Cameron Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site On 09/01/2011, at 6:39 PM, Don Cameron wrote: Thanks again Jeremy - It's not about not wanting to vote; it's about the right to abstain whilst retaining membership privileges. In my experience with NPO's and NGO's over the years many members abstain from voting at non-contentious elections or procedural change ballots. IMO this right should be maintained. Then the charter would have to be amended to effect this. Who would like to join the charter amendment working group? I can create a new mailing list right away if we have people who want to be on it. Bear in mind though that "member" is just a word. If you are a subscriber to the list, nobody is going to have a problem with you calling yourself an IGC member, even if by the letter of the charter you may not be. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 9 06:39:56 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:39:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> Message-ID: <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> On 09/01/2011, at 7:09 PM, Don Cameron wrote: > The charter further defines self modification (moves to change the charter) as follows: “In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter”. > > This certainly impacts on the right to vote for charter modifications, however it otherwise has no impact on membership. Well, so some say, but others (including myself) interpret it otherwise. The current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election. If we want to clarify this, we need to amend the charter. In other news, I have properly fixed the LDAP errors that were preventing people from editing their profiles to add extra optional profile information (such as addresses and phone numbers), after they had registered. Sorry about that. -- 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 dg_cameron at bigpond.com Sun Jan 9 06:55:40 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:55:40 +1100 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <000701cbaff4$23304c80$6990e580$@com> Sorry Jeremy I don't understand - the Charter very clearly states: "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties". This is a statement of fact. The fact the Charter further states: "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter" does not in any way negate the hierarchically superior membership criteria outlined above. All it does is set parameters for who can vote on a change to the Charter. How do you interpret this? - It sounds like the membership list needs correcting. From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 10:40 PM To: Don Cameron; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site On 09/01/2011, at 7:09 PM, Don Cameron wrote: The charter further defines self modification (moves to change the charter) as follows: "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter". This certainly impacts on the right to vote for charter modifications, however it otherwise has no impact on membership. Well, so some say, but others (including myself) interpret it otherwise. The current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election. If we want to clarify this, we need to amend the charter. In other news, I have properly fixed the LDAP errors that were preventing people from editing their profiles to add extra optional profile information (such as addresses and phone numbers), after they had registered. Sorry about that. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 9 07:28:00 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 20:28:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <000701cbaff4$23304c80$6990e580$@com> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> <000701cbaff4$23304c80$6990e580$@com> Message-ID: <36D44A20-3251-468A-BFEC-34AD0E718E70@ciroap.org> On 09/01/2011, at 7:55 PM, Don Cameron wrote: > Sorry Jeremy I don’t understand – the Charter very clearly states: “The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties”. This is a statement of fact. Well, there have been numerous long threads debating this in the past. For example check out the "IGC members list" thread at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-07/thrd3.html. Your interpretation may appear obvious to you, but there are others for whom the contrary interpretation is just as obvious. So, I don't think we are going to solve the question one way or another without a charter amendment. > -- 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 dg_cameron at bigpond.com Sun Jan 9 07:42:26 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 23:42:26 +1100 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <36D44A20-3251-468A-BFEC-34AD0E718E70@ciroap.org> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> <000701cbaff4$23304c80$6990e580$@com> <36D44A20-3251-468A-BFEC-34AD0E718E70@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <000601cbaffa$ab8b9ed0$02a2dc70$@com> I'm not sure the referenced discussion supports your stance on this Jeremy, however as you seem to be closed on the matter I'll happily concede your points. Do whatever you think is best. Don From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 11:28 PM To: Don Cameron; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site On 09/01/2011, at 7:55 PM, Don Cameron wrote: Sorry Jeremy I don't understand - the Charter very clearly states: "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties". This is a statement of fact. Well, there have been numerous long threads debating this in the past. For example check out the "IGC members list" thread at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-07/thrd3.html. Your interpretation may appear obvious to you, but there are others for whom the contrary interpretation is just as obvious. So, I don't think we are going to solve the question one way or another without a charter amendment. -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Jan 9 07:51:55 2011 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 04:51:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <278040.570.qm@web120516.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> This process is absurd Jeremy and makes a mockery any sort of a democracy. It seems like empire building for the sake of empire building. Ten year old kids couldn't make more of a mess of this in organising a school play club. Actually, they'd do a much better job. Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason? David ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: Don Cameron ; governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, 9 January, 2011 10:39:56 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site On 09/01/2011, at 7:09 PM, Don Cameron wrote: The charter further defines self modification (moves to change the charter) as follows: “In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter”. > >This certainly impacts on the right to vote for charter modifications, however >it otherwise has no impact on membership. Well, so some say, but others (including myself) interpret it otherwise. The current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election. If we want to clarify this, we need to amend the charter. In other news, I have properly fixed the LDAP errors that were preventing people from editing their profiles to add extra optional profile information (such as addresses and phone numbers), after they had registered. Sorry about that. -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jan 9 08:18:17 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 13:18:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00 at ciroap.org>, at 18:09:29 on Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >> Are we required to resubscribe to the list via the web interface or will current memberships remain in place? > >You don't have to if you don't want to vote, as it sounds like you don't. > >> May I also reiterate that (hopefully) voting does not become a prerequisite for membership of the IGC > >It is already a prerequisite of full membership. But if you don't care about voting, then you get all the other privileges of membership, such >as they are. Trying to clarify (because I'm a bit confused)... http://www.igcaucus.org/membership ... talks about "membership" and "list participants", whereas you use the terms "full membership" and "membership". (For the same things, or are they different) As far as I can see the charter only says that you can go on the "voter list" after two months of subscription to the list. The only thing which voting then triggers is a listing as a "member-voter" published alongside the electron results. ps The website looks like a very good collaborative tool. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 9 08:22:24 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 16:22:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <278040.570.qm@web120516.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> <278040.570.qm@web120516.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM, David Goldstein wrote: > This process is absurd Jeremy and makes a mockery any sort of a democracy. +1 Don is correct, when he stated the facts. I don't see any other interpretation. -- 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 Sun Jan 9 08:22:23 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 08:22:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 9 Jan 2011, at 05:09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> Are we required to resubscribe to the list via the web interface or will current memberships remain in place? > > You don't have to if you don't want to vote, as it sounds like you don't. > Once again, this is a change. from the charter's perspective, being on the mailing list, plus the statetment of commitment to the charter's principles, is the requirement for being able to vote. not being in some other database. 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 avri at acm.org Sun Jan 9 08:34:38 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 08:34:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> Message-ID: Hi, i don't want to change the charter necessarily, especially not to make it match some technical changes to databases, but if there is such a group (which I personally do not think is necessary) i would like to be on the group that is discussing it. At the moment there is no need to vote to be on the mailing list and to be a full participant in in all IGC activities except voting, or being appointed as coordinator or appeals team. The only reason to vote is to be able to vote. And for any voting event the following pertains: > Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be given a voter account. If any amendment at all was need, it would be because the caucus was starting to do a lot of things by voting - which in itself is contra the spirit of the charter - though not specifically prohibited. I would personally find this to be disturbing, but even in that case, i think the only change would be to replace 'election' with 'vote' a. On 9 Jan 2011, at 05:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/01/2011, at 6:39 PM, Don Cameron wrote: > >> Thanks again Jeremy – It’s not about not wanting to vote; it’s about the right to abstain whilst retaining membership privileges. In my experience with NPO’s and NGO’s over the years many members abstain from voting at non-contentious elections or procedural change ballots. IMO this right should be maintained. > > Then the charter would have to be amended to effect this. Who would like to join the charter amendment working group? I can create a new mailing list right away if we have people who want to be on it. > > Bear in mind though that "member" is just a word. If you are a subscriber to the list, nobody is going to have a problem with you calling yourself an IGC member, even if by the letter of the charter you may not be. > > -- > 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 avri at acm.org Sun Jan 9 08:59:51 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 08:59:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <000601cbaffa$ab8b9ed0$02a2dc70$@com> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> <000701cbaff4$23304c80$6990e580$@com> <36D44A20-3251-468A-BFEC-34AD0E718E70@ciroap.org> <000601cbaffa$ab8b9ed0$02a2dc70$@com> Message-ID: <58BFBCE2-6186-4436-AD3B-502C3B5F9341@acm.org> Hi, Co-ordinators should co-ordinate, they should not decide. Just because Jeremy coded it that way does not mean the issue needs to be closed. a. On 9 Jan 2011, at 07:42, Don Cameron wrote: > I’m not sure the referenced discussion supports your stance on this Jeremy, however as you seem to be closed on the matter I’ll happily concede your points. Do whatever you think is best. > > Don > > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 11:28 PM > To: Don Cameron; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site > > On 09/01/2011, at 7:55 PM, Don Cameron wrote: > > > Sorry Jeremy I don’t understand – the Charter very clearly states: “The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties”. This is a statement of fact. > > Well, there have been numerous long threads debating this in the past. For example check out the "IGC members list" thread at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-07/thrd3.html. Your interpretation may appear obvious to you, but there are others for whom the contrary interpretation is just as obvious. So, I don't think we are going to solve the question one way or another without a charter amendment. > > > -- > 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 Sun Jan 9 09:21:18 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:21:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 9 Jan 2011, at 05:09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>> >>> Are we required to resubscribe to the list via the web interface or will current memberships remain in place? >> >> You don't have to if you don't want to vote, as it sounds like you don't. >> > > Once again, this is a change. exactly....this needs to be undone! -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 9 09:51:33 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:51:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 09/01/2011, at 9:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 9 Jan 2011, at 05:09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>> Are we required to resubscribe to the list via the web interface or will current memberships remain in place? >> >> You don't have to if you don't want to vote, as it sounds like you don't. > > Once again, this is a change. > > from the charter's perspective, being on the mailing list, plus the statetment of commitment to the charter's principles, is the requirement for being able to vote. Well, it's been that way for years. Every time you voted using the previous Web-based software that Derrick administered, you were in a database. The only difference is that the coordinators had to manually construct that database every year (with lots of errors such as including people twice under different addresses). From now on, the database will take care of itself. If anyone who wants to vote doesn't want to spend one minute registering to the membership database, then they can send their vote to the coordinators by email - but why they would, I can't fathom. > Once again, this is a change. It is a procedural change only, and one which as past coordinators will also tell you, needed to happen. > [Mctim] exactly....this needs to be undone! For reasons given above, please take it up with the Appeals Team, McTim. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 9 10:18:35 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 23:18:35 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <000601cbaffa$ab8b9ed0$02a2dc70$@com> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> <000701cbaff4$23304c80$6990e580$@com> <36D44A20-3251-468A-BFEC-34AD0E718E70@ciroap.org> <000601cbaffa$ab8b9ed0$02a2dc70$@com> Message-ID: On 09/01/2011, at 8:42 PM, Don Cameron wrote: > I’m not sure the referenced discussion supports your stance on this Jeremy, however as you seem to be closed on the matter I’ll happily concede your points. Do whatever you think is best. I'm not closed on the matter; if you want me to re-title the list of members on the Web site from "membership list" to "currently available voters list", and if nobody objects, then we can certainly do that. This would deal with your concern, I think. My response was not intended to say that my interpretation is right, but simply to acknowledge the fact that, going back a long way, there have been differences of opinion on what "membership" means (for example do people have to publicly acknowledge their subscription to the IGC charter every year to remain members, do they have to have voted in the last election to be "full" members, etc...). It's rather academic though, because none of the various rights of participation in the IGC depend on whether you have the label "member" or not; they depend on whether you satisfy the particular criteria that attach to that right of participation. So the fact that you and I may disagree on what "member" means doesn't change the effect of the charter on your rights in any instance: * list members (who can participate in consensus building); * those who affirm membership of the IGC (who can perhaps consider themselves members); * those with voter accounts (who can vote for coordinators); or * those on the most currently available voters list (who can vote for charter amendments). -- 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 dg_cameron at bigpond.com Sun Jan 9 14:35:22 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:35:22 +1100 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <278040.570.qm@web120516.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <000001cbafa5$98f9e650$caedb2f0$@com> <63F72B70-46B3-408B-AECA-528D3F484A00@ciroap.org> <000d01cbafe9$8d01fe70$a705fb50$@com> <001b01cbafed$a5a84750$f0f8d5f0$@com> <8D981135-9C2F-43E3-9687-665A9B3BA27B@ciroap.org> <278040.570.qm@web120516.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002a01cbb034$63191fd0$294b5f70$@com> > Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason? David this point is exactly my concern and the reason I entered this conversation – We cannot claim professionalism unless we follow open and proper process. In several unfortunate personalisation’s I and others have loosely been described as ‘lurkers’; ‘internet old timers’, and now in defining the right to abstain from voting, as someone who ‘doesn’t want to vote’ – yet none of these negative descriptors address the very real issue of one persons interpretation of an organisational Charter being used to discriminate against membership. That’s what this discussion is all about. Power building – yes. Democratic – no. There would appear to be a loan voice on this forum promoting both a need for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be changed. A majority would appear to be against such change; yet change is happening regardless. The right of members for lazy consensus before the implementation of any change is discarded for the sake of one person’s interpretation of systems expediency. Is this a right and proper process? Don From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of David Goldstein Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 11:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Don Cameron Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site This process is absurd Jeremy and makes a mockery any sort of a democracy. It seems like empire building for the sake of empire building. Ten year old kids couldn't make more of a mess of this in organising a school play club. Actually, they'd do a much better job. Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason? David _____ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: Don Cameron ; governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, 9 January, 2011 10:39:56 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site On 09/01/2011, at 7:09 PM, Don Cameron wrote: The charter further defines self modification (moves to change the charter) as follows: “In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter”. This certainly impacts on the right to vote for charter modifications, however it otherwise has no impact on membership. Well, so some say, but others (including myself) interpret it otherwise. The current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election. If we want to clarify this, we need to amend the charter. In other news, I have properly fixed the LDAP errors that were preventing people from editing their profiles to add extra optional profile information (such as addresses and phone numbers), after they had registered. Sorry about that. -- 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 Jan 9 16:42:52 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:42:52 +1100 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <002a01cbb034$63191fd0$294b5f70$@com> Message-ID: Hi Don, you wrote >There would appear to be a loan (sic) voice on this forum promoting both a need for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be changed. Most of us past co ordinators at least would see a membership database as a positive step forward and an easing of administrative work. Jeremy is not alone here and the debate is probably more about the form of a database rather than the need for one. As well, many if not most of the lists subscribers would by now realise that there is a need for the Charter to be revised in several respects. But that¹s an undertaking that is going to need a group to take action. (I am not volunteering!) So I dont think Jeremy is acting alone. The silence of the majority of people on this list with the current discussions might have more to do with having discussed these issues before, or perhaps being disinterested in matters of administrative process and more interested in internet governance issues. I don¹t think you can take relative silence to mean that everyone agrees with the points you make. Ian Peter From: Don Cameron Reply-To: , Don Cameron Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:35:22 +1100 To: , David Goldstein Subject: RE: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site > Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason? David this point is exactly my concern and the reason I entered this conversation ­ We cannot claim professionalism unless we follow open and proper process. In several unfortunate personalisation¹s I and others have loosely been described as Œlurkers¹; Œinternet old timers¹, and now in defining the right to abstain from voting, as someone who Œdoesn¹t want to vote¹ ­ yet none of these negative descriptors address the very real issue of one persons interpretation of an organisational Charter being used to discriminate against membership. That¹s what this discussion is all about. Power building ­ yes. Democratic ­ no. There would appear to be a loan voice on this forum promoting both a need for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be changed. A majority would appear to be against such change; yet change is happening regardless. The right of members for lazy consensus before the implementation of any change is discarded for the sake of one person¹s interpretation of systems expediency. Is this a right and proper process? Don       From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of David Goldstein Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 11:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Don Cameron Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site This process is absurd Jeremy and makes a mockery any sort of a democracy. It seems like empire building for the sake of empire building. Ten year old kids couldn't make more of a mess of this in organising a school play club. Actually, they'd do a much better job. Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason? David From: Jeremy Malcolm To: Don Cameron ; governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, 9 January, 2011 10:39:56 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site On 09/01/2011, at 7:09 PM, Don Cameron wrote: The charter further defines self modification (moves to change the charter) as follows: ³In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter². This certainly impacts on the right to vote for charter modifications, however it otherwise has no impact on membership. Well, so some say, but others (including myself) interpret it otherwise. The current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election. If we want to clarify this, we need to amend the charter. In other news, I have properly fixed the LDAP errors that were preventing people from editing their profiles to add extra optional profile information (such as addresses and phone numbers), after they had registered. Sorry about that. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow¹s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jan 9 17:04:06 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:34:06 -0430 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D2A30D6.9080600@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 avri at acm.org Sun Jan 9 17:20:19 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:20:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <4D2A30D6.9080600@paque.net> References: <4D2A30D6.9080600@paque.net> Message-ID: Hi, Jus so you know, if you didn't already, I think that renewing ones membership through the annual assertion that one makes before voting is a critical component of membership. I do not think that someone who voted once 3 years ago and never did again remains a member. So no, it is not the act of voting that matters, it is the yearly assertion that one subscribes to the charter that has been linked to the vote. Perhaps there need to be a way to make that assertion separate from the vote, and that may, though I am not sure, require a small tweak in the charter. I have no objection to fixing the charter when necessary, and we have done so once already. What I am very concerned with is the notion of a charter committee just opening it up and seeing how we can change it to meet all sorts of political aspirations. If there is something that we should do, like allow for separate declarations of support of the charter, e.g. a membership paragraph, then a few people (i think it takes 10) should just suggest a change and we should vote on it. We should not in any case allow for someone to remain a member without at least some yearly reaffirmation, no matter how that is done. And that is what I think the list being created by Jeremy does - which I believe is contra the charter. Ian I understand that this is less important that position papers, but I do not see how this should be deprecated or why it would stop anyone from working on papers in another thread if there really were people who wanted to do so. a. On 9 Jan 2011, at 17:04, Ginger Paque wrote: > I agree with Ian: > > "Most of us past co ordinators at least would see a membership database as a positive step forward and an easing of administrative work. Jeremy is not alone here and the debate is probably more about the form of a database rather than the need for one." > > This seems to be a good time to deal with this issue, as there is no pending vote to cause pressure. Concrete alternatives should be proposed to find a consensus solution. Don, do you have any suggestions for a format you would find acceptable? > > Best, Ginger > > On 1/9/2011 5:12 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Hi Don, you wrote >> >>> There would appear to be a loan (sic) voice on this forum promoting both a need for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be changed. >> >> Most of us past co ordinators at least would see a membership database as a positive step forward and an easing of administrative work. Jeremy is not alone here and the debate is probably more about the form of a database rather than the need for one. >> >> As well, many if not most of the lists subscribers would by now realise that there is a need for the Charter to be revised in several respects. But that’s an undertaking that is going to need a group to take action. (I am not volunteering!) >> >> So I dont think Jeremy is acting alone. The silence of the majority of people on this list with the current discussions might have more to do with having discussed these issues before, or perhaps being disinterested in matters of administrative process and more interested in internet governance issues. I don’t think you can take relative silence to mean that everyone agrees with the points you make. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> From: Don Cameron >> Reply-To: , Don Cameron >> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:35:22 +1100 >> To: , David Goldstein >> Subject: RE: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site >> >>> Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason? >> >> David this point is exactly my concern and the reason I entered this conversation – We cannot claim professionalism unless we follow open and proper process. >> >> In several unfortunate personalisation’s I and others have loosely been described as ‘lurkers’; ‘internet old timers’, and now in defining the right to abstain from voting, as someone who ‘doesn’t want to vote’ – yet none of these negative descriptors address the very real issue of one persons interpretation of an organisational Charter being used to discriminate against membership. That’s what this discussion is all about. >> >> Power building – yes. Democratic – no. >> >> There would appear to be a loan voice on this forum promoting both a need for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be changed. A majority would appear to be against such change; yet change is happening regardless. >> >> The right of members for lazy consensus before the implementation of any change is discarded for the sake of one person’s interpretation of systems expediency. >> >> Is this a right and proper process? >> >> Don >> >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of David Goldstein >> Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 11:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Don Cameron >> Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site >> >> >> This process is absurd Jeremy and makes a mockery any sort of a democracy. >> >> It seems like empire building for the sake of empire building. Ten year old kids couldn't make more of a mess of this in organising a school play club. Actually, they'd do a much better job. >> >> Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason? >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> To: Don Cameron ; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Sent: Sun, 9 January, 2011 10:39:56 PM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site >> >> On 09/01/2011, at 7:09 PM, Don Cameron wrote: >> >> >> The charter further defines self modification (moves to change the charter) as follows: “In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter”. >> >> >> >> This certainly impacts on the right to vote for charter modifications, however it otherwise has no impact on membership. >> >> >> Well, so some say, but others (including myself) interpret it otherwise. The current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election. If we want to clarify this, we need to amend the charter. >> >> >> >> In other news, I have properly fixed the LDAP errors that were preventing people from editing their profiles to add extra optional profile information (such as addresses and phone numbers), after they had registered. Sorry about that. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> > > -- > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > The latest from Diplo... > http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 dg_cameron at bigpond.com Sun Jan 9 17:37:54 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:37:54 +1100 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <4D2A30D6.9080600@paque.net> References: <4D2A30D6.9080600@paque.net> Message-ID: <000101cbb04d$db270910$91751b30$@com> > This seems to be a good time to deal with this issue, as there is no pending vote to cause pressure. Concrete alternatives should be proposed to find a consensus solution. Don, do you have any suggestions for a format you would find acceptable? Ginger my experience with this sort of general (lazy) consensus within organisations is limited to my work with FOSS where consensus is deemed by feedback (or lack thereof) to contributor and other change requests/suggestions. Other orgs have more formal processes in place. Taking the process to discussions here, it is self-evident that a number of respondents express concern over recent changes meaning (in the context of lazy consensus), that all changes should be reversed while impact, issues and other alternatives are assessed. Whether this happens on this list or another established for the purpose is again a matter for feedback of the list. Certainly a time-frame for discussions should be proposed (I would suggest 1 week is normally adequate) - The 'formal' process at the end of this time would be to call for a simple online vote. This is a very simple process that (I believe) evolved from development of the highly successful Apache project. The alternative to this approach is to formalise these membership issues; probably by constitution - I am not proposing this. Unfortunately Ian's post missed the most critical point under discussion being the recent change (as newly entered on the web site) to membership status - a number of respondents have now queried this - I propose this is not the sort of change that should be applied without first seeking consensus. PS - I rather suspect that had due process been followed we all could have saved a lot of wasted time on these discussions! Don From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 10 January 2011 9:04 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Cc: Don Cameron Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site I agree with Ian: "Most of us past co ordinators at least would see a membership database as a positive step forward and an easing of administrative work. Jeremy is not alone here and the debate is probably more about the form of a database rather than the need for one." This seems to be a good time to deal with this issue, as there is no pending vote to cause pressure. Concrete alternatives should be proposed to find a consensus solution. Don, do you have any suggestions for a format you would find acceptable? Best, Ginger On 1/9/2011 5:12 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Don, you wrote >There would appear to be a loan (sic) voice on this forum promoting both a need for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be changed. Most of us past co ordinators at least would see a membership database as a positive step forward and an easing of administrative work. Jeremy is not alone here and the debate is probably more about the form of a database rather than the need for one. As well, many if not most of the lists subscribers would by now realise that there is a need for the Charter to be revised in several respects. But that's an undertaking that is going to need a group to take action. (I am not volunteering!) So I dont think Jeremy is acting alone. The silence of the majority of people on this list with the current discussions might have more to do with having discussed these issues before, or perhaps being disinterested in matters of administrative process and more interested in internet governance issues. I don't think you can take relative silence to mean that everyone agrees with the points you make. Ian Peter _____ From: Don Cameron Reply-To: , Don Cameron Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:35:22 +1100 To: , David Goldstein Subject: RE: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site > Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason? David this point is exactly my concern and the reason I entered this conversation - We cannot claim professionalism unless we follow open and proper process. In several unfortunate personalisation's I and others have loosely been described as 'lurkers'; 'internet old timers', and now in defining the right to abstain from voting, as someone who 'doesn't want to vote' - yet none of these negative descriptors address the very real issue of one persons interpretation of an organisational Charter being used to discriminate against membership. That's what this discussion is all about. Power building - yes. Democratic - no. There would appear to be a loan voice on this forum promoting both a need for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be changed. A majority would appear to be against such change; yet change is happening regardless. The right of members for lazy consensus before the implementation of any change is discarded for the sake of one person's interpretation of systems expediency. Is this a right and proper process? Don From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of David Goldstein Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 11:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Don Cameron Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site This process is absurd Jeremy and makes a mockery any sort of a democracy. It seems like empire building for the sake of empire building. Ten year old kids couldn't make more of a mess of this in organising a school play club. Actually, they'd do a much better job. Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason? David _____ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: Don Cameron ; governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sun, 9 January, 2011 10:39:56 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site On 09/01/2011, at 7:09 PM, Don Cameron wrote: The charter further defines self modification (moves to change the charter) as follows: "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter". This certainly impacts on the right to vote for charter modifications, however it otherwise has no impact on membership. Well, so some say, but others (including myself) interpret it otherwise. The current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election. If we want to clarify this, we need to amend the charter. In other news, I have properly fixed the LDAP errors that were preventing people from editing their profiles to add extra optional profile information (such as addresses and phone numbers), after they had registered. Sorry about that. -- 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 -- Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBP Online Coordinator DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo... http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 9 18:17:09 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 21:17:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Thanks for the great work. These enhancements are really useful. Some comments: - The LDAP is still not working properly. I am unable to save information such as address and website. - Wouldn´t it be useful to create some kind of categorization for the documents on the resources page, so they can be retrieved more easily? Is there a way to add tags to the documents we upload and blog posts we create? - I would like to suggest that we add a calendar to the page, so people can add events and we can keep track of critical deadlines. I believe that there are plug-ins that can be used for that. - Is there a way we can see the profiles of other members? Can we still add questions to the profile questionnaire, such as "Twitter user name" and "main topics of interest"? This could help us find other people with similar interests and would make networking easier. Congratulations again! Best, Marília On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Phase 2 of the improvements that I've been undertaking to the IGC Web site > are complete. These include: > > > - A single interface for subscribing to the list and registering on the > Web site, which also adds your details to an IGC membership database > (subject to eligibility). I have fixed the LDAP errors that some people > encountered when registering, and made that the correct information is now > listed for everyone. > - Everyone now has the ability to create personal blog posts directly > on the IGC Web site. The latest headlines from these are listed on the > front page. To post to your blog, just log in to the site and then click > "Create content" in the left hand column, then "Blog entry". > - There is a new Resources page which is > editable as a wiki. You can also upload documents there. Instructions are > given on that page. > - Click on the name of any contributor to the site (when you are logged > in), and you can see their profile, including their organisation and Web > site (if provided). Later, the list of members will also be hyperlinked to > member profiles. > - There is a privacy policy . Please > check this out to make sure that it is OK. If you have any changes to > suggest, please post them to the list. > - Besides the Twitter feed that I added last time, headlines from > external Internet governance blogs are now also included in a column on the > front page. > > > - I've moved the list of recent IGC statements to the centre column of > the Web site, to more clearly indicate that the centre contains official > resources and the right column contains feeds from the broader community. > > > There's a lot more that could be done, but that will do for now. Some help > is needed: > > > - First and most importantly, we need a deputy Web administrator, who > can share the load of building and maintaining our Web and database > software, and take over from me when I'm unavailable. Some knowledge of Web > content management software (Drupal and/or Wordpress) is desirable, and > knowledge of databases (SQL and/or LDAP) and languages (HTML and PHP or > Perl) would be beneficial too. > - The Twitter and blog feeds could use with more diversity. At the > moment Twitter is just sourced from posts tagged "#igf". If you have a > Twitter list that would be a better source of relevant posts than this, let > me know. Also, if you have an Internet governance blog that should be added > to the feeds we are aggregating (a list of which is at > http://igf-online.net/gregarius), let me know. > > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > * > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to > consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > Twitter #CICongress > * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 9 21:34:10 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:34:10 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1294626850.3568.29.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 21:17 -0200, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear Jeremy, > > Thanks for the great work. These enhancements are really useful. > > Some comments: Many thanks for this useful feedback. I'll try to incorporate these suggestions into "phase 3". (This may take some time, due to pressure of other work.) Regarding the LDAP problems when you add additional profile details, I thought I had this nailed already but it will clearly take some more time. For now, please hold off on extending your profile until I say so. -- 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 Sun Jan 9 22:03:24 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:03:24 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: <4D2A30D6.9080600@paque.net> Message-ID: <1294628604.3568.81.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 17:20 -0500, Avri Doria wrote: > Jus so you know, if you didn't already, I think that renewing ones membership through the annual assertion that one makes before voting is a critical component of membership. > > I do not think that someone who voted once 3 years ago and never did again remains a member. > > So no, it is not the act of voting that matters, it is the yearly assertion that one subscribes to the charter that has been linked to the vote. Perhaps there need to be a way to make that assertion separate from the vote, and that may, though I am not sure, require a small tweak in the charter. I think it would require this. Anyway, I have taken the initiative of creating a new mailing list for those who want to discuss this or other possible charter amendments. I'm on the list. I haven't added anyone else, but you can add yourself by visiting this page: http://igf-online.net/wws/subscribe/charter > We should not in any case allow for someone to remain a member without at least some yearly reaffirmation, no matter how that is done. And that is what I think the list being created by Jeremy does - which I believe is contra the charter. Then you are worrying needlessly; it does not do that. The algorithm that is used for issuing the annual membership list from the database currently only includes those who self-asserted their membership during the last election. It would be technically very easy to allow people to publicly self-assert membership but not to vote, and/or to make their assertion at a different time than the elections. It just remains to make sure the charter supports this, and that other members agree with you. Since most of those who have been objecting have been making the opposite point to you - that membership should *not* be conditioned on anything other than list membership and agreeing with the charter (even privately), it is not clear that such an amendment would fly. -- 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 Sun Jan 9 22:10:24 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:10:24 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <000101cbb04d$db270910$91751b30$@com> References: <4D2A30D6.9080600@paque.net> <000101cbb04d$db270910$91751b30$@com> Message-ID: <1294629024.3568.93.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 09:37 +1100, Don Cameron wrote: > Unfortunately Ian’s post missed the most critical point under > discussion being the recent change (as newly entered on the web site) > to membership status – a number of respondents have now queried this – > I propose this is not the sort of change that should be applied > without first seeking consensus. The notion that there has been any recent change to membership status on the Web site is a misconception. There has been none. The list of voting members that is up there now has been there since last year. The list before that was prepared on the same basis, and as far as I recall, so too the list before that. In case people are tired of following this discussion, maybe we should take this off-list and then summarise back there. -- 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 goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Mon Jan 10 09:29:05 2011 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:29:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Congratulations for this work! I was one of those who asked for improvements in the IGC web site, so I thank you and the team for this huge effort. Only one suggestion at the moment, is that the site would have translation -at least to spanish, french, portuguese- an then to as many languages as possible. I think that this caucus must not be anglosaxon´s only -including in this category to all of those that can read, speak, write and work in english even when it is not their first language. Best wishes and thanks again, Roxana 2011/1/8 Jeremy Malcolm > Phase 2 of the improvements that I've been undertaking to the IGC Web site > are complete. These include: > > > - A single interface for subscribing to the list and registering on the > Web site, which also adds your details to an IGC membership database > (subject to eligibility). I have fixed the LDAP errors that some people > encountered when registering, and made that the correct information is now > listed for everyone. > - Everyone now has the ability to create personal blog posts directly > on the IGC Web site. The latest headlines from these are listed on the > front page. To post to your blog, just log in to the site and then click > "Create content" in the left hand column, then "Blog entry". > - There is a new Resources page which is > editable as a wiki. You can also upload documents there. Instructions are > given on that page. > - Click on the name of any contributor to the site (when you are logged > in), and you can see their profile, including their organisation and Web > site (if provided). Later, the list of members will also be hyperlinked to > member profiles. > - There is a privacy policy . Please > check this out to make sure that it is OK. If you have any changes to > suggest, please post them to the list. > - Besides the Twitter feed that I added last time, headlines from > external Internet governance blogs are now also included in a column on the > front page. > > > - I've moved the list of recent IGC statements to the centre column of > the Web site, to more clearly indicate that the centre contains official > resources and the right column contains feeds from the broader community. > > > There's a lot more that could be done, but that will do for now. Some help > is needed: > > > - First and most importantly, we need a deputy Web administrator, who > can share the load of building and maintaining our Web and database > software, and take over from me when I'm unavailable. Some knowledge of Web > content management software (Drupal and/or Wordpress) is desirable, and > knowledge of databases (SQL and/or LDAP) and languages (HTML and PHP or > Perl) would be beneficial too. > - The Twitter and blog feeds could use with more diversity. At the > moment Twitter is just sourced from posts tagged "#igf". If you have a > Twitter list that would be a better source of relevant posts than this, let > me know. Also, if you have an Internet governance blog that should be added > to the feeds we are aggregating (a list of which is at > http://igf-online.net/gregarius), let me know. > > > -- > > *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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 13:47:58 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:47:58 +1100 Subject: [governance] CSTD nominations Message-ID: As requested by the coordinators, the Nomcom has cut the previous list of 10 names for civil society nominations for CSTD back to 5. The names selected by the Nomcom are Izumi Aizu Anriette Esterhuysen Parminder Singh Marilia Maciel Wolfgang Kleinwachter I leave it to the Co ordinators to forward these names to the CSTD Secretariat. Ian Peter (on behalf of Nomcom) - Jacqueline Morris, Hempal Shresthra, Gurumurthy Kasinathan and myself ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Jan 10 15:12:43 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:12:43 +0500 Subject: [governance] Kenya's IGF 2011 Announcement News Message-ID: Thanks to Tracy for sharing this bit of information: Kenya’s global status in IT sector grows By JEVANS NYABIAGE jnyabienge at ke.nationmedia.com Posted Tuesday, January 4 2011 at 18:12 Source: http://www.nation.co.ke/business/news/Kenyas%20global%20status%20in%20IT%20sector%20grows/-/1006/1083636/-/10nwbahz/-/ Kenya’s stature in the technology world is growing globally as it prepares to host a major international conference this year, the second in as many years. Kenya will host the Sixth International Governance Forum in September at the United Nations offices in Gigiri, Nairobi. Information PS Bitange Ndemo says the forum will share insights into the potential of the Internet and its governance. The forum is a follow-up of the World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in Tunis in 2005. “We proudly look forward to hosting yet another significant Internet governance process in Kenya,” says Alice Munyua, chair of the Kenya organising committee. Last March, Nairobi hosted the 37th Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers global meeting. At the time, the organisation’s chief executive and president Rod Beckstrom said Kenya had provided the best internet connection compared to the venues for all the previous meetings. “We will use Nairobi as a benchmark for future meetings,” said Mr Beckstrom. The five previous meetings of the forum were held in Athens, Greece, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Hyderabad, India, Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt and Vilnius, Lithuania. Kenya’s information communication technology sector has grown by double digits, prompting the World Bank to project that the country is at a ‘tipping point’ for a possible economic boom. Major IT innovations include crisis monitoring Ushahidi and global winner M-pesa, the mobile money transfer service. There have also been huge investments in fibre optic cables and the proposed technology city. -- 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Jan 10 17:54:56 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:54:56 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD nominations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many thanks for the NomCom for carrying out this very difficult task. And personally thank you for the trust. I will give my very best to fulfill this responsibility. Marília On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > As requested by the coordinators, the Nomcom has cut the previous list of > 10 > names for civil society nominations for CSTD back to 5. The names selected > by the Nomcom are > > Izumi Aizu > Anriette Esterhuysen > Parminder Singh > Marilia Maciel > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > > > I leave it to the Co ordinators to forward these names to the CSTD > Secretariat. > > Ian Peter (on behalf of Nomcom) - Jacqueline Morris, Hempal Shresthra, > Gurumurthy Kasinathan and myself > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 aizu at anr.org Mon Jan 10 19:51:55 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:51:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD nominations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you very much NomCom and Ian in particular for nominating them - though unfortunately, we had to cut down to five and am sure it was not an easy work over the holiday season. I have just sent these names to he CSTD secretariat as they indicated that they need to receive it asap. Personally like Marilia, I thank your trust and will do my best to carry forward our cause into the new process. izumi 2011/1/11 Ian Peter : > As requested by the coordinators, the Nomcom has cut the previous list of 10 > names for civil society nominations for CSTD back to 5. The names selected > by the Nomcom are > > Izumi Aizu > Anriette Esterhuysen > Parminder Singh > Marilia Maciel > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > > > I leave it to the Co ordinators to forward these names to the CSTD > Secretariat. > > Ian Peter (on behalf of Nomcom) - Jacqueline Morris, Hempal Shresthra, > Gurumurthy Kasinathan and myself > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 21:50:45 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:50:45 +0800 Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list Message-ID: <1294714245.3176.586.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> This is to seek feedback on options for moving the IGC governance mailing list, because the CPSR which has hosted our list is no longer operating and cannot maintain its free service to us indefinitely. There is no immediate urgency, because we have about two years before we have to vacate the cpsr.org mailing list server, but it is best to plan now. I can see three options. 1. Asking another like-minded organisation to host it. I have checked with the APC who host our Web site, and they say that their mailing list server runs different software (Mailman), so it would be difficult and time-consuming to try to shift our archives over to their server. 2. Move our mailing list to the igf-online.net server that hosts the IGF Community Site, which is where I have created the subsidiary mailing lists for our IGC working groups. It runs the same software that we use now, so migrating the list with archives intact would be fairly easy. 3. The other option is that we raise some money and hire our own dedicated virtual server. We could, in that case, move our Web site and database over there too. I would recommend option 2. The igf-online.net server was originally established for the Rio IGF meeting in 2007 as the successor to the earlier IGF Community Site at igf2006.info that I co-developed. It is currently hosted by my employer Consumers International. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Jan 11 03:57:35 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:57:35 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: CSTD nominations References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0764F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list Thank you very much for the trust you have in me to represent the IGC and civil society in the new "UNCSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement". I will certainly do my best and report back as intense as possible. And I (with the others from our group) would be also happy to use our list for virtual consultations on relevant issues. Please use me (and the other four IGC reps) as YOUR channel to the Working Group. With the insider knowledge I have from previous groups like WGIG or MAG I am well equipped to help newcomers from governments to get a better understanding what multistakeholderism means in Internet Governance and I am also prepared to say no, if needed. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Di 11.01.2011 01:51 An: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Re: CSTD nominations Thank you very much NomCom and Ian in particular for nominating them - though unfortunately, we had to cut down to five and am sure it was not an easy work over the holiday season. I have just sent these names to he CSTD secretariat as they indicated that they need to receive it asap. Personally like Marilia, I thank your trust and will do my best to carry forward our cause into the new process. izumi 2011/1/11 Ian Peter : > As requested by the coordinators, the Nomcom has cut the previous list of 10 > names for civil society nominations for CSTD back to 5. The names selected > by the Nomcom are > > Izumi Aizu > Anriette Esterhuysen > Parminder Singh > Marilia Maciel > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > > > I leave it to the Co ordinators to forward these names to the CSTD > Secretariat. > > Ian Peter (on behalf of Nomcom) - Jacqueline Morris, Hempal Shresthra, > Gurumurthy Kasinathan and myself > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jan 11 04:07:33 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:07:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD nominations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0764F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0764F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Congratulations to all of you! May 2011 be an awesome collaborative and dynamic year! Warm smiles from sunny Fiji, Sala 2011/1/11 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Dear list > > Thank you very much for the trust you have in me to represent the IGC and > civil society in the new "UNCSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement". I will > certainly do my best and report back as intense as possible. And I (with the > others from our group) would be also happy to use our list for virtual > consultations on relevant issues. Please use me (and the other four IGC > reps) as YOUR channel to the Working Group. > > With the insider knowledge I have from previous groups like WGIG or MAG I > am well equipped to help newcomers from governments to get a better > understanding what multistakeholderism means in Internet Governance and I am > also prepared to say no, if needed. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Di 11.01.2011 01:51 > An: Ian Peter > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] Re: CSTD nominations > > > > Thank you very much NomCom and Ian in particular for nominating > them - though unfortunately, we had to cut down to five and am sure > it was not an easy work over the holiday season. > > I have just sent these names to he CSTD secretariat as they > indicated that they need to receive it asap. > > Personally like Marilia, I thank your trust and will do my best to > carry forward our cause into the new process. > > izumi > > > > 2011/1/11 Ian Peter : > > As requested by the coordinators, the Nomcom has cut the previous list of > 10 > > names for civil society nominations for CSTD back to 5. The names > selected > > by the Nomcom are > > > > Izumi Aizu > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > Parminder Singh > > Marilia Maciel > > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > > > > > > I leave it to the Co ordinators to forward these names to the CSTD > > Secretariat. > > > > Ian Peter (on behalf of Nomcom) - Jacqueline Morris, Hempal Shresthra, > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan and myself > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Jan 11 05:21:20 2011 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:21:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD nominations In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0764F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Happy new year from Douala-Cameroon Congratulations to Non-Com and wish you all the best Aaron On 1/11/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Congratulations to all of you! May 2011 be an awesome collaborative and > dynamic year! > > Warm smiles from sunny Fiji, > > Sala > > 2011/1/11 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >> Dear list >> >> Thank you very much for the trust you have in me to represent the IGC and >> civil society in the new "UNCSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement". I will >> certainly do my best and report back as intense as possible. And I (with >> the >> others from our group) would be also happy to use our list for virtual >> consultations on relevant issues. Please use me (and the other four IGC >> reps) as YOUR channel to the Working Group. >> >> With the insider knowledge I have from previous groups like WGIG or MAG I >> am well equipped to help newcomers from governments to get a better >> understanding what multistakeholderism means in Internet Governance and I >> am >> also prepared to say no, if needed. >> >> Best wishes >> >> wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU >> Gesendet: Di 11.01.2011 01:51 >> An: Ian Peter >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Betreff: [governance] Re: CSTD nominations >> >> >> >> Thank you very much NomCom and Ian in particular for nominating >> them - though unfortunately, we had to cut down to five and am sure >> it was not an easy work over the holiday season. >> >> I have just sent these names to he CSTD secretariat as they >> indicated that they need to receive it asap. >> >> Personally like Marilia, I thank your trust and will do my best to >> carry forward our cause into the new process. >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> 2011/1/11 Ian Peter : >> > As requested by the coordinators, the Nomcom has cut the previous list >> > of >> 10 >> > names for civil society nominations for CSTD back to 5. The names >> selected >> > by the Nomcom are >> > >> > Izumi Aizu >> > Anriette Esterhuysen >> > Parminder Singh >> > Marilia Maciel >> > Wolfgang Kleinwachter >> > >> > >> > I leave it to the Co ordinators to forward these names to the CSTD >> > Secretariat. >> > >> > Ian Peter (on behalf of Nomcom) - Jacqueline Morris, Hempal Shresthra, >> > Gurumurthy Kasinathan and myself >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 >> >> > -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Jan 11 10:25:39 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:25:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Kenya's IGF 2011 Announcement News Message-ID: <33299371.6300.1294759539804.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j17> Dear membrers of the list Exerpt from the IGF 2011 announcement : <“We proudly look forward to hosting yet another significant Internet governance process in Kenya,” says Alice Munyua, chair of the Kenya organising committee. As a member of CS committed in solidarity and cooperation, I'll be really "proud"  when the Africa's largest shanty town Kibera disappears and when its 1,4 million people, living in unworthy conditions, are integrated in the capital city as plain and recognized citizens of Nairobi. If we, as ICT, telecoms and Internet aware folks, can be helpful for this to happen, then only can we "proudly look forward". That's my simple opinion Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 10/01/11 21:15 > De : "Fouad Bajwa" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Kenya's IGF 2011 Announcement News > > Thanks to Tracy for sharing this bit of information: > > Kenya’s global status in IT sector grows > By JEVANS NYABIAGE jnyabienge at ke.nationmedia.com Posted Tuesday, > January 4 2011 at 18:12 > Source: http://www.nation.co.ke/business/news/Kenyas%20global%20status%20in%20IT%20sector%20grows/-/1006/1083636/-/10nwbahz/-/ > > Kenya’s stature in the technology world is growing globally as it > prepares to host a major international conference this year, the > second in as many years. > > Kenya will host the Sixth International Governance Forum in September > at the United Nations offices in Gigiri, Nairobi. > > Information PS Bitange Ndemo says the forum will share insights into > the potential of the Internet and its governance. > > The forum is a follow-up of the World Summit on the Information > Society, which took place in Tunis in 2005. > > “We proudly look forward to hosting yet another significant Internet > governance process in Kenya,” says Alice Munyua, chair of the Kenya > organising committee. > > Last March, Nairobi hosted the 37th Internet Corporation for Assigned > Names and Numbers global meeting. > > At the time, the organisation’s chief executive and president Rod > Beckstrom said Kenya had provided the best internet connection > compared to the venues for all the previous meetings. > > “We will use Nairobi as a benchmark for future meetings,” said Mr Beckstrom. > > The five previous meetings of the forum were held in Athens, Greece, > Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Hyderabad, India, Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt and > Vilnius, Lithuania. > > Kenya’s information communication technology sector has grown by > double digits, prompting the World Bank to project that the country is > at a ‘tipping point’ for a possible economic boom. > > Major IT innovations include crisis monitoring Ushahidi and global > winner M-pesa, the mobile money transfer service. > > There have also been huge investments in fibre optic cables and the > proposed technology city. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jan 11 13:14:02 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:14:02 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD nominations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D2C9DEA.1080102@cafonso.ca> Good to know we have at least one "new blood" in the NomCom. Congrats, Marilia! :) frt rgds --c.a. On 01/10/2011 08:54 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Many thanks for the NomCom for carrying out this very difficult task. > And personally thank you for the trust. I will give my very best to > fulfill this responsibility. > > > Marília > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > As requested by the coordinators, the Nomcom has cut the previous > list of 10 > names for civil society nominations for CSTD back to 5. The names > selected > by the Nomcom are > > Izumi Aizu > Anriette Esterhuysen > Parminder Singh > Marilia Maciel > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > > > I leave it to the Co ordinators to forward these names to the CSTD > Secretariat. > > Ian Peter (on behalf of Nomcom) - Jacqueline Morris, Hempal Shresthra, > Gurumurthy Kasinathan and myself > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 11 14:46:30 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:46:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD nominations In-Reply-To: <4D2C9DEA.1080102@cafonso.ca> References: <4D2C9DEA.1080102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <4D2C9DEA.1080102 at cafonso.ca>, at 16:14:02 on Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Carlos A. Afonso writes >Good to know we have at least one "new blood" in the NomCom. Congrats, >Marilia! :) Agreed, and hopefully (given the accelerated timescale) only one trip to Geneva to cope with, which can possibly be combined with the next IGF Open Consultations. I look forward to the announcement of when the IGF Improvement WG will be meeting, whether it will have any remote observers, and so on. -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Jan 11 18:57:52 2011 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:57:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: A warning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <204473.74304.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Izumi et al, I'm not really concerned about a warning as the list is rather ineffective and barking up trees to no avail. It seems the group wants to "caucus", for example, a totally inappropriate term given my dictionary defines caucus as "(a meeting of) a small group of people in a political party or organisation who have a lot of influence, or who have similar interests." This list is not a political party and I haven't seen it yet to have any influence, let alone a lot of influence. Maybe people have a similar interest, but they have no influence. As my contacts in internet governance circles comment, this list is not taken seriously and won't be. I guess the people have similar interests... So consider this my resignation and please delete me from the list. I'll miss posts from Milton, Wolfgang, Avri and a couple of other thoughtful people, but alas, it's not enough to sustain the pointless babble that this list goes on with. It's a shame, this list has the potential to be an interesting discussion of ideas, but is so caught up with navel-gazing it achieves next to nothing. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Izumi AIZU To: David Goldstein Sent: Wed, 12 January, 2011 1:22:52 AM Subject: A warning Dear David, As a co-coordinator of the IGC, I would like to remind you of our Charter, http://www.igcaucus.org/charter especially, on the "Posting Rules for the IGC" section. Please read the rule and follow them. Some of the members expressed the concern that you have repeated "uncivil" behavior. One recent example is copied below. As the coordinator, I am taking the first step defined in the Carter - to warn you privately. As professionals please let's try to abide the rule mutually agreed so that we could have more productive discussion and activities together. Thank you for your kind consideration, izumi Begin forwarded message: > From: David Goldstein > Date: January 9, 2011 7:51:55 AM EST > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jeremy Malcolm , Don Cameron > > Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,David Goldstein > > > This process is absurd Jeremy and makes a mockery any sort of a democracy. > > It seems like empire building for the sake of empire building. Ten year old >kids couldn't make more of a mess of this in organising a school play club. >Actually, they'd do a much better job. > > Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who >voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever >reason? > > 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 dg_cameron at bigpond.com Tue Jan 11 20:36:31 2011 From: dg_cameron at bigpond.com (Don Cameron) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:36:31 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] Re: A warning Message-ID: <5148382.2238.1294796191971.JavaMail.prodapps@nskntweba01-app> David given your post concluded with a very valid question that remains unanswered, along with the fact I openly share and support your concerns, I'll follow you out the door. Sadly this has been a rather pointless exercise. I assume we can unsub by a simple email to the list-serv? (majordomo?) - it's a good idea for list admins to include unsub instructions in email footers so people (like me) can unsub quietly rather than posting back to the list. Don ------------------------------------------ From: David Goldstein To: iza at anr.org; CC: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Subject: [governance] Re: A warning Izumi et al, I'm not really concerned about a warning as the list is rather ineffective and barking up trees to no avail. It seems the group wants to "caucus", for example, a totally inappropriate term given my dictionary defines caucus as "(a meeting of) a small group of people in a political party or organisation who have a lot of influence, or who have similar interests." This list is not a political party and I haven't seen it yet to have any influence, let alone a lot of influence. Maybe people have a similar interest, but they have no influence. As my contacts in internet governance circles comment, this list is not taken seriously and won't be. I guess the people have similar interests... So consider this my resignation and please delete me from the list. I'll miss posts from Milton, Wolfgang, Avri and a couple of other thoughtful people, but alas, it's not enough to sustain the pointless babble that this list goes on with. It's a shame, this list has the potential to be an interesting discussion of ideas, but is so caught up with navel-gazing it achieves next to nothing. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Izumi AIZU To: David Goldstein Sent: Wed, 12 January, 2011 1:22:52 AM Subject: A warning Dear David, As a co-coordinator of the IGC, I would like to remind you of our Charter, http://www.igcaucus.org/charter especially, on the "Posting Rules for the IGC" section. Please read the rule and follow them. Some of the members expressed the concern that you have repeated "uncivil" behavior. One recent example is copied below. As the coordinator, I am taking the first step defined in the Carter - to warn you privately. As professionals please let's try to abide the rule mutually agreed so that we could have more productive discussion and activities together. Thank you for your kind consideration, izumi Begin forwarded message: > From: David Goldstein > Date: January 9, 2011 7:51:55 AM EST > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jeremy Malcolm , Don Cameron > > Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,David Goldstein > > > This process is absurd Jeremy and makes a mockery any sort of a democracy. > > It seems like empire building for the sake of empire building. Ten year old >kids couldn't make more of a mess of this in organising a school play club. >Actually, they'd do a much better job. > > Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who >voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever >reason? > > 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 aizu at anr.org Tue Jan 11 20:48:09 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:48:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD nominations In-Reply-To: References: <4D2C9DEA.1080102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Just to remind that our nomination does not guarantee that all five will be selected as the WG members from the civil society. The Chair of CSTD will make the final selection. IGC is not the sole representative of the CS, I would say. Of course, that does not mean we have less credibility, though. izumi 2011/1/12 Roland Perry : > In message <4D2C9DEA.1080102 at cafonso.ca>, at 16:14:02 on Tue, 11 Jan 2011, > Carlos A. Afonso writes >> >> Good to know we have at least one "new blood" in the NomCom. Congrats, >> Marilia! :) > > Agreed, and hopefully (given the accelerated timescale) only one trip to > Geneva to cope with, which can possibly be combined with the next IGF Open > Consultations. I look forward to the announcement of when the IGF > Improvement WG will be meeting, whether it will have any remote observers, > and so on. > -- > 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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Wed Jan 12 00:38:48 2011 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:38:48 -0600 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, Thank you for all your hard work. I managed to login to my account with no problems. Just a few questions/concerns and if I missed any discussions on these concerns, my apologies for that foresight. [1] Under LDAP Attributes in my account- I would not be able to update any information on those fields? [2] I agree with Marilia regarding a calendar, especially for any proposal deadline that IGC is heading [3] Can we have an area where upcoming events like ARIN, IGF meetings/consultations, ICANN events and et al can be viewed on the home page? Perhaps just some events that CS members can be aware of. [4] Is there an archive of statements that IGC has submitted for the past year(s)? Thanks again. Regards, Charity On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Phase 2 of the improvements that I've been undertaking to the IGC Web site > are complete. These include: > > > - A single interface for subscribing to the list and registering on the > Web site, which also adds your details to an IGC membership database > (subject to eligibility). I have fixed the LDAP errors that some people > encountered when registering, and made that the correct information is now > listed for everyone. > - Everyone now has the ability to create personal blog posts directly > on the IGC Web site. The latest headlines from these are listed on the > front page. To post to your blog, just log in to the site and then click > "Create content" in the left hand column, then "Blog entry". > - There is a new Resources page which is > editable as a wiki. You can also upload documents there. Instructions are > given on that page. > - Click on the name of any contributor to the site (when you are logged > in), and you can see their profile, including their organisation and Web > site (if provided). Later, the list of members will also be hyperlinked to > member profiles. > - There is a privacy policy . Please > check this out to make sure that it is OK. If you have any changes to > suggest, please post them to the list. > - Besides the Twitter feed that I added last time, headlines from > external Internet governance blogs are now also included in a column on the > front page. > > > - I've moved the list of recent IGC statements to the centre column of > the Web site, to more clearly indicate that the centre contains official > resources and the right column contains feeds from the broader community. > > > There's a lot more that could be done, but that will do for now. Some help > is needed: > > > - First and most importantly, we need a deputy Web administrator, who > can share the load of building and maintaining our Web and database > software, and take over from me when I'm unavailable. Some knowledge of Web > content management software (Drupal and/or Wordpress) is desirable, and > knowledge of databases (SQL and/or LDAP) and languages (HTML and PHP or > Perl) would be beneficial too. > - The Twitter and blog feeds could use with more diversity. At the > moment Twitter is just sourced from posts tagged "#igf". If you have a > Twitter list that would be a better source of relevant posts than this, let > me know. Also, if you have an Internet governance blog that should be added > to the feeds we are aggregating (a list of which is at > http://igf-online.net/gregarius), let me know. > > > -- > > *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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 12 00:55:53 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:55:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1294811753.3176.1711.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 23:38 -0600, Charity Gamboa wrote: > [1] Under LDAP Attributes in my account- I would not be able to update > any information on those fields? It works for me, but others report it doesn't work for them. I will be looking into it, so if it doesn't work for you please just wait. > [2] I agree with Marilia regarding a calendar, especially for any > proposal deadline that IGC is heading > [3] Can we have an area where upcoming events like ARIN, IGF > meetings/consultations, ICANN events and et al can be viewed on the > home page? Perhaps just some events that CS members can be aware of. Yes, for sure. This can be incorporated into the calendar system. > [4] Is there an archive of statements that IGC has submitted for the > past year(s)? Yes under "Statements" at the top or side of the page - actually, this part hasn't changed. -- 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 shailam at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 01:02:54 2011 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:02:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445826.86055.qm@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi Jeremy I am receiving a message that my user name is not recognized, when I have just registered it. I also tried with my email address and pasted the long password sent to me. Can you please assist me. Regards 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, January 2, 2011 3:01:01 AM Subject: [governance] New membership database: choose your own username This is long, but important, so please read it. Before the next poll or election is called, anyone who wishes to participate will have to have an account in the new database that I have created to record IGC membership. All those who voted in the last election will also be entered into this database. We are doing this because, until now, there has been no proper IGC membership list, other than the list of subscribers to the governance mailing list (which contains many non-member lurkers, duplicate subscriptions and some defunct accounts). The advantages of a maintaining a centralised database is that we can use a single list of members (and potential members) for purposes including: * mailing list subscription * editing content on the IGC Web site * determining eligibility to vote for coordination elections and charter amendments Also, we will finally be able to associate names and (optionally) organisations with email addresses. Our inability to do this in the past has been a problem for the coordinators. I will be entering existing members into this database shortly, but I am first giving everyone the opportunity to create their own database entry so that they can choose their own username. If you don't choose your own username, you will end up with a username like "john.doe". The username won't be used on the mailing list, but will be associated with any content you may create on our Web site, and possibly for other purposes in the future. To create your own entry in the IGC membership database please visit this new page of our Web site: http://www.igcaucus.org/user/register When registering, please use the same email address with which you are subscribed to the governance list. This is important because it will enable me to flag you as an official IGC member (ie. one who voted in the last coordinator elections), if indeed you are one. (If not, please register anyway - especially if you intend to vote at the next coordinator elections.) Visiting the page above is also the way, from now on, to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the governance mailing list. (Unfortunately due to software limitations, your password for the mailing list Web site won't be automatically set to the one you choose when creating your database entry - you'll need to set it again when logging in there, or use any password you may have had there before.) Existing subscribers to the governance mailing list who have not voted in the list election will not automatically be added to the database. So, if you did not vote but are nonetheless an active participant, you should register yourself using the link above. If you don't, your mailing list subscription won't be touched, but you won't have access to participate in polls or to add content to our Web site. Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. You have one month from now to create your own database entry if you wish, before I will create entries for all the missing members. PS. Since this email is long enough already, I'll be writing separately about some of the other "phase 2" improvements to our Web site. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 12 23:44:18 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:14:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD nominations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D2E8322.90605@itforchange.net> Thanks to the nomcom for the trust, and will do my best..... On a connected note, it will be good if the list discusses IGF improvements now. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: > As requested by the coordinators, the Nomcom has cut the previous list of 10 > names for civil society nominations for CSTD back to 5. The names selected > by the Nomcom are > > Izumi Aizu > Anriette Esterhuysen > Parminder Singh > Marilia Maciel > Wolfgang Kleinwachter > > > I leave it to the Co ordinators to forward these names to the CSTD > Secretariat. > > Ian Peter (on behalf of Nomcom) - Jacqueline Morris, Hempal Shresthra, > Gurumurthy Kasinathan and myself > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 13 02:06:42 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:06:42 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF improvements and proposals for the programme of the 2011 meeting Message-ID: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and reuse. Here are relevant links: PROGRAMME: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) IMPROVEMENTS: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. -- 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 anriette at apc.org Thu Jan 13 02:44:25 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:44:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD nominations In-Reply-To: <4D2E8322.90605@itforchange.net> References: <4D2E8322.90605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D2EAD59.4090806@apc.org> Dear all Also thanks from me to the nomcom for their confidence in us. After the really demanding CSTD meeting we attended on 17 December we certainly have a challenge ahead of us. The issue of civil society and other stakeholder participation in UN processes will need to taken up on many fronts, including at national level. But the more coordinated we are in taking this on, the better. I see that Jeremy has started a thread on IGF improvements. What I would find very helpful from the coordinators, is if they could do a summary of the proposals for how to deal with the decisions of the CSTD to make the IGF improvement working group intergovernmental, with participation from other stakeholders rather than full inclusion. There were masses of messages, and proposals for joint actions, parallel processes etc. Having a summary of those proposals would be very helpful. Thanks Anriette On 13/01/11 06:44, parminder wrote: > > Thanks to the nomcom for the trust, and will do my best..... > > On a connected note, it will be good if the list discusses IGF > improvements now. > > Parminder > > Ian Peter wrote: >> As requested by the coordinators, the Nomcom has cut the previous list of 10 >> names for civil society nominations for CSTD back to 5. The names selected >> by the Nomcom are >> >> Izumi Aizu >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Parminder Singh >> Marilia Maciel >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter >> >> >> I leave it to the Co ordinators to forward these names to the CSTD >> Secretariat. >> >> Ian Peter (on behalf of Nomcom) - Jacqueline Morris, Hempal Shresthra, >> Gurumurthy Kasinathan and myself >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director association for progressive communications www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 13 03:06:44 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:06:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG - topics for improvement In-Reply-To: <4D2E8322.90605@itforchange.net> References: <4D2E8322.90605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4D2E8322.90605 at itforchange.net>, at 10:14:18 on Thu, 13 Jan 2011, parminder writes > it will be good if the list discusses IGF improvements now I was about to make a similar suggestion. There's not long before the CSTD WG meeting. Here's the summary of suggestions put to CSTD already: http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/IGFsummary.pdf My own inclination is to concentrate on questions 7 & 8, which are about "the IGF Process" (note that this appears to be disjoint from "the IGF"). Whatever the long term political imperatives, if the right people can't get to the meetings and participate effectively, isn't it all a waste of time? -- 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 aizu at anr.org Thu Jan 13 05:00:27 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:00:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG - topics for improvement In-Reply-To: References: <4D2E8322.90605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I was also thinking in the similar way, and we need to prepare a statement (or more) for the February meeting. If there is a volunteer(s) for preparing the draft, I would appreciate. Of course, myself and Jeremy will work together. izumi 2011/1/13 Roland Perry : > In message <4D2E8322.90605 at itforchange.net>, at 10:14:18 on Thu, 13 Jan > 2011, parminder writes > >> it will be good if the list discusses IGF improvements now > > I was about to make a similar suggestion. There's not long before the CSTD > WG meeting. Here's the summary of suggestions put to CSTD already: > > http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/IGFsummary.pdf > > My own inclination is to concentrate on questions 7 & 8, which are about > "the IGF Process" (note that this appears to be disjoint from "the IGF"). > Whatever the long term political imperatives, if the right people can't get > to the meetings and participate effectively, isn't it all a waste of time? > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jan 13 18:19:04 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:19:04 +1200 Subject: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site In-Reply-To: <1294811753.3176.1711.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1294811753.3176.1711.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Thanks, you are doing a great job. I can imagine the 9/10 of the iceberg, the unseen portion. :) :) Sala On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 23:38 -0600, Charity Gamboa wrote: > > [1] Under LDAP Attributes in my account- I would not be able to update > > any information on those fields? > > It works for me, but others report it doesn't work for them. I will be > looking into it, so if it doesn't work for you please just wait. > > > [2] I agree with Marilia regarding a calendar, especially for any > > proposal deadline that IGC is heading > > [3] Can we have an area where upcoming events like ARIN, IGF > > meetings/consultations, ICANN events and et al can be viewed on the > > home page? Perhaps just some events that CS members can be aware of. > > Yes, for sure. This can be incorporated into the calendar system. > > > [4] Is there an archive of statements that IGC has submitted for the > > past year(s)? > > Yes under "Statements" at the top or side of the page - actually, this > part hasn't changed. > > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 14 05:20:55 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:50:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals In-Reply-To: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> Hi Jeremy I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF Nairobi'. I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far the dominant platform for Internet? I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. Anyway back to the topic, The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real world IG would be two very different worlds. It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG' And I propose a third topic 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. Parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the > programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF > improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but > otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. > > This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it > is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme > of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and > reuse. Here are relevant links: > > PROGRAMME: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) > > IMPROVEMENTS: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) > > I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights > that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing > any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. > > -- 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 Fri Jan 14 07:17:31 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:47:31 +0530 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Net Neutrality Decision] Message-ID: <4D303EDB.7090806@itforchange.net> This is the news item about the network neutrality decision of Federal Communications Commission of the US that I referred to in my previous email. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality Decision Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:45:38 +1200 From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Check out the Headlines within the FCC website on Net Neutrality http://www.fcc.gov/ http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/us-regulators-approve-net-neutrality-20101222-194n6.html -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." -- PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.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 Fri Jan 14 15:22:16 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:22:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list In-Reply-To: <1294714245.3176.586.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <1294714245.3176.586.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: In message <1294714245.3176.586.camel at terminus-Aspire-L320>, at 10:50:45 on Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >This is to seek feedback on options for moving the IGC governance >mailing list, because the CPSR which has hosted our list is no longer >operating and cannot maintain its free service to us indefinitely. >There is no immediate urgency, because we have about two years before we >have to vacate the cpsr.org mailing list server, but it is best to plan >now. > >I can see three options. > >1. Asking another like-minded organisation to host it. I have checked >with the APC who host our Web site, and they say that their mailing list >server runs different software (Mailman), so it would be difficult and >time-consuming to try to shift our archives over to their server. > >2. Move our mailing list to the igf-online.net server that hosts the IGF >Community Site, which is where I have created the subsidiary mailing >lists for our IGC working groups. It runs the same software that we use >now, so migrating the list with archives intact would be fairly easy. > >3. The other option is that we raise some money and hire our own >dedicated virtual server. We could, in that case, move our Web site and >database over there too. > >I would recommend option 2. The igf-online.net server was originally >established for the Rio IGF meeting in 2007 as the successor to the >earlier IGF Community Site at igf2006.info that I co-developed. It is >currently hosted by my employer Consumers International. In order to avoid going through this whole thing again in another couple of years, can CI give a commitment that future co-ordinators (after your term has ended) will be given the necessary admin privileges to the site, and they'll continue to support the hosting platform? It's difficult being generous, and we don't want to appear ungrateful, but there's also a need for that continuity and stability. It might also be a good time to rename the website and list to give a co-ordinated url. The caucus discusses more than the IGF. -- 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 fm-lists at st-kilda.org Fri Jan 14 15:52:25 2011 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:52:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list In-Reply-To: References: <1294714245.3176.586.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <2F5F1E29-4A4C-4A57-A8E7-C16131CD4AC7@st-kilda.org> On 14 Jan 2011, at 20:22, Roland Perry wrote: > In order to avoid going through this whole thing again in another couple of years, can CI give a commitment that future co-ordinators (after your term has ended) will be given the necessary admin privileges to the site, and they'll continue to support the hosting platform? It's difficult being generous, and we don't want to appear ungrateful, but there's also a need for that continuity and stability. > +1 Although that could be a written rolling commitment that they will give x months notice, where x > 6 months minimum. Or such a number as the IGC feels is appropriate for stability. > It might also be a good time to rename the website and list to give a co-ordinated url. The caucus discusses more than the IGF. A general tidying up would be a positive thing to do. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jan 14 16:14:24 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:14:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list In-Reply-To: <2F5F1E29-4A4C-4A57-A8E7-C16131CD4AC7@st-kilda.org> References: <1294714245.3176.586.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> ,<2F5F1E29-4A4C-4A57-A8E7-C16131CD4AC7@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070CA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +/- 1 Website name can be whatever as far as I am concerned if for branding reaons folks want to get creative. But confounding IGC list with IGF isn't our problem, or fault, since we were here first. And always have spoken of more -ig - than happens at IGF. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fearghas McKay [fm-lists at st-kilda.org] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 3:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list On 14 Jan 2011, at 20:22, Roland Perry wrote: > In order to avoid going through this whole thing again in another couple of years, can CI give a commitment that future co-ordinators (after your term has ended) will be given the necessary admin privileges to the site, and they'll continue to support the hosting platform? It's difficult being generous, and we don't want to appear ungrateful, but there's also a need for that continuity and stability. > +1 Although that could be a written rolling commitment that they will give x months notice, where x > 6 months minimum. Or such a number as the IGC feels is appropriate for stability. > It might also be a good time to rename the website and list to give a co-ordinated url. The caucus discusses more than the IGF. A general tidying up would be a positive thing to do. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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-lists at st-kilda.org Fri Jan 14 16:27:19 2011 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:27:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070CA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1294714245.3176.586.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> ,<2F5F1E29-4A4C-4A57-A8E7-C16131CD4AC7@st-kilda.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070CA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 14 Jan 2011, at 21:14, Lee W McKnight wrote: > But confounding IGC list with IGF isn't our problem, or fault, since we were here first. And always have spoken of more -ig - than happens at IGF. My tidying up comment was more about consistency for outsiders and newcomers to the the community - keep the message simple :-) 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 avri at acm.org Fri Jan 14 16:44:04 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:44:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list In-Reply-To: References: <1294714245.3176.586.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: hi, Assuming there is willingness, it is easy to get www.igcaucus.org to point to anything we want it to point to. or info.igcaucus.org or wiki.igcaucus.org or ... I still support this name (have igcaucus.net as well - unused), tiny contribution that it requires, and am willing to have it point anywhere the caucus decides it should point. Things do not have to be on the same site to have the same branding. Though of course it does help for coordinating files. As for server space, i think it would be good to have funding to have our own. In lieu of that, there are no guarantees of permanence, and that is probably not much guarantee either. a. On 14 Jan 2011, at 15:22, Roland Perry wrote: > It might also be a good time to rename the website and list to give a co-ordinated url. The caucus discusses more than the IGF. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 14 17:14:07 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:14:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070CA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1294714245.3176.586.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <2F5F1E29-4A4C-4A57-A8E7-C16131CD4AC7@st-kilda.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070CA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0uNmPSdvqMMNFAay@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070CA at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 16:14:24 on Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Lee W McKnight writes >Website name can be whatever as far as I am concerned if for branding >reaons folks want to get creative. Consistency (and thus ease of use) is the main reason. No new brands required. >But confounding IGC list with IGF isn't our problem, or fault, since we >were here first. And always have spoken of more -ig - than happens at >IGF. www.IGcaucus.org is perfect. It's having the future mailing list at igf-online.net which should perhaps be changed to something like governance at IGcaucus.org (+ charter@ etc). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jan 14 21:51:47 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 00:51:47 -0200 Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals In-Reply-To: <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I am in an airport with limited time and cannot develop the idea right now, but I really think that the international context makes it tremedously important to reinforce A2K debate. I would like to propose that we discuss the impact of the current enforcement agenda of IPRs on Access in general and on A2K, more specifically . This is connected to network neutrality, and there are several important issues that could fall under this theme, such as the role of intermediaries, liability, etc. Politically, this would help to reinforce a positive agenda on IPRs and a development agenda in the IGF More on that as soon as I have connection again. Marilia On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:20 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which > hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into > the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately > quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF > Nairobi'. > > I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that > IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular > focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil > society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. > > In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF > improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision > on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has > been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing > pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing > to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) > > This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the > open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why > should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on > one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this > mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far > the dominant platform for Internet? > > I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever > in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy > framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two > largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the > government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are > moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy > frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance > companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big > enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what > happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication > infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. > > Anyway back to the topic, > > The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile > Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real > world IG would be two very different worlds. > > It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for > IG' > > And I propose a third topic > > 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' > > CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the > programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF > improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but > otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. > > This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it > is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme > of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and > reuse. Here are relevant links: > > PROGRAMME: > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) > > IMPROVEMENTS: > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) > > I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights > that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing > any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. > > > > > -- > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 14 22:20:25 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:20:25 +1200 Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals In-Reply-To: References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: *Cross Border Issues and its Implications of Internet Governance* is key in my view and would be a great topic:- The regulatory reforms happening in certain contexts has implications beyond its borders and raise serious governance issues. Whilst these are subject to competing variables (different for each national context/jurisdiction) whether they are for LDCs competing priorities, maturity (independence) of regulatory regimes, conflicting domestic laws (legacy of most post colonial states at least in the ACP - although some are coming out of it), political will etc etc, at the end of the day, no one is discussing (if I am wrong, I would be glad to be wrong and directed to the forum where these are being discussed) the philosophical underpinnings and foundations that need to emerge in a world where something like the internet transcends boundaries and national jurisdictions. What is its impact on developing countries? I will throw in only one single scenario (this is one dimensional): If packets were commercialised, what is to stop a powerful multinational from signing and executing a deal with an ISPs from developing worlds for the prioritisation of certain packets and where regulatory regimes would not even be the wiser and someone could chalk it down to something else. In a world where often the law is slow to evolve and multinationals and corporate entities would often play and wait for the law to catch up whilst they make their quick buck at the expense of the consumer. Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I am in an airport with limited time and cannot develop the idea right now, > but I really think that the international context makes it tremedously > important to reinforce A2K debate. > > I would like to propose that we discuss the impact of the current > enforcement agenda of IPRs on Access in general and on A2K, more > specifically . This is connected to network neutrality, and there are > several important issues that could fall under this theme, such as the role > of intermediaries, liability, etc. Politically, this would help to reinforce > a positive agenda on IPRs and a development agenda in the IGF > > More on that as soon as I have connection again. > > Marilia > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:20 AM, parminder wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy >> >> I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which >> hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into >> the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately >> quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF >> Nairobi'. >> >> I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that >> IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular >> focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil >> society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. >> >> In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF >> improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision >> on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has >> been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing >> pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing >> to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) >> >> This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the >> open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why >> should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on >> one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this >> mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far >> the dominant platform for Internet? >> >> I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever >> in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy >> framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two >> largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the >> government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are >> moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy >> frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance >> companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big >> enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what >> happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication >> infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. >> >> Anyway back to the topic, >> >> The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile >> Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real >> world IG would be two very different worlds. >> >> It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for >> IG' >> >> And I propose a third topic >> >> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' >> >> CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the >> programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF >> improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but >> otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. >> >> This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it >> is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme >> of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and >> reuse. Here are relevant links: >> >> PROGRAMME: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) >> >> IMPROVEMENTS: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) >> >> I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights >> that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing >> any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Jan 15 02:06:33 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 12:06:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals In-Reply-To: <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: We should begin with forwarding these suggestion well beforehand. Many of the MAG members from developing regions will not be able to make it to the upcoming MAG and open consultation meetings and will be mostly around through remote participation. My question regarding the topic of 'Network Neutrality' or now ' Mobile Network Neutrality' is that how should this be conveyed? NN is easier to raise and pass through and have MNN listed in the sub-topics because its a term almost everyone is aware of within the IGF community but MNN will be a bit of confusion otherwise and might create the same kind of resistance that happens around when the issue around HR or IRP has been raised in the past? We know how things are with new-terms in the process. The 'development agenda for IG' should remain an important focus to be included and I will sustain my position with regards to it and revive the cross-community working group to organize it should we be able to table it through. 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' is a good topic and yes CoE is discussing it with a major activity happening around April this year on the issue and we can liaise with the CoE representatives to table this issue as a main session topic. Can we detail these topics out also to assist the MAG members from CS to present, deliberate and sustain their ground. An important thing that can be done is that we create a yearly focus of topics that are also detailed out with all these references like the one from Sala's message so that it can be used as a reference point to make both statements, IGC position information and other discussion pointers. -- Best Fouad On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which > hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into > the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately > quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF > Nairobi'. > > I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that > IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular > focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil > society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. > > In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF > improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision > on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has > been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing > pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing > to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) > > This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the > open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why > should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on > one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this > mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far > the dominant platform for Internet? > > I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever > in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy > framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two > largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the > government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are > moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy > frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance > companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big > enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what > happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication > infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. > > Anyway back to the topic, > > The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile > Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real > world IG would be two very different worlds. > > It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG' > > And I propose a third topic > > 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' > > CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the > programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF > improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but > otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. > > This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it > is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme > of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and > reuse. Here are relevant links: > > PROGRAMME: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) > > IMPROVEMENTS: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) > > I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights > that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing > any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. > > > > -- > 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 pouzin at well.com Sat Jan 15 03:48:30 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 09:48:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality Decision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is a link to the FCC decision (194 pages) : http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdf The first statements of this doc make up a compact summary : - - - *FCC 10-201* Adopted: December 21, 2010 Released: December 23, 2010 Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices *I. PRESERVING THE FREE AND OPEN INTERNET * 1. Today the Commission takes an important step to preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation, investment, job creation, economic growth, competition, and free expression. To provide greater clarity and certainty regarding the continued freedom and openness of the Internet, we adopt three basic rules that are grounded in broadly accepted Internet norms, as well as our own prior decisions: i. *Transparency*. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services; ii. *No blocking*. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and iii. *No unreasonable discrimination*. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic. - - - On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Check out the Headlines within the FCC website on Net Neutrality > > http://www.fcc.gov/ > > > http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/us-regulators-approve-net-neutrality-20101222-194n6.html > > -- > Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro > P.O.Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji Islands > > Cell: +679 9982851 > Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 15 20:04:37 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 06:04:37 +0500 Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals In-Reply-To: References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: after giving some more thought to the Mobile Network Neutrality topics, why not propose it as: Wired and Wireless Network Neutrality - W2 at NN On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > We should begin with forwarding these suggestion well beforehand. Many > of the MAG members from developing regions will not be able to make it > to the upcoming MAG and open consultation meetings and will be mostly > around through remote participation. > > My question regarding the topic of 'Network Neutrality' or now ' > Mobile Network Neutrality' is that how should this be conveyed? NN is > easier to raise and pass through and have MNN listed in the sub-topics > because its a term almost everyone is aware of within the IGF > community but MNN will be a bit of confusion otherwise and might > create the same kind of resistance that happens around when the issue > around HR or IRP has been raised in the past? We know how things are > with new-terms in the process. > > The 'development agenda for IG' should remain an important focus to be > included and I will sustain my position with regards to it and revive > the cross-community working group to organize it should we be able to > table it through. > > 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' is a good topic and yes > CoE is discussing it with a major activity happening around April this > year on the issue and we can liaise with the CoE representatives to > table this issue as a main session topic. > > Can we detail these topics out also to assist the MAG members from CS > to present, deliberate and sustain their ground. > > An important thing that can be done is that we create a yearly focus > of topics that are also detailed out with all these references like > the one from Sala's message so that it can be used as a reference > point to make both statements, IGC position information and other > discussion pointers. > > -- Best > > Fouad > > > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM, parminder wrote: >> Hi Jeremy >> >> I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which >> hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into >> the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately >> quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF >> Nairobi'. >> >> I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that >> IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular >> focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil >> society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. >> >> In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF >> improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision >> on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has >> been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing >> pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing >> to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) >> >> This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the >> open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why >> should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on >> one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this >> mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far >> the dominant platform for Internet? >> >> I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever >> in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy >> framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two >> largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the >> government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are >> moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy >> frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance >> companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big >> enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what >> happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication >> infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. >> >> Anyway back to the topic, >> >> The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile >> Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real >> world IG would be two very different worlds. >> >> It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG' >> >> And I propose a third topic >> >> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' >> >> CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the >> programme of the 2011 IGF meeting.  Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF >> improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but >> otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. >> >> This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before.  So it >> is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme >> of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and >> reuse.  Here are relevant links: >> >> PROGRAMME: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) >> >> IMPROVEMENTS: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) >> >> I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights >> that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing >> any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > -- 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 anriette at apc.org Sun Jan 16 06:55:05 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 13:55:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tunisia Message-ID: <4D32DC99.2060402@apc.org> For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary what is happening there at the moment? It was amazing to see interviews with some of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were delicately trying to support while involved in the rather politically complex process of participating in a summit in Tunis while also supporting local human rights organisations) on Al Jazeera. It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this list. Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. 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 khaled.koubaa at gmail.com Sun Jan 16 07:11:03 2011 From: khaled.koubaa at gmail.com (Khaled KOUBAA) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 13:11:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D32DC99.2060402@apc.org> References: <4D32DC99.2060402@apc.org> Message-ID: <4D32E057.3090405@gmail.com> Anriette, People here have been delivered from the dictatorship of Ben Ali. Everyone know become free to express himself and discuss what ever he wants. I personally was not able to write such email before 15/01/2011 Thank you for all your support for Tunisia and hope that our friends from Arab World will take this huge opportunity to wake up. Khaled Le 16/01/2011 12:55, Anriette Esterhuysen a écrit : > For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary > what is happening there at the moment? It was amazing to see > interviews with some of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were > delicately trying to support while involved in the rather politically > complex process of participating in a summit in Tunis while also > supporting local human rights organisations) on Al Jazeera. > > It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this > list. Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 16 09:24:25 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:54:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D32E057.3090405@gmail.com> References: <4D32DC99.2060402@apc.org> <4D32E057.3090405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D32FF99.3000409@itforchange.net> Congratulations to all Tunisians. One can imagine what a heady moment it must be for you all. Parminder Khaled KOUBAA wrote: > Anriette, > People here have been delivered from the dictatorship of Ben Ali. > Everyone know become free to express himself and discuss what ever he > wants. I personally was not able to write such email before 15/01/2011 > Thank you for all your support for Tunisia and hope that our friends > from Arab World will take this huge opportunity to wake up. > Khaled > > Le 16/01/2011 12:55, Anriette Esterhuysen a écrit : >> For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary >> what is happening there at the moment? It was amazing to see >> interviews with some of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were >> delicately trying to support while involved in the rather politically >> complex process of participating in a summit in Tunis while also >> supporting local human rights organisations) on Al Jazeera. >> >> It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this >> list. Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. >> >> 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 > > -- 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 dcogburn at syr.edu Sun Jan 16 09:43:05 2011 From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:43:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D32FF99.3000409@itforchange.net> References: <4D32DC99.2060402@apc.org> <4D32E057.3090405@gmail.com> <4D32FF99.3000409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Great note Anriette. I too have been thinking about WSIS Tunis as these events unfolded. I'd been to Tunisia several times before WSIS, but the contrasts in 2005 between the hopeful possibilities of the information society being discussed inside with what was happening outside in the city were indeed striking. I wish everyone in Tunisia the best in this new phase, which will certainly not be without its own challenges. Cheers, Derrick Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Associate Professor American University Syracuse University Director: COTELCO Center http://cotelco.net Sent from my iPhone On Jan 16, 2011, at 9:24 AM, "parminder" > wrote: Congratulations to all Tunisians. One can imagine what a heady moment it must be for you all. Parminder Khaled KOUBAA wrote: Anriette, People here have been delivered from the dictatorship of Ben Ali. Everyone know become free to express himself and discuss what ever he wants. I personally was not able to write such email before 15/01/2011 Thank you for all your support for Tunisia and hope that our friends from Arab World will take this huge opportunity to wake up. Khaled Le 16/01/2011 12:55, Anriette Esterhuysen a écrit : For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary what is happening there at the moment? It was amazing to see interviews with some of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were delicately trying to support while involved in the rather politically complex process of participating in a summit in Tunis while also supporting local human rights organisations) on Al Jazeera. It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this list. Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. 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 -- 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 graciela at nupef.org.br Sun Jan 16 10:10:57 2011 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 13:10:57 -0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [IAMCR] Tunis Message-ID: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> Intersting article. best, Graciela Selaimen - a 'Suleiman' in Tunisia. Data: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:43:03 -0800 De: Sasha Costanza Chock : Ethan zuckerman has an excellent post here: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2011/01/12/what-if-tunisia-had-a-revolution-but-nobody-watched/ -sc >Any thoughts on events in Tunis, the site of the World Summit for the >Information Society? > > > > >_______________________________________________ >International Association for Media and Communication Research - >http://iamcr.org >Announcements mailing list > >Join IAMCR | >http://iamcr.org/about-iamcr/membership/join-iamcr-mainmenu-237 > >Follow IAMCR's updates on Twitter | http://twitter.com/IAMCRtweets >Visit IAMCR's Facebook Page | http://www.facebook.com/iamcr.org __________________ International Association for Media and Communication Research - http://iamcr.org Announcements mailing list Join IAMCR | http://iamcr.org/about-iamcr/membership/join-iamcr-mainmenu-237 Follow IAMCR's updates on Twitter | http://twitter.com/IAMCRtweets Visit IAMCR's Facebook Page | http://www.facebook.com/iamcr.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 qshatti at gmail.com Sun Jan 16 10:38:06 2011 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:38:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: References: <4D32DC99.2060402@apc.org> <4D32E057.3090405@gmail.com> <4D32FF99.3000409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All and Especially our Tunisien Colleagues: As the Great Tunisien Poet Abul Qasim AlShabi Said once: "If the people one day chose life, destiny will comply". اذا الشعب يوما أراد الحياة فلا بد ان يستجيب القدر We wish Tunis a new era of freedom, democracy and prosperity. It is a new begining for all Tunisiens, full of hope, optimism and a better future. It is astonishing to see how people (especially the youth) can use the Internet and social networks to support each other, pursue their freedom, organise themselves, seek a better life and stand for their principles. Ironically, the people right now are using it to assist the police and the army (the organizations that filtered it in the past) to maintain law and order. It is time for the rest in this world to know that blocking, filtering and censoring the Internet will never work. May Godbless Tunis and all Tunisiens. Sincerely Yours Qusai Al-Shatti On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Derrick L. Cogburn wrote: > Great note Anriette. I too have been thinking about WSIS Tunis as these > events unfolded. I'd been to Tunisia several times before WSIS, but the > contrasts in 2005 between the hopeful possibilities of the information > society being discussed inside with what was happening outside in the city > were indeed striking. > I wish everyone in Tunisia the best in this new phase, which will certainly > not be without its own challenges. > Cheers, > Derrick > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Associate Professor > American University > Syracuse University > Director: COTELCO Center > http://cotelco.net > Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 16, 2011, at 9:24 AM, "parminder" wrote: > > > Congratulations to all Tunisians. One can imagine what a heady moment it > must be for you all. Parminder > > Khaled KOUBAA wrote: > > Anriette, > People here have been delivered from the dictatorship of Ben Ali. > Everyone know become free to express himself and discuss what ever he wants. > I personally was not able to write such email before 15/01/2011 > Thank you for all your support for Tunisia and hope that our friends from > Arab World will take this huge opportunity to wake up. > Khaled > > Le 16/01/2011 12:55, Anriette Esterhuysen a écrit : > > For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary what is > happening there at the moment?  It was amazing to see interviews with some > of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were delicately trying to support while > involved in the rather politically complex process of participating in a > summit in Tunis while also supporting local human rights organisations) on > Al Jazeera. > > It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this list. > Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. > > 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 > > > > -- > 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Jan 16 11:22:46 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:22:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D32E057.3090405@gmail.com> References: <4D32DC99.2060402@apc.org> <4D32E057.3090405@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Khaled, It is definitely a start and destiny will pave its way to a more open and inclusive democracy in Tunisia. As I read the news and my mind wanders through those streets where the revolution has emerged where once I had the chance to visit and explore the region, I feel the struggle for change. I am very intrigued by the way social media played a major role in helping the youth of the country to go about stimulating this change. It is true that the Internet can spur change both at the personal and community level carrying an impact that breaks traditional norms and perceptions about what technology can spur. I would like to join other colleagues in acknowledging that attempts of locking, filtering and censoring the Internet is a concept of the past but there will still be attempts and barriers will breakdown as we have witnessed in the case of Tunisia. To the children of Tunisia, I join everyone to the forthcoming era of freedom, democracy and prosperity and yes both hope and optimism will lead Tunisians towards a better and more open future. Tunisians have shown the world that both great and positive change can be brought forth with the help of the Internet. The Internet is itself a medium but what happens at its ends is now defining human events! -- Best Regards Fouad Bajwa On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: > Anriette, > People here have been delivered from the dictatorship of Ben Ali. > Everyone know become free to express himself and discuss what ever he wants. > I personally was not able to write such email before 15/01/2011 > Thank you for all your support for Tunisia and hope that our friends from > Arab World will take this huge opportunity to wake up. > Khaled > > Le 16/01/2011 12:55, Anriette Esterhuysen a écrit : >> >> For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary what >> is happening there at the moment?  It was amazing to see interviews with >> some of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were delicately trying to support >> while involved in the rather politically complex process of participating in >> a summit in Tunis while also supporting local human rights organisations) on >> Al Jazeera. >> >> It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this list. >> Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. >> >> 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jan 16 11:23:30 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:23:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [IAMCR] Tunis In-Reply-To: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: In message <4D330A81.3020005 at nupef.org.br>, at 13:10:57 on Sun, 16 Jan 2011, Graciela Selaimen writes >what-if-tunisia-had-a-revolution-but-nobody-watched/ Tunisia is a popular enough holiday destination for British tourists (especially at this time of year) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12200280 ...that the situation there has been number-one headline news item for a couple of days. Although much of the reporting starts with pictures of people camping out in airport departure lounges, it does go on to describe the political situation in some detail. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12200493 Actually, right now it's still the top story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12202283 -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 16 11:53:41 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 11:53:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals In-Reply-To: References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070D5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> The FCC 'NN rules' doc Parminder referenced is actually titled 'open Internet'...I scanned and did find the words 'network neutrality' in some footnotes. So while 'Network Neutrality' is the popular phraseology, there is a reason the actual regulations are for 'open Internet' which as some may recall is the phraseology which I have been suggesting all along is a more accurate rendering of what is desired, and desirable. Now my 2 points: 1) 'open Internet' logically includes both wired and wireless nets, as well as heterogeneous nets including both wired and wireless pieces. The third category happens to be most of our daily realities in Internet access, services and use. 2) the FCC regs are therefore logically inconsistent if they claim one set of rules for -wired - and another for - wireless, and are at 95% confidence level imho likely to be challenged in court within a year. Because of 1) and 2) and the usual industry squabbles the FCC rules are far from the last word on net neutrality or open Internet thematic in the US; I suspect sooner or later new legislation for ensuring an - open Internet - will be needed. And the artifical boundary of one set of rules for wired and another for wireless, won't stand up to the scrutiny. In sum, for IGF thematic reasons I understand going with the 'headline news' version of the issue - ie the phrase network neutrality - but for actual progress towards a global - open Internet - I continue to suggest the better phrase is - open Internet. I'm sure the fact that the FCC agrees with me on that point is a plus or minus for many of you. : ). But anyway, my suggested amendment to the proposed main theme title is: 'Open Mobile Internet.' Three words both clear and ambiguous enough to leave room for multiple interpretations, which seems a requirement for an IGF theme... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals after giving some more thought to the Mobile Network Neutrality topics, why not propose it as: Wired and Wireless Network Neutrality - W2 at NN On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > We should begin with forwarding these suggestion well beforehand. Many > of the MAG members from developing regions will not be able to make it > to the upcoming MAG and open consultation meetings and will be mostly > around through remote participation. > > My question regarding the topic of 'Network Neutrality' or now ' > Mobile Network Neutrality' is that how should this be conveyed? NN is > easier to raise and pass through and have MNN listed in the sub-topics > because its a term almost everyone is aware of within the IGF > community but MNN will be a bit of confusion otherwise and might > create the same kind of resistance that happens around when the issue > around HR or IRP has been raised in the past? We know how things are > with new-terms in the process. > > The 'development agenda for IG' should remain an important focus to be > included and I will sustain my position with regards to it and revive > the cross-community working group to organize it should we be able to > table it through. > > 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' is a good topic and yes > CoE is discussing it with a major activity happening around April this > year on the issue and we can liaise with the CoE representatives to > table this issue as a main session topic. > > Can we detail these topics out also to assist the MAG members from CS > to present, deliberate and sustain their ground. > > An important thing that can be done is that we create a yearly focus > of topics that are also detailed out with all these references like > the one from Sala's message so that it can be used as a reference > point to make both statements, IGC position information and other > discussion pointers. > > -- Best > > Fouad > > > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM, parminder wrote: >> Hi Jeremy >> >> I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which >> hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into >> the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately >> quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF >> Nairobi'. >> >> I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that >> IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular >> focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil >> society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. >> >> In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF >> improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision >> on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has >> been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing >> pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing >> to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) >> >> This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the >> open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why >> should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on >> one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this >> mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far >> the dominant platform for Internet? >> >> I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever >> in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy >> framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two >> largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the >> government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are >> moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy >> frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance >> companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big >> enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what >> happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication >> infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. >> >> Anyway back to the topic, >> >> The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile >> Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real >> world IG would be two very different worlds. >> >> It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG' >> >> And I propose a third topic >> >> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' >> >> CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the >> programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF >> improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but >> otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. >> >> This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it >> is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme >> of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and >> reuse. Here are relevant links: >> >> PROGRAMME: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) >> >> IMPROVEMENTS: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) >> >> I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights >> that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing >> any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From renate.bloem at gmail.com Sun Jan 16 12:42:30 2011 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:42:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D32DC99.2060402@apc.org> Message-ID: <4d332e00.122ae30a.3a86.ffffbba6@mx.google.com> For those of us who were there....In 2003 in Geneva we might not all have known, latest at the Summit on 2005 we were aware! Congratulations now to the people of Tunisia for their courage, no matter how social networks might have helped. We wish you a great path in dignity to your collective freedom. So happy Renate http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2011/01/12/what-if-tunisia-had-a-revoluti on-but-nobody-watched/ Renate Bloem Past President of CONGO Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com skype: Renate.Bloem -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: dimanche, 16. janvier 2011 12:55 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Tunisia For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary what is happening there at the moment? It was amazing to see interviews with some of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were delicately trying to support while involved in the rather politically complex process of participating in a summit in Tunis while also supporting local human rights organisations) on Al Jazeera. It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this list. Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. 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 Sun Jan 16 13:24:40 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 06:24:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4d332e00.122ae30a.3a86.ffffbba6@mx.google.com> References: <4D32DC99.2060402@apc.org> <4d332e00.122ae30a.3a86.ffffbba6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I can only imagine the pain, struggles that Tunisians went through and warmly congratulate you all and wish you peace and freedom. Warm Regards, Sala On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) < renate.bloem at gmail.com> wrote: > For those of us who were there....In 2003 in Geneva we might not all have > known, latest at the Summit on 2005 we were aware! > > > > Congratulations now to the people of Tunisia for their courage, no matter > how social networks might have helped. We wish you a great path in dignity > to your collective freedom. > > > > So happy > > Renate > > > > > http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2011/01/12/what-if-tunisia-had-a-revolution-but-nobody-watched/ > > > > Renate Bloem > > Past President of CONGO > > Civicus UN Geneva > > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > > Mobile : +41763462310 > > renate.bloem at civicus.org > > renate.bloem at gmail.com > > skype: Renate.Bloem > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: dimanche, 16. janvier 2011 12:55 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Tunisia > > > > For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary > > what is happening there at the moment? It was amazing to see interviews > > with some of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were delicately trying to > > support while involved in the rather politically complex process of > > participating in a summit in Tunis while also supporting local human > > rights organisations) on Al Jazeera. > > > > It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this > > list. Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. > > > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 16 13:34:20 2011 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:04:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: References: <4D32DC99.2060402@apc.org> <4d332e00.122ae30a.3a86.ffffbba6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear Khaleed, All this is happening at a moment when there are disturbing trends towards tighter controls and negative progress in the free world. What is happening in Tunisia has significance as good news for this reason. Good to hear about the good that is happening in Tunisia. Sivasubramanian M http://isocmadras.blogspot.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > I can only imagine the pain, struggles that Tunisians went through and > warmly congratulate you all and wish you peace and freedom. > > > Warm Regards, > > Sala > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) < > renate.bloem at gmail.com> wrote: > >> For those of us who were there....In 2003 in Geneva we might not all >> have known, latest at the Summit on 2005 we were aware! >> >> >> >> Congratulations now to the people of Tunisia for their courage, no matter >> how social networks might have helped. We wish you a great path in dignity >> to your collective freedom. >> >> >> >> So happy >> >> Renate >> >> >> >> >> http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2011/01/12/what-if-tunisia-had-a-revolution-but-nobody-watched/ >> >> >> >> Renate Bloem >> >> Past President of CONGO >> >> Civicus UN Geneva >> >> Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 >> >> Mobile : +41763462310 >> >> renate.bloem at civicus.org >> >> renate.bloem at gmail.com >> >> skype: Renate.Bloem >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: dimanche, 16. janvier 2011 12:55 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Tunisia >> >> >> >> For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary >> >> what is happening there at the moment? It was amazing to see interviews >> >> with some of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were delicately trying to >> >> support while involved in the rather politically complex process of >> >> participating in a summit in Tunis while also supporting local human >> >> rights organisations) on Al Jazeera. >> >> >> >> It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this >> >> list. Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. >> >> >> >> 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jan 16 17:54:26 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 23:54:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Tunisia Message-ID: <17314730.114635.1295218466758.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k17> Cher Khaled Toute notre admiration au peuple tunisien qui a eu le courage de se liberer -enfin- d'une dictature trop longtemps supportee mais aussi, en ces moments difficiles, tous nos encouragements et l'expression de notre profonde solidarité a ces artisans du nouvel avenir, libre et démocratique, de leur beau pays. Au nom de CSDPTT comme en mon nom propre, je souhaite a la societe civile tunisienne, respectueuse des droits de l'Homme, de retrouver rapidement l'acces libre et non surveille aux medias et l'exercice sans menaces de ses activites. Au peuple tunisien tous nos souhaits d'un heureux avenir et toute notre solidarite. Ils n'etaient pas beaucoup a prevoir que ces evenements a la fois dramatiques et porteurs d'un immense espoir surviennent si rapidement (meme apres 23 ans de regime dictatorial). Et nous avions quelques raisons et ... nos souvenirs de la "phase de Tunis" du SMSI a laquelle  les "Organisations pas vraiment Non Gouvernementales" tunisiennes ont imprimé une ambiance déplorable et constamment conflictuelle. Comme le rappelle l'éditorial de la Lettre de CSDPTT d'octobre 2005 jointe qui justifie notre absence au Sommet de Tunis. Cinq ans apres, la societe civile -si silencieuse jusqu'a hier sur cette liste- devra se souvenir qu'on savait déjà bien avant le Sommet ce qui se passait a Tunis. Avec mes sentiments solidaires Jean-louis Fullsack Administrateur de CSDPTT > Message du 16/01/11 13:11 > De : "Khaled KOUBAA" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Tunisia > > Anriette, > People here have been delivered from the dictatorship of Ben Ali. > Everyone know become free to express himself and discuss what ever he > wants. I personally was not able to write such email before 15/01/2011 > Thank you for all your support for Tunisia and hope that our friends > from Arab World will take this huge opportunity to wake up. > Khaled > > Le 16/01/2011 12:55, Anriette Esterhuysen a écrit : > > For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary > > what is happening there at the moment? It was amazing to see > > interviews with some of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were > > delicately trying to support while involved in the rather politically > > complex process of participating in a summit in Tunis while also > > supporting local human rights organisations) on Al Jazeera. > > > > It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this > > list. Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. > > > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSDPTTabsentTUNISoct05.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29696 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Jan 16 18:15:15 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:15:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Tunisia Message-ID: <8739563.114819.1295219715558.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k17> At last ! Our brilliant bloggers and mailers were completely absent from this major event happenining in Tunisia, at least on the governance list. As if "governance" was an Internet specific affair .... I also remember these numerous tunisian "Not Really Non Governmental Organizations"  and the deleterious athmosphere they happened to create during the meetings in the well-named Tunis Phase ! This was the very reason for CSDPTT's absence on the Tunis Summit. Hopefully, this will not re-happen and this is worthy to be said. On the other hand, we, the civil society, should strongly support those tunisian CS orgs who share our values of freedom and democracy and therefore were forced to silence and/or barred from partipating to the WSIS outside Tunisia and even during the Tunis Summit. let's do our best together for a better future for all Tunesians ! Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 16/01/11 12:55 > De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Tunisia > > For those of us who were in Tunis in 2005... is it not extraordinary > what is happening there at the moment? It was amazing to see interviews > with some of our Tunisian colleagues (who we were delicately trying to > support while involved in the rather politically complex process of > participating in a summit in Tunis while also supporting local human > rights organisations) on Al Jazeera. > > It would be good to hear reactions from the Tunisian members of this > list. Off list responses probably best as this is not quite on topic. > > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 16 21:26:23 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (jeremy at ciroap.org) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:26:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list In-Reply-To: <0uNmPSdvqMMNFAay@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: (My email is down again so I'm replying from the Web archive.) To avoid the list being at igf-online.net, we would need to move the Web site and the mailing list into the same place. I can't give much of a commitment from Consumers International about continuity (because everything depends on funding for my project work at CI), so the other option is for us to raise some funds and hire our own virtual server, where everything can be consolidated under our existing igcaucus.org domain. Does anyone prefer that option? I suspect it would not be too hard to raise the necessary funds, even if just with a "Donate" button on our Web site. We are talking about around $10/month. In the past there was talk about making an application for a grant from a donor like the UN Democracy Fund, but this raised people's fears about over-institutionalising the IGC, so... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jan 17 03:38:21 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:38:21 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070D5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Lee good point. And BRW, "open Internet" relates closer to the orginal themes of the IGFm, whicn included "Openess" as one of the five key subjects for discussion. However I likle the acronym "W2 at NN" :-)))) wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Lee W McKnight Gesendet: So 16.01.2011 17:53 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa; parminder Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Betreff: RE: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals The FCC 'NN rules' doc Parminder referenced is actually titled 'open Internet'...I scanned and did find the words 'network neutrality' in some footnotes. So while 'Network Neutrality' is the popular phraseology, there is a reason the actual regulations are for 'open Internet' which as some may recall is the phraseology which I have been suggesting all along is a more accurate rendering of what is desired, and desirable. Now my 2 points: 1) 'open Internet' logically includes both wired and wireless nets, as well as heterogeneous nets including both wired and wireless pieces. The third category happens to be most of our daily realities in Internet access, services and use. 2) the FCC regs are therefore logically inconsistent if they claim one set of rules for -wired - and another for - wireless, and are at 95% confidence level imho likely to be challenged in court within a year. Because of 1) and 2) and the usual industry squabbles the FCC rules are far from the last word on net neutrality or open Internet thematic in the US; I suspect sooner or later new legislation for ensuring an - open Internet - will be needed. And the artifical boundary of one set of rules for wired and another for wireless, won't stand up to the scrutiny. In sum, for IGF thematic reasons I understand going with the 'headline news' version of the issue - ie the phrase network neutrality - but for actual progress towards a global - open Internet - I continue to suggest the better phrase is - open Internet. I'm sure the fact that the FCC agrees with me on that point is a plus or minus for many of you. : ). But anyway, my suggested amendment to the proposed main theme title is: 'Open Mobile Internet.' Three words both clear and ambiguous enough to leave room for multiple interpretations, which seems a requirement for an IGF theme... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals after giving some more thought to the Mobile Network Neutrality topics, why not propose it as: Wired and Wireless Network Neutrality - W2 at NN On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > We should begin with forwarding these suggestion well beforehand. Many > of the MAG members from developing regions will not be able to make it > to the upcoming MAG and open consultation meetings and will be mostly > around through remote participation. > > My question regarding the topic of 'Network Neutrality' or now ' > Mobile Network Neutrality' is that how should this be conveyed? NN is > easier to raise and pass through and have MNN listed in the sub-topics > because its a term almost everyone is aware of within the IGF > community but MNN will be a bit of confusion otherwise and might > create the same kind of resistance that happens around when the issue > around HR or IRP has been raised in the past? We know how things are > with new-terms in the process. > > The 'development agenda for IG' should remain an important focus to be > included and I will sustain my position with regards to it and revive > the cross-community working group to organize it should we be able to > table it through. > > 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' is a good topic and yes > CoE is discussing it with a major activity happening around April this > year on the issue and we can liaise with the CoE representatives to > table this issue as a main session topic. > > Can we detail these topics out also to assist the MAG members from CS > to present, deliberate and sustain their ground. > > An important thing that can be done is that we create a yearly focus > of topics that are also detailed out with all these references like > the one from Sala's message so that it can be used as a reference > point to make both statements, IGC position information and other > discussion pointers. > > -- Best > > Fouad > > > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM, parminder wrote: >> Hi Jeremy >> >> I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which >> hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into >> the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately >> quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF >> Nairobi'. >> >> I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that >> IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular >> focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil >> society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. >> >> In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF >> improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision >> on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has >> been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing >> pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing >> to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) >> >> This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the >> open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why >> should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on >> one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this >> mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far >> the dominant platform for Internet? >> >> I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever >> in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy >> framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two >> largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the >> government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are >> moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy >> frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance >> companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big >> enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what >> happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication >> infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. >> >> Anyway back to the topic, >> >> The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile >> Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real >> world IG would be two very different worlds. >> >> It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG' >> >> And I propose a third topic >> >> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' >> >> CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the >> programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF >> improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but >> otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. >> >> This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it >> is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme >> of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and >> reuse. Here are relevant links: >> >> PROGRAMME: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) >> >> IMPROVEMENTS: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) >> >> I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights >> that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing >> any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jan 17 03:43:47 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:43:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35687.48906.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Jeremy,   With reference to following email regarding discussion about the hosting and mailing list portability options, and as you mentioned about the immediate need for replacement of the servers, would you please inform that how much storage do you need on the hosting server? Current mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org is Sympa base mailing application, if you can port it onto mailman (Python), we can offer following two options:   1.    on behalf of IGFPAK.org can offer to provide shared hosting to add domain of "igcaucus.org" and mailing list with Mailman application.  (Pakistan IGF will bear the cost for a common initiatives).   2.    If you need cPanel + 24x7 support as well, select the Shared Hosting Package (according to the size of storage required) on netconfident.net and confirmation either about Sympa Compliance mailing list otherwise ready to migrate mailing list onto Python Engine (Mailman) and inform me. I will arrange the account for IGCaucus.Org, regardless the funding collection process (or time schedule) to bear the costs you decide.   If you my help, just inform me.   Thanking you and Best Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: "jeremy at ciroap.org" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sent: Mon, 17 January, 2011 7:26:23 Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list (My email is down again so I'm replying from the Web archive.)  To avoid the list being at igf-online.net, we would need to move the Web site and the mailing list into the same place.  I can't give much of a commitment from Consumers International about continuity (because everything depends on funding for my project work at CI), so the other option is for us to raise some funds and hire our own virtual server, where everything can be consolidated under our existing igcaucus.org domain.  Does anyone prefer that option?  I suspect it would not be too hard to raise the necessary funds, even if just with a "Donate" button on our Web site.  We are talking about around $10/month.  In the past there was talk about making an application for a grant from a donor like the UN Democracy Fund, but this raised people's fears about over-institutionalising the IGC, so... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jan 17 02:34:51 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:34:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list In-Reply-To: References: <0uNmPSdvqMMNFAay@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <+VgURB$bE$MNFApl@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 18:26:23 on Sun, 16 Jan 2011, jeremy at ciroap.org writes >To avoid the list being at igf-online.net, we would need to move the >Web site and the mailing list into the same place. You are already talking about moving the website and mailing list to the same place (CI), all I'm suggesting is arranging for the names to be the same. Even if there are disjoint hardware and software solutions for the wiki and the mailing list, the DNS will glue them together under one URL. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jan 17 11:28:50 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:28:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070D5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070DF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Wolfgang, OK, point taken, the world definitely needs more acronyms. Kidding. (But Fouad I do agree with Wolfgang it is a really good acronym. Since Tim Wu has wandered off to other topics you could get a book deal with that one I bet...seriously.) Still for IGF VI, W2 at NN would concede the possibility that there should be different rules for wired and wireless - Internet. My 2 cents. Lee ________________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa; parminder Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: AW: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals Thanks Lee good point. And BRW, "open Internet" relates closer to the orginal themes of the IGFm, whicn included "Openess" as one of the five key subjects for discussion. However I likle the acronym "W2 at NN" :-)))) wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Lee W McKnight Gesendet: So 16.01.2011 17:53 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa; parminder Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Betreff: RE: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals The FCC 'NN rules' doc Parminder referenced is actually titled 'open Internet'...I scanned and did find the words 'network neutrality' in some footnotes. So while 'Network Neutrality' is the popular phraseology, there is a reason the actual regulations are for 'open Internet' which as some may recall is the phraseology which I have been suggesting all along is a more accurate rendering of what is desired, and desirable. Now my 2 points: 1) 'open Internet' logically includes both wired and wireless nets, as well as heterogeneous nets including both wired and wireless pieces. The third category happens to be most of our daily realities in Internet access, services and use. 2) the FCC regs are therefore logically inconsistent if they claim one set of rules for -wired - and another for - wireless, and are at 95% confidence level imho likely to be challenged in court within a year. Because of 1) and 2) and the usual industry squabbles the FCC rules are far from the last word on net neutrality or open Internet thematic in the US; I suspect sooner or later new legislation for ensuring an - open Internet - will be needed. And the artifical boundary of one set of rules for wired and another for wireless, won't stand up to the scrutiny. In sum, for IGF thematic reasons I understand going with the 'headline news' version of the issue - ie the phrase network neutrality - but for actual progress towards a global - open Internet - I continue to suggest the better phrase is - open Internet. I'm sure the fact that the FCC agrees with me on that point is a plus or minus for many of you. : ). But anyway, my suggested amendment to the proposed main theme title is: 'Open Mobile Internet.' Three words both clear and ambiguous enough to leave room for multiple interpretations, which seems a requirement for an IGF theme... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals after giving some more thought to the Mobile Network Neutrality topics, why not propose it as: Wired and Wireless Network Neutrality - W2 at NN On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > We should begin with forwarding these suggestion well beforehand. Many > of the MAG members from developing regions will not be able to make it > to the upcoming MAG and open consultation meetings and will be mostly > around through remote participation. > > My question regarding the topic of 'Network Neutrality' or now ' > Mobile Network Neutrality' is that how should this be conveyed? NN is > easier to raise and pass through and have MNN listed in the sub-topics > because its a term almost everyone is aware of within the IGF > community but MNN will be a bit of confusion otherwise and might > create the same kind of resistance that happens around when the issue > around HR or IRP has been raised in the past? We know how things are > with new-terms in the process. > > The 'development agenda for IG' should remain an important focus to be > included and I will sustain my position with regards to it and revive > the cross-community working group to organize it should we be able to > table it through. > > 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' is a good topic and yes > CoE is discussing it with a major activity happening around April this > year on the issue and we can liaise with the CoE representatives to > table this issue as a main session topic. > > Can we detail these topics out also to assist the MAG members from CS > to present, deliberate and sustain their ground. > > An important thing that can be done is that we create a yearly focus > of topics that are also detailed out with all these references like > the one from Sala's message so that it can be used as a reference > point to make both statements, IGC position information and other > discussion pointers. > > -- Best > > Fouad > > > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM, parminder wrote: >> Hi Jeremy >> >> I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which >> hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into >> the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately >> quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF >> Nairobi'. >> >> I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that >> IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular >> focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil >> society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. >> >> In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF >> improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision >> on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has >> been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing >> pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing >> to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) >> >> This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the >> open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why >> should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on >> one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this >> mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far >> the dominant platform for Internet? >> >> I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever >> in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy >> framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two >> largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the >> government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are >> moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy >> frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance >> companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big >> enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what >> happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication >> infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. >> >> Anyway back to the topic, >> >> The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile >> Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real >> world IG would be two very different worlds. >> >> It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG' >> >> And I propose a third topic >> >> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' >> >> CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the >> programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF >> improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but >> otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. >> >> This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it >> is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme >> of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and >> reuse. Here are relevant links: >> >> PROGRAMME: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) >> >> IMPROVEMENTS: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF) >> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) >> >> I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights >> that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing >> any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 17 14:02:16 2011 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:02:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals In-Reply-To: <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Just briefly, I think Parminder raises an interesting question regarding different rules (or not) for the mobile Internet and the fixed one. Basically, this is about a significant change from the Internet initial incarnation (mostly PCs, connected by wires, with browsers) to the diversification of platforms and infrastructures, not to mention social services that become quasi-territories with their own rules, and the emergence of apps on mobiles and tablets (putting some actors as new gatekeepers). Another element is the impact of regulations in some countries that have major operators and the possible spillover/percolation effect in other countries. I suppose his suggestion would mean having such subjects as key themes in the main sessions - or in the emerging issues one - in complement to possible workshops. I am not sure what the best formulation would be. But there clearly is an important issue there worth exploring. There is a need for a neutral formulation that does not prejudge the solution but presents the issue as a common question/problem. Suggestions welcome. Best Bertrand On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which > hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into > the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately > quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF > Nairobi'. > > I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that > IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular > focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil > society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. > > In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF > improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision > on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has > been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing > pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing > to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) > > This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the > open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why > should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on > one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this > mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far > the dominant platform for Internet? > > I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever > in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy > framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two > largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the > government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are > moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy > frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance > companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big > enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what > happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication > infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. > > Anyway back to the topic, > > The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile > Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real > world IG would be two very different worlds. > > It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for > IG' > > And I propose a third topic > > 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' > > CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the > programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF > improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but > otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. > > This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it > is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme > of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and > reuse. Here are relevant links: > > PROGRAMME: > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) > > IMPROVEMENTS: > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF)http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) > > I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights > that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing > any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. > > > > > -- > 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 > > > -- ____________________ 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 Mon Jan 17 14:29:28 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:29:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Project Headlines Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC15A6C37@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> [http://internetgovernance.org/images/IGP_logo_Masthead2.gif] January 17, 2011 The most dangerous man in America then; the "most dangerous" man in the world now? Dutch Study: Between 5-10 percent of all broadband users were part of a botnet Call for Papers: Global Internet Governance: Research and Public Policy Challenges for the Next Decade What is Evgeny Morozov Trying to Prove? A review of "The Net Delusion" China, TLD censorship top topics in 2010 Guest blog: California Law Is No Impediment to Holding ICANN Accountable The UN Sticks its Head in the Sand Fate of new TLDs to be settled in private Search Internet Governance Project Headlines ________________________________ The most dangerous man in America then; the "most dangerous" man in the world now? Last night I got a chance to view the excellent 2009 documentary film “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.” Of course, it is impossible to mention the Pentagon Papers now without thinking “Wikileaks,” and I admit that it was an interest in the parallels and differences in the cases that put that selection in my Netflix queue. It turned out to be a far more rewarding choice than I had expected. The film brings the 40-year old Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers sequence of events to life as vividly as the Private Manning/Wikileaks case is alive now. And without that historical knowledge and context one’s awareness of the Wikileaks case is impoverished. A fascinating aspect of this film is the way it documents how different the technological and publishing environment was - but one is also struck by the similarities in the political debate. Despite efforts to drive a wedge between Ellsberg and Wikileaks, this documentary, which was made more than a year before the Wikileaks controversy hit, shows how fundamentally similar the cases are. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • Dutch Study: Between 5-10 percent of all broadband users were part of a botnet Between 5 to 10 percent of all broadband subscribers in the Netherlands had their computers recruited into a botnet in 2009. For 2010, the numbers are likely to be higher. These infection rates are similar in most other Western countries, we report in a study that was released yesterday. Commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, my colleagues Hadi Asghari, Johannes Bauer and Shirin Tabatabaie and I have prepared a fact-finding study entitled ‘Internet service providers and botnet mitigation’. The ministry has now publicly released the English and anonymized version of the report. It can be downloaded here. The confidential findings of our study were only shared with the ministry and the Dutch ISPs that are collaborating in a covenant to fight botnets. The report also contains rankings of the infection rates of ISPs in 40 countries. Somewhere in the next few days, we’ll write a more detailed blog post about the findings. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • Call for Papers: Global Internet Governance: Research and Public Policy Challenges for the Next Decade May 5 and 6, 2011 American University, School of International Service, Washington, DC Building on the success of its first four regional workshops in Paris, France (2008), Brussels, Belgium (2009), Seoul, So. Korea (2009) and Montreal, Canada (2010), the purpose of the Washington, DC regional GigaNet workshop is twofold: Day one (May 5) is dedicated to outreach sessions exploring issues in global Internet governance among policy makers, academics and civil society at large. Day two (May 6) features presentations of scholarly research based on a rigorous peer reviewed selection process. Deadline for abstract submissions is February 14, 2011. Submissions can be made through the Easy Chair web site. Decisions will be made by March 15, 2011. Manuscripts expected by April 18, 2011. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • What is Evgeny Morozov Trying to Prove? A review of "The Net Delusion" Evgeny Morozov’s new book “The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom” deserves an extensive review here. It grapples with key questions of Internet governance in a highly original way. But it is also a frustrating book to try to make sense of. The tone of the work is urgent but the take-home message is murky, if not confused and contradictory. Here is an example of the kind of phenomenon that gives me concern. One of the many promotional events for the book summarizes its theme as follows: “It is not the young protestors and dissidents but rather the regimes in Teheran and Beijing that are the Web's greatest beneficiaries.” Having read the book, I can say conclusively that that assertion is false on two counts: it is not an accurate encapsulation of what the book actually says, nor is it true of the real world as a general rule. But as we will see, Morozov himself is directly responsible for these kinds of misinterpretations. The book’s aura of Internet-powered publicity seems designed to capitalize on simplistic inversions of conventional wisdom (it makes for great tweets and sound bites, after all). And the book’s analysis is so full of logical contradictions that one could, in fact, find support for that interpretation - and many others as well. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • China, TLD censorship top topics in 2010 Judging from IGP blog's readership, which grew by about 25% compared to last year, the most interesting and important topics we covered were China's impact on Internet governance and the nexus between internet censorship and new Top-Level Domains. Wikileaks was third, with ICANN accountability rounding out the top of the pack. Individual posts on COICA, the Bredolab botnet prosecution, vertical integration and the move away from multistakeholderism at IGF also found their way into IGP's most popular blog posts (see below for a list of the top 15). Our 8 December post framing the Wikileaks controversy as an Internet governance issue was the single most-read blog post in 2010 by far. Apparently, our emphasis on the continuing tension between nation-states and networked information via the Internet struck a chord. But the "cyberwar" over Wikileaks only happened in the last month of the year. China and the Internet, on the other hand, was an unfolding series of events we covered throughout the year, and generated more traffic. Readers flocked to our discussion of China's attempt to implement "real name registration" requirements for online bulletins, especially after Blizzard Entertainment, producer of World of Warcraft, tried to follow their precedent (and backed off). But the Google-China and US-China conflicts also contributed great interest to this topic. The TLD/censorship story was also an ongoing story only marginally less popular than China. It dealt with the the fate of the .xxx domain - still controversial and still targeted by some governments - as well as the attempt of the GAC to impose more general "morality and public order" restraints on new TLD applicants. We think we've made substantial progress in convincing more people that institutionalizing censorship via ICANN is an important - and potentially dangerous - precedent for global governance of the Internet. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • Guest blog: California Law Is No Impediment to Holding ICANN Accountable No other issue unites the Internet community quite like ICANN’s accountability deficit. Governments, contracted parties, commercial interests, NGOs, and ordinary Internet users—all have expressed their shared frustration that ICANN continues to evade real accountability. The problem is partly explained by the complexity of ICANN’s structure and powers. It is both the overall global manager for the Internet DNS and a California nonprofit corporation. Its unique marriage of public power and private corporate form obscures familiar lines of thinking about how organizations work and how to improve their accountability. But its unique form cannot alter ICANN’s legal character as a nonprofit corporation organized under, and therefore bound by, California law. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • The UN Sticks its Head in the Sand Now, for sure, you can discard all that talk about a "UN takeover of the Internet." The only things the UN knows how to take over are its own obscure departments. On December 10 the UN's Committee on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) announced that the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) will be composed exclusively of member states. No civil society or business organizations, no academic or technical representatives will be allowed to participate. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • Fate of new TLDs to be settled in private At the ICANN meeting in Colombia, the board passed resolutions indicating that it is one last step away from implementing the program to create new top level domains. The board considers the problems of trademark protection, root scalability, mitigating malicious conduct and economic analysis to be closed. But the Board recognized that censorship of top level domain strings on the grounds of "morality and public order" is still an open issue. Once again, the GAC has used the finalization process to reassert its power, which is not guided by any treaty or law. [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] • -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Jan 17 17:52:45 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 03:52:45 +0500 Subject: [governance] The Internet in numbers in 2010 Message-ID: Asia has the largest Internet user base as of Internet 2010 in numbers Source: http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/01/12/internet-2010-in-numbers/ Asia standing at 825.1 million – Internet users while 14% is the increase in global Internet users since 2009. -- 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 vanda at uol.com.br Mon Jan 17 18:50:51 2011 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:50:51 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] Fwd: Re: [IAMCR] Tunis In-Reply-To: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> Quite interesting indeed Graciela. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 De: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Graciela Selaimen Enviada em: domingo, 16 de janeiro de 2011 13:11 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Assunto: [governance] Fwd: Re: [IAMCR] Tunis Intersting article. best, Graciela Selaimen - a 'Suleiman' in Tunisia. Data: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:43:03 -0800 De: Sasha Costanza Chock : Ethan zuckerman has an excellent post here: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2011/01/12/what-if-tunisia-had-a-revolution-but-nobody-watched/ -sc >Any thoughts on events in Tunis, the site of the World Summit for the >Information Society? > > > > >_______________________________________________ >International Association for Media and Communication Research - >http://iamcr.org >Announcements mailing list > >Join IAMCR | >http://iamcr.org/about-iamcr/membership/join-iamcr-mainmenu-237 > >Follow IAMCR's updates on Twitter | http://twitter.com/IAMCRtweets >Visit IAMCR's Facebook Page | http://www.facebook.com/iamcr.org __________________ International Association for Media and Communication Research - http://iamcr.org Announcements mailing list Join IAMCR | http://iamcr.org/about-iamcr/membership/join-iamcr-mainmenu-237 Follow IAMCR's updates on Twitter | http://twitter.com/IAMCRtweets Visit IAMCR's Facebook Page | http://www.facebook.com/iamcr.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Jan 18 03:49:25 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:49:25 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076C2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi good issue and worth to investigate deeper. Isn`t it also part of the "fragmentation" debate. In the 1990s, the risk for fragementation came with the alternative roots. This was rejected both by the market and also by ICANN in its famous Policy Paper "ICP-3: A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS", in: http://www.icann.org/en/icp/icp-3.htm Later the risk for fragmentation came with the iDNs when China started a test in 2002 with an own root server system with TLDs with Chinese characters. Thanks to the fast track on iDN ccTLDs this was avoided and now TLD Zone Files with Chinese, Cyrillic and other Non-ASCII charatcers are in the "authoritative root". Is W2 at NN-debate now the third wave of the fragmentation discussion? Do will have different rules (including rules for numbering?) for fixed and mobile Internet?` Good subject for an IGF workshop. And a good issue also for forming new coalitions :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Bertrand de La Chapelle Gesendet: Mo 17.01.2011 20:02 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Betreff: Re: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals Just briefly, I think Parminder raises an interesting question regarding different rules (or not) for the mobile Internet and the fixed one. Basically, this is about a significant change from the Internet initial incarnation (mostly PCs, connected by wires, with browsers) to the diversification of platforms and infrastructures, not to mention social services that become quasi-territories with their own rules, and the emergence of apps on mobiles and tablets (putting some actors as new gatekeepers). Another element is the impact of regulations in some countries that have major operators and the possible spillover/percolation effect in other countries. I suppose his suggestion would mean having such subjects as key themes in the main sessions - or in the emerging issues one - in complement to possible workshops. I am not sure what the best formulation would be. But there clearly is an important issue there worth exploring. There is a need for a neutral formulation that does not prejudge the solution but presents the issue as a common question/problem. Suggestions welcome. Best Bertrand On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM, parminder wrote: Hi Jeremy I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF Nairobi'. I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far the dominant platform for Internet? I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. Anyway back to the topic, The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real world IG would be two very different worlds. It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG' And I propose a third topic 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. Parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and reuse. Here are relevant links: PROGRAMME: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) IMPROVEMENTS: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF) http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. -- 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 -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Jan 18 04:06:06 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:06:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070DF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070D5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070DF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Agreed Lee but how do you table the issue for consensus from all three multistakholder groups? NN is native, dividing it is a challenge for getting support for it and then going on in to different directions causes us to weaken the subject, not strengthen it. Participants might just go silent over the issue due to lack of substance. -- Fouad On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Wolfgang, > > OK, point taken, the world definitely needs more acronyms. > > Kidding. > > (But Fouad I do agree with Wolfgang it is a really good acronym. Since Tim Wu has wandered off to other topics you could get a book deal with that one I bet...seriously.) > > Still for IGF VI, W2 at NN  would concede the possibility that there should be different rules for wired and wireless - Internet. > > My 2 cents. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:38 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa; parminder > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: AW: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals > > Thanks Lee > > good point. And BRW, "open Internet" relates closer to the orginal themes of the IGFm, whicn included "Openess" as one of the five key subjects for discussion. However I likle the acronym "W2 at NN" :-)))) > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Lee W McKnight > Gesendet: So 16.01.2011 17:53 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa; parminder > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > Betreff: RE: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals > > > > The FCC 'NN rules' doc Parminder referenced is actually titled 'open Internet'...I scanned and did find the words 'network neutrality' in some footnotes. > > So while 'Network Neutrality' is the popular phraseology, there is a reason the actual regulations are for 'open Internet' which as some may recall is the phraseology which I have been suggesting all along is a more accurate rendering of what is desired, and desirable. > > Now my 2 points: > > 1) 'open Internet' logically includes both wired and wireless nets, as well as heterogeneous nets including both wired and wireless pieces. The third  category happens to be most of our daily realities in Internet access, services and use. > > 2) the FCC regs are therefore logically inconsistent if they claim one set of rules for -wired - and another for - wireless, and are at 95% confidence level imho likely to be challenged in court within a year. > > Because of 1) and 2) and the usual industry squabbles the FCC rules are far from the last word on net neutrality or open Internet thematic  in the US; I suspect sooner or later new legislation for ensuring an - open Internet - will be needed. And the artifical boundary of one set of rules for wired and another for wireless, won't stand up to the scrutiny. > > In sum, for IGF thematic reasons I understand going with the 'headline news' version of the issue - ie the phrase network neutrality - but for actual progress towards a global - open Internet - I continue to suggest the better phrase is - open Internet.  I'm sure the fact that the FCC agrees with me on that point is a plus or minus for many of you. : ). > > But anyway, my suggested amendment to the proposed main theme title is: 'Open Mobile Internet.' > > Three words both clear and ambiguous enough to leave room for multiple interpretations, which seems a requirement for an IGF theme... > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals > > after giving some more thought to the Mobile Network Neutrality > topics, why not propose it as: > > Wired and Wireless Network Neutrality - W2 at NN > > > > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> We should begin with forwarding these suggestion well beforehand. Many >> of the MAG members from developing regions will not be able to make it >> to the upcoming MAG and open consultation meetings and will be mostly >> around through remote participation. >> >> My question regarding the topic of 'Network Neutrality' or now ' >> Mobile Network Neutrality' is that how should this be conveyed? NN is >> easier to raise and pass through and have MNN listed in the sub-topics >> because its a term almost everyone is aware of within the IGF >> community but MNN will be a bit of confusion otherwise and might >> create the same kind of resistance that happens around when the issue >> around HR or IRP has been raised in the past? We know how things are >> with new-terms in the process. >> >> The 'development agenda for IG' should remain an important focus to be >> included and I will sustain my position with regards to it and revive >> the cross-community working group to organize it should we be able to >> table it through. >> >> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' is a good topic and yes >> CoE is discussing it with a major activity happening around April this >> year on the issue and we can liaise with the CoE representatives to >> table this issue as a main session topic. >> >> Can we detail these topics out also to assist the MAG members from CS >> to present, deliberate and sustain their ground. >> >> An important thing that can be done is that we create a yearly focus >> of topics that are also detailed out with all these references like >> the one from Sala's message so that it can be used as a reference >> point to make both statements, IGC position information and other >> discussion pointers. >> >> -- Best >> >> Fouad >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM, parminder wrote: >>> Hi Jeremy >>> >>> I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which >>> hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into >>> the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately >>> quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF >>> Nairobi'. >>> >>> I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that >>> IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular >>> focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil >>> society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. >>> >>> In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF >>> improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision >>> on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has >>> been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing >>> pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing >>> to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) >>> >>> This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the >>> open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why >>> should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on >>> one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this >>> mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far >>> the dominant platform for Internet? >>> >>> I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever >>> in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy >>> framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two >>> largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the >>> government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are >>> moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy >>> frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance >>> companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big >>> enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what >>> happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication >>> infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. >>> >>> Anyway back to the topic, >>> >>> The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile >>> Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real >>> world IG would be two very different worlds. >>> >>> It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG' >>> >>> And I propose a third topic >>> >>> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' >>> >>> CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the >>> programme of the 2011 IGF meeting.  Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF >>> improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but >>> otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. >>> >>> This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before.  So it >>> is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme >>> of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and >>> reuse.  Here are relevant links: >>> >>> PROGRAMME: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad) >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm) >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm) >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm) >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) >>> >>> IMPROVEMENTS: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs) >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall) >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements) >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work) >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work) >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF) >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) >>> >>> I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights >>> that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing >>> any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 18 10:12:50 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:42:50 -0430 Subject: [governance] Calls for applications for Diplo IG foundation courses: registration now open Message-ID: <4D35ADF2.1040703@diplomacy.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGCBP11 Call for Applications.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 116206 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGICT4ACP11 Call for Applications.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 106831 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: VirginiaP.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 148 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Jan 18 14:03:03 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:03:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] FYI References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070D5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070DF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076D8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/42/46894657.pdf 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jan 18 14:17:31 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:17:31 +1200 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076D8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070D5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070DF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076D8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thank you Wolfgang, this was a very interesting read. :) I am writing a Research Paper on Cyber Security in Fiji and this is very useful. If anyone else has any articles that you think could be useful to me, please feel free to send it directly to my email address. I have been on the ITU website and was interested in the model legislation that their experts developed. Kind Regards, Sala 2011/1/19 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/42/46894657.pdf > > 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 f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it Wed Jan 19 08:17:26 2011 From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:17:26 +0100 Subject: R: [governance] Fwd: Re: [IAMCR] Tunis In-Reply-To: <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> A lot of thoughts, quite good. At that time we put a seed in the ground. Specifically I remember the press conference of the Tunis' ONG garanteed by Shirin Ebadi and a lot of us member of the parliaments of Europe. The international pubblic opinion must follows the Tunis process using the Net to support it with transparency of information Fiorello Cortiana ________________________________ Da: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di Vanda UOL Inviato: martedì 18 gennaio 2011 0.51 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Graciela Selaimen' Oggetto: RES: [governance] Fwd: Re: [IAMCR] Tunis Quite interesting indeed Graciela. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 - 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 De: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Graciela Selaimen Enviada em: domingo, 16 de janeiro de 2011 13:11 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Assunto: [governance] Fwd: Re: [IAMCR] Tunis Intersting article. best, Graciela Selaimen - a 'Suleiman' in Tunisia. Data: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:43:03 -0800 De: Sasha Costanza Chock : Ethan zuckerman has an excellent post here: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2011/01/12/what-if-tunisia-had-a-revolution-but-nobody-watched/ -sc >Any thoughts on events in Tunis, the site of the World Summit for the >Information Society? > > > > >_______________________________________________ >International Association for Media and Communication Research - >http://iamcr.org >Announcements mailing list > >Join IAMCR | >http://iamcr.org/about-iamcr/membership/join-iamcr-mainmenu-237 > >Follow IAMCR's updates on Twitter | http://twitter.com/IAMCRtweets >Visit IAMCR's Facebook Page | http://www.facebook.com/iamcr.org __________________ International Association for Media and Communication Research - http://iamcr.org Announcements mailing list Join IAMCR | http://iamcr.org/about-iamcr/membership/join-iamcr-mainmenu-237 Follow IAMCR's updates on Twitter | http://twitter.com/IAMCRtweets Visit IAMCR's Facebook Page | http://www.facebook.com/iamcr.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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Jan 19 02:54:55 2011 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:54:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Three things about the proper use of email (Was: FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076D8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1294902402.25480.696.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070D5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03300070DF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076D8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20110119075455.GB4307@nic.fr> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:03:03PM +0100, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote a message of 15 lines which said: > http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/42/46894657.pdf 1) Do not reply to existing threads for an unrelated topic, start a new thread. A good explanation is in 2) Take the time to provide a meaningful subject. Here, "Report to OECD about cybersecurity" is certainly better than "FYI" 3) Do not post a single URL without at least a short summary of why it is relevant and why people may want to read it. Some URL provide enough content (like the one I used above) but not all. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 04:36:39 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 01:36:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list In-Reply-To: <35687.48906.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <35687.48906.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <574058.78726.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Jeremy, Please inform me, if you have selected any of the following option. Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Imran Ahmed Shah To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; jeremy at ciroap.org; roland at internetpolicyagency.com Cc: Imran UISoc Sent: Mon, 17 January, 2011 13:43:47 Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list Dear Jeremy,   With reference to following email regarding discussion about the hosting and mailing list portability options, and as you mentioned about the immediate need for replacement of the servers, would you please inform that how much storage do you need on the hosting server? Current mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org is Sympa base mailing application, if you can port it onto mailman (Python), we can offer following two options:   1.    on behalf of IGFPAK.org can offer to provide shared hosting to add domain of "igcaucus.org" and mailing list with Mailman application.  (Pakistan IGF will bear the cost for a common initiatives).   2.    If you need cPanel + 24x7 support as well, select the Shared Hosting Package (according to the size of storage required) on netconfident.net and confirmation either about Sympa Compliance mailing list otherwise ready to migrate mailing list onto Python Engine (Mailman) and inform me. I will arrange the account for IGCaucus.Org, regardless the funding collection process (or time schedule) to bear the costs you decide.   If you my help, just inform me.   Thanking you and Best Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: "jeremy at ciroap.org" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sent: Mon, 17 January, 2011 7:26:23 Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Advance notice of the need to move this list (My email is down again so I'm replying from the Web archive.)  To avoid the list being at igf-online.net, we would need to move the Web site and the mailing list into the same place.  I can't give much of a commitment from Consumers International about continuity (because everything depends on funding for my project work at CI), so the other option is for us to raise some funds and hire our own virtual server, where everything can be consolidated under our existing igcaucus.org domain.  Does anyone prefer that option?  I suspect it would not be too hard to raise the necessary funds, even if just with a "Donate" button on our Web site.  We are talking about around $10/month.  In the past there was talk about making an application for a grant from a donor like the UN Democracy Fund, but this raised people's fears about over-institutionalising the IGC, so... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Jan 19 09:57:41 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:57:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy In-Reply-To: <3CC13F86-5771-4819-BEB0-56121D95F386@isoc.org> References: <3CC13F86-5771-4819-BEB0-56121D95F386@isoc.org> Message-ID: How about that! Congratulations Markus! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Wood Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:40 PM Subject: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy To: isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY LEADER JOINS INTERNET SOCIETY AS VP FOR PUBLIC POLICY Markus Kummer takes on leadership role for global, regional and national Internet issues GENEVA, SWITZERLAND and RESTON, VIRGINIA, USA - 19 January 2011 - An internationally recognized leader in a broad range of Internet policy issues will join the Internet Society as head of its public policy department. As the Internet Society's Vice President of Public Policy, Markus Kummer will advance key Internet Society policy positions on issues such as privacy, cybersecurity, and network neutrality. Most recently the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the United Nations' Internet Governance Forum, Kummer has extensive experience with Internet policy at the global, regional, and national levels. "Markus' broad experience with and deep understanding of the key policy issues facing the Internet will help ensure the Internet Society has an even greater impact on issues critical to the Internet's continued evolution as an open platform for innovation and economic development," said Lynn St.Amour, the Internet Society's President and CEO. Before joining the United Nations in 2004, Kummer held the position of eEnvoy for the Swiss Foreign Ministry in Berne. Mr. Kummer was a member of the Swiss delegation during the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) where he chaired several negotiating groups, including the group on Internet governance. He went on to serve as the Executive Coordinator of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance from 2004 to 2005. Before his involvement with the WSIS, he served as a career diplomat in several functions in the Swiss Foreign Ministry and was posted in Lisbon, Vienna, Oslo, Geneva, and Ankara. "In joining the Internet Society, I look forward to advancing the multistakeholder approach to policy that has been so central to the Internet's development and is even more critical to its future," said Markus Kummer, who will officially take up his position on 1 February 2011. "With its technical roots, the Internet Society is already established as a uniquely credible leader on policy issues, and a key contributor to policy discussions at the national, regional, and global levels." The Internet Society is the world's trusted independent source of leadership on Internet issues. The Internet Society works with its tens of thousands of Members and nearly 100 Chapters around the world to promote the continued evolution and growth of the open global Internet. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is a non-profit organisation founded in 1992 to provide leadership in Internet-related standards, education, and policy. It is dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world. See: www.internetsociety.org Contact Greg Wood wood at isoc.org +1-703-439-2145 _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 19 10:08:08 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:38:08 -0430 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy Message-ID: <4D36FE58.2020205@diplomacy.edu> GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY LEADER JOINS INTERNET SOCIETY AS VP FOR PUBLIC POLICY Markus Kummer takes on leadership role for global, regional and national Internet issues GENEVA, SWITZERLAND and RESTON, VIRGINIA, USA - 19 January 2011 - An internationally recognized leader in a broad range of Internet policy issues will join the Internet Society as head of its public policy department. As the Internet Society's Vice President of Public Policy, Markus Kummer will advance key Internet Society policy positions on issues such as privacy, cybersecurity, and network neutrality. Most recently the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the United Nations' Internet Governance Forum, Kummer has extensive experience with Internet policy at the global, regional, and national levels. "Markus' broad experience with and deep understanding of the key policy issues facing the Internet will help ensure the Internet Society has an even greater impact on issues critical to the Internet's continued evolution as an open platform for innovation and economic development," said Lynn St.Amour, the Internet Society's President and CEO. Before joining the United Nations in 2004, Kummer held the position of eEnvoy for the Swiss Foreign Ministry in Berne. Mr. Kummer was a member of the Swiss delegation during the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) where he chaired several negotiating groups, including the group on Internet governance. He went on to serve as the Executive Coordinator of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance from 2004 to 2005. Before his involvement with the WSIS, he served as a career diplomat in several functions in the Swiss Foreign Ministry and was posted in Lisbon, Vienna, Oslo, Geneva, and Ankara. "In joining the Internet Society, I look forward to advancing the multistakeholder approach to policy that has been so central to the Internet's development and is even more critical to its future," said Markus Kummer, who will officially take up his position on 1 February 2011. "With its technical roots, the Internet Society is already established as a uniquely credible leader on policy issues, and a key contributor to policy discussions at the national, regional, and global levels." The Internet Society is the world's trusted independent source of leadership on Internet issues. The Internet Society works with its tens of thousands of Members and nearly 100 Chapters around the world to promote the continued evolution and growth of the open global Internet. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is a non-profit organisation founded in 1992 to provide leadership in Internet-related standards, education, and policy. It is dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world. See: www.internetsociety.org Contact Greg Wood wood at isoc.org +1-703-439-2145 _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests& Subscriptions from the My Account menu. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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: VirginiaP.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 148 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pbekono at gmail.com Wed Jan 19 10:35:52 2011 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:35:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy In-Reply-To: <3CC13F86-5771-4819-BEB0-56121D95F386@isoc.org> References: <3CC13F86-5771-4819-BEB0-56121D95F386@isoc.org> Message-ID: --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Wood Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:40:02 -0500 Subject: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy To: isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY LEADER JOINS INTERNET SOCIETY AS VP FOR PUBLIC POLICY Markus Kummer takes on leadership role for global, regional and national Internet issues GENEVA, SWITZERLAND and RESTON, VIRGINIA, USA - 19 January 2011 - An internationally recognized leader in a broad range of Internet policy issues will join the Internet Society as head of its public policy department. As the Internet Society's Vice President of Public Policy, Markus Kummer will advance key Internet Society policy positions on issues such as privacy, cybersecurity, and network neutrality. Most recently the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the United Nations' Internet Governance Forum, Kummer has extensive experience with Internet policy at the global, regional, and national levels. "Markus' broad experience with and deep understanding of the key policy issues facing the Internet will help ensure the Internet Society has an even greater impact on issues critical to the Internet's continued evolution as an open platform for innovation and economic development," said Lynn St.Amour, the Internet Society's President and CEO. Before joining the United Nations in 2004, Kummer held the position of eEnvoy for the Swiss Foreign Ministry in Berne. Mr. Kummer was a member of the Swiss delegation during the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) where he chaired several negotiating groups, including the group on Internet governance. He went on to serve as the Executive Coordinator of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance from 2004 to 2005. Before his involvement with the WSIS, he served as a career diplomat in several functions in the Swiss Foreign Ministry and was posted in Lisbon, Vienna, Oslo, Geneva, and Ankara. "In joining the Internet Society, I look forward to advancing the multistakeholder approach to policy that has been so central to the Internet's development and is even more critical to its future," said Markus Kummer, who will officially take up his position on 1 February 2011. "With its technical roots, the Internet Society is already established as a uniquely credible leader on policy issues, and a key contributor to policy discussions at the national, regional, and global levels." The Internet Society is the world's trusted independent source of leadership on Internet issues. The Internet Society works with its tens of thousands of Members and nearly 100 Chapters around the world to promote the continued evolution and growth of the open global Internet. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is a non-profit organisation founded in 1992 to provide leadership in Internet-related standards, education, and policy. It is dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world. See: www.internetsociety.org Contact Greg Wood wood at isoc.org +1-703-439-2145 _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 19 23:33:16 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:33:16 +1100 Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals In-Reply-To: <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sorry to take so long to reply to this - In addition toi the excellent proposals put forward by Parminder, I wonder if we should tackle the general A2K area ­ access to knowledge. I personally would like to see a plenary session (I think IGF plenary topics have become boring and repetitive) - but at the least a good workshop would be useful. Others involved in this general area might have suggestions ­ but it is certainly a subject area where we can get some excellent input from all stakeholder groups and some stimulating debate. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:50:55 +0530 To: , Jeremy Malcolm Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals Hi Jeremy I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF Nairobi'. I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy. In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.) This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far the dominant platform for Internet? I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises. Anyway back to the topic, The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real world IG would be two very different worlds. It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG' And I propose a third topic 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG' CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not. Parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the > programme of the 2011 IGF meeting. Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF > improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but > otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF. > > This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before. So it > is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme > of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and > reuse. Here are relevant links: > > PROGRAMME: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius) > > IMPROVEMENTS: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF) > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF) > > I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights > that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing > any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November. > > -- 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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Thu Jan 20 01:51:44 2011 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:51:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy In-Reply-To: References: <3CC13F86-5771-4819-BEB0-56121D95F386@isoc.org> Message-ID: <536034.12081.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Congratulations to Markus. Full success in your new position. Regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Burundi Youth Training Centre www.bytc.bi Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : McTim À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Envoyé le : Mer 19 janvier 2011, 16h 57min 41s Objet : [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy How about that! Congratulations Markus! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Wood Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:40 PM Subject: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy To: isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY LEADER JOINS INTERNET SOCIETY AS VP FOR PUBLIC POLICY Markus Kummer takes on leadership role for global, regional and national Internet issues GENEVA, SWITZERLAND and RESTON, VIRGINIA, USA - 19 January 2011 - An internationally recognized leader in a broad range of Internet policy issues will join the Internet Society as head of its public policy department. As the Internet Society's Vice President of Public Policy, Markus Kummer will advance key Internet Society policy positions on issues such as privacy, cybersecurity, and network neutrality. Most recently the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the United Nations' Internet Governance Forum, Kummer has extensive experience with Internet policy at the global, regional, and national levels. "Markus' broad experience with and deep understanding of the key policy issues facing the Internet will help ensure the Internet Society has an even greater impact on issues critical to the Internet's continued evolution as an open platform for innovation and economic development," said Lynn St.Amour, the Internet Society's President and CEO. Before joining the United Nations in 2004, Kummer held the position of eEnvoy for the Swiss Foreign Ministry in Berne. Mr. Kummer was a member of the Swiss delegation during the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) where he chaired several negotiating groups, including the group on Internet governance. He went on to serve as the Executive Coordinator of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance from 2004 to 2005. Before his involvement with the WSIS, he served as a career diplomat in several functions in the Swiss Foreign Ministry and was posted in Lisbon, Vienna, Oslo, Geneva, and Ankara. "In joining the Internet Society, I look forward to advancing the multistakeholder approach to policy that has been so central to the Internet's development and is even more critical to its future," said Markus Kummer, who will officially take up his position on 1 February 2011. "With its technical roots, the Internet Society is already established as a uniquely credible leader on policy issues, and a key contributor to policy discussions at the national, regional, and global levels." The Internet Society is the world's trusted independent source of leadership on Internet issues. The Internet Society works with its tens of thousands of Members and nearly 100 Chapters around the world to promote the continued evolution and growth of the open global Internet. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is a non-profit organisation founded in 1992 to provide leadership in Internet-related standards, education, and policy. It is dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world. See: www.internetsociety.org Contact Greg Wood wood at isoc.org +1-703-439-2145 _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 khaled.koubaa at gmail.com Thu Jan 20 07:48:14 2011 From: khaled.koubaa at gmail.com (Khaled KOUBAA) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:48:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> Message-ID: <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> All, For those who don't know Tunisia : Tunisia is a Small country, great nation. First Arab country that abolished slavery in 1848. First Arab country to establish a constitution in 1861. First Arab country to abolish polygamy in 1956. First Arab country to legalize abortion in 1973. Tunisia is the first Arab country to kick out its dictator and this without the help of any foreign nation! Today Tunisia has reached a critical and important point in its history after succeeding in its revolution. President Ben Ali has left the country, and government has collapsed leaving the country in an unpredictable situation. A new “Coalition Government” has been announced bringing old dissidents and Human Rights activists in team with a main focus of preparing a democratic transition. Friday January 14th 2011, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLT2PEmnDI ) I have been inside the huge protestants in front of the ministry of Interior and I witnessed brave people asking clearly their dictator to leave. Since then Tunisian retrieved their freedom lost many years and began interesting politics. Young people went on the street asking for more n and more social change without being politically coached. I have witnessed, and have been part, of the strength of the "real" Tunisian Internet community to use Internet and Web 2.0 ( Blogs, Video, Facebook, Twitter, … ) to support the revolution and everyday’s riots showing to the world what’s happening due to a lack of official local media coverage. My life has been different during these days : my house is in a hot spot; near El Aouina Army Casern and just between the Airport and the US Embassy. So I took my wife to her father house, and I stayed alone during 5 days. Everything was different each day; night riots with fire shooting between protestants and police during the first 2 days , near helicopter surveillance between army and snipers belonging to Ben Ali Presidential militia during the last 3days. I have never felt the importance of the security before that. It was the same feeling that had the Tunisian people which led them to go out and organize “Population committees” in each city to protect each city from Ben Ali militia. Tunisian Internet community is free today and will show to the world what we are capable to accomplish. Vive Internet and thank you Vint and Internet pioneers to gave us this wonderful tool that helped our revolution. From the free Tunisia Khaled Koubaa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 20 07:58:00 2011 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:58:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy In-Reply-To: <536034.12081.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <788008.26646.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> hello dear all,   I am pleased to find these news , Glad to know that we still have this talented leader in the Internet sphere . Congratulations Mr. Markus,   Greetings,   Gatete J-Y --- En date de : Jeu 20.1.11, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA a écrit : De: Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA Objet: Re : [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy À: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" Date: Jeudi 20 janvier 2011, 7h51 Congratulations to Markus. Full success in your new position. Regards  NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Burundi Youth Training Centre www.bytc.bi Tel : +257 79 981459 De : McTim À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Envoyé le : Mer 19 janvier 2011, 16h 57min 41s Objet : [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy How about that! Congratulations Markus! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Wood Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:40 PM Subject: [ISOC] Global Internet Community Leader Joins Internet Society as VP for Public Policy To: isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY LEADER JOINS INTERNET SOCIETY AS VP FOR PUBLIC POLICY Markus Kummer takes on leadership role for global, regional and national Internet issues GENEVA, SWITZERLAND and RESTON, VIRGINIA, USA - 19 January 2011 - An internationally recognized leader in a broad range of Internet policy issues will join the Internet Society as head of its public policy department. As the Internet Society's Vice President of Public Policy, Markus Kummer will advance key Internet Society policy positions on issues such as privacy, cybersecurity, and network neutrality. Most recently the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the United Nations' Internet Governance Forum, Kummer has extensive experience with Internet policy at the global, regional, and national levels. "Markus' broad experience with and deep understanding of the key policy issues facing the Internet will help ensure the Internet Society has an even greater impact on issues critical to the Internet's continued evolution as an open platform for innovation and economic development," said Lynn St.Amour, the Internet Society's President and CEO. Before joining the United Nations in 2004, Kummer held the position of eEnvoy for the Swiss Foreign Ministry in Berne. Mr. Kummer was a member of the Swiss delegation during the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) where he chaired several negotiating groups, including the group on Internet governance. He went on to serve as the Executive Coordinator of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance from 2004 to 2005. Before his involvement with the WSIS, he served as a career diplomat in several functions in the Swiss Foreign Ministry and was posted in Lisbon, Vienna, Oslo, Geneva, and Ankara. "In joining the Internet Society, I look forward to advancing the multistakeholder approach to policy that has been so central to the Internet's development and is even more critical to its future," said Markus Kummer, who will officially take up his position on 1 February 2011. "With its technical roots, the Internet Society is already established as a uniquely credible leader on policy issues, and a key contributor to policy discussions at the national, regional, and global levels." The Internet Society is the world's trusted independent source of leadership on Internet issues. The Internet Society works with its tens of thousands of Members and nearly 100 Chapters around the world to promote the continued evolution and growth of the open global Internet. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is a non-profit organisation founded in 1992 to provide leadership in Internet-related standards, education, and policy. It is dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world. See: www.internetsociety.org Contact Greg Wood wood at isoc.org +1-703-439-2145 _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jan 20 08:00:16 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:30:16 -0430 Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D3831E0.8010007@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 sam_kams at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 08:05:38 2011 From: sam_kams at yahoo.com (samuel kamara) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 05:05:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] hi From Sierra Leone In-Reply-To: <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <938714.40950.qm@web114720.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hi ALL, I am very happy to be among this group,i am from Sierra Leone West Africa,we currently don't have e-governance setup but we will be getting it soon.I am please to be having all your experience so i would implement that in my country. Thanks, Samuel Benjamin Kamara Sierra Leone ________________________________ From: Khaled KOUBAA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 12:48:14 PM Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia All, For those who don't know Tunisia : Tunisia is a Small country, great nation. First Arab country that abolished slavery in 1848. First Arab country to establish a constitution in 1861. First Arab country to abolish polygamy in 1956. First Arab country to legalize abortion in 1973. Tunisia is the first Arab country to kick out its dictator and this without the help of any foreign nation! Today Tunisia has reached a critical and important point in its history after succeeding in its revolution. President Ben Ali has left the country, and government has collapsed leaving the country in an unpredictable situation. A new “Coalition Government” has been announced bringing old dissidents and Human Rights activists in team with a main focus of preparing a democratic transition. Friday January 14th 2011, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLT2PEmnDI ) I have been inside the huge protestants in front of the ministry of Interior and I witnessed brave people asking clearly their dictator to leave. Since then Tunisian retrieved their freedom lost many years and began interesting politics. Young people went on the street asking for more n and more social change without being politically coached. I have witnessed, and have been part, of the strength of the "real" Tunisian Internet community to use Internet and Web 2.0 ( Blogs, Video, Facebook, Twitter, … ) to support the revolution and everyday’s riots showing to the world what’s happening due to a lack of official local media coverage. My life has been different during these days : my house is in a hot spot; near El Aouina Army Casern and just between the Airport and the US Embassy. So I took my wife to her father house, and I stayed alone during 5 days. Everything was different each day; night riots with fire shooting between protestants and police during the first 2 days , near helicopter surveillance between army and snipers belonging to Ben Ali Presidential militia during the last 3days. I have never felt the importance of the security before that. It was the same feeling that had the Tunisian people which led them to go out and organize “Population committees” in each city to protect each city from Ben Ali militia. Tunisian Internet community is free today and will show to the world what we are capable to accomplish. Vive Internet and thank you Vint and Internet pioneers to gave us this wonderful tool that helped our revolution. From the free Tunisia Khaled Koubaa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jan 20 08:21:43 2011 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:21:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D3831E0.8010007@paque.net> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> <4D3831E0.8010007@paque.net> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, well another free Tunisian speaking :) about morozov, I think that many of his points are valid. Like Khaled , I witnessed the movement through Internet (e.g. facebook and twitter) and participated as much as I can mostly in twitter (powerful for interaction), it was and still important for bypassing the media blackout (especially of local media) and let Tunisians and the rest of the world to be aware about the situation in Sidi bouzid and other towns later. The international media didn't start cover really at the beginning except Aljazeera and France24. What made this revolution successful is the spread of protests to other regions and people keeping protesting in streets for almost 4 weeks. when Tunisia revolution succeeded, another uprising in Belarus failed in the same time. Internet is powerful but revolutions are still done offline. people used social media more for communication, information dissemination etc and rarely for organizing protests, the existence of grassroots structure helped in organizing and maintaining the protests. that mix between grassroots structures having experienced activists and internet worked well. Internet will be also critical for the next steps regarding the construction of democracy, strengthening freedom of expression and other civil liberties and empowering citizens participation. Finally, I am optimistic that troubles will start soon (in fact they are already decreasing) . Regards Rafik 2011/1/20 Ginger Paque > Thanks for this post! It is very interesting, particularly in > juxtaposition to Evgeny Morozov's posts. See > > http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/st_essay_totalitarians/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher > > First paragraph: > The Internet advances the cause of freedom more effectively than ballistic > missiles and Hellfire-equippeddrones; at least that’s the conventional wisdom among US diplomats and > policymakers. “Information freedom supports the peace and security that > provide a foundation for global progress” is how Secretary of State Hillary > Clinton put it in a speech last January, her first on democracy and the > Internet. George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” is out; the Twitter agenda is > in.* Unfortunately, this kind of technological romanticism relies on false > historical analogies and sloppy thinking. Modern communications technologies > are already being deployed as new forms of repression.* > > Best, Ginger > > > On 1/20/2011 8:18 AM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: > > All, > For those who don't know Tunisia : Tunisia is a Small country, great > nation. First Arab country that abolished slavery in 1848. First Arab > country to establish a constitution in 1861. First Arab country to abolish > polygamy in 1956. First Arab country to legalize abortion in 1973. Tunisia > is the first Arab country to kick out its dictator and this without the help > of any foreign nation! > Today Tunisia has reached a critical and important point in its history > after succeeding in its revolution. President Ben Ali has left the country, > and government has collapsed leaving the country in an unpredictable > situation. > A new “Coalition Government” has been announced bringing old dissidents and > Human Rights activists in team with a main focus of preparing a democratic > transition. > Friday January 14th 2011, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLT2PEmnDI ) I > have been inside the huge protestants in front of the ministry of Interior > and I witnessed brave people asking clearly their dictator to leave. > Since then Tunisian retrieved their freedom lost many years and began > interesting politics. > Young people went on the street asking for more n and more social change > without being politically coached. > I have witnessed, and have been part, of the strength of the "real" > Tunisian Internet community to use Internet and Web 2.0 ( Blogs, Video, > Facebook, Twitter, … ) to support the revolution and everyday’s riots > showing to the world what’s happening due to a lack of official local media > coverage. > My life has been different during these days : my house is in a hot spot; > near El Aouina Army Casern and just between the Airport and the US Embassy. > So I took my wife to her father house, and I stayed alone during 5 days. > Everything was different each day; night riots with fire shooting between > protestants and police during the first 2 days , near helicopter > surveillance between army and snipers belonging to Ben Ali Presidential > militia during the last 3days. > I have never felt the importance of the security before that. It was the > same feeling that had the Tunisian people which led them to go out and > organize “Population committees” in each city to protect each city from Ben > Ali militia. > Tunisian Internet community is free today and will show to the world what > we are capable to accomplish. > > Vive Internet and thank you Vint and Internet pioneers to gave us this > wonderful tool that helped our revolution. > > From the free Tunisia > > Khaled Koubaa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > > * > **Ginger (Virginia) Paque > *IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > *The latest from Diplo...* > http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to *An Introduction to > Internet Governance, *Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read > the blogs and post your comments. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Jan 20 08:41:28 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:41:28 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <21056658.1607.1295530889101.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> Merci Khaled pour ton témoignage et tous les encouragements et mes voeux à la "jeune Tunisie lbre". J'ai particulièrement apprécié le spot sur le Sommet du SMSI de Tunis (novembre 2005) qui doit rappeler quelques souvenirs à la société civile engagée au SMSI, celle qui a accepté "d'y être" et celle qui a refusé (comme mon assoc CSDPTT). Nous sommes tous de coeur avec vous les artisans de la liberté. Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 20/01/11 13:48 > De : "Khaled KOUBAA" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] From Free Tunisia > > All, > For those who don't know Tunisia : Tunisia is a Small country, great > nation. First Arab country that abolished slavery in 1848. First Arab > country to establish a constitution in 1861. First Arab country to > abolish polygamy in 1956. First Arab country to legalize abortion in > 1973. Tunisia is the first Arab country to kick out its dictator and > this without the help of any foreign nation! > Today Tunisia has reached a critical and important point in its history > after succeeding in its revolution. President Ben Ali has left the > country, and government has collapsed leaving the country in an > unpredictable situation. > A new “Coalition Government” has been announced bringing old dissidents > and Human Rights activists in team with a main focus of preparing a > democratic transition. > Friday January 14th 2011, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLT2PEmnDI ) > I have been inside the huge protestants in front of the ministry of > Interior and I witnessed brave people asking clearly their dictator to > leave. > Since then Tunisian retrieved their freedom lost many years and began > interesting politics. > Young people went on the street asking for more n and more social change > without being politically coached. > I have witnessed, and have been part, of the strength of the "real" > Tunisian Internet community to use Internet and Web 2.0 ( Blogs, Video, > Facebook, Twitter, … ) to support the revolution and everyday’s riots > showing to the world what’s happening due to a lack of official local > media coverage. > My life has been different during these days : my house is in a hot > spot; near El Aouina Army Casern and just between the Airport and the US > Embassy. So I took my wife to her father house, and I stayed alone > during 5 days. Everything was different each day; night riots with fire > shooting between protestants and police during the first 2 days , near > helicopter surveillance between army and snipers belonging to Ben Ali > Presidential militia during the last 3days. > I have never felt the importance of the security before that. It was the > same feeling that had the Tunisian people which led them to go out and > organize “Population committees” in each city to protect each city from > Ben Ali militia. > Tunisian Internet community is free today and will show to the world > what we are capable to accomplish. > > Vive Internet and thank you Vint and Internet pioneers to gave us this > wonderful tool that helped our revolution. > > From the free Tunisia > > Khaled Koubaa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Thu Jan 20 13:18:49 2011 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:18:49 -0600 Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Khaled, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. When I was a kid, I have experienced the terror brought about by a dictator toppled by the will and power of its people. I have been in 3 revolutions in my lifetime in the Philippines and I would always tell my students here in the US how important freedom is until you do not have it anymore. During those times, we did not have the Internet to help us with our fight against social injustice. I wonder sometimes what it would have been like if the Internet was around and we were able to speak freely without being condemned. People in other provinces were not even aware of what was going on in Manila because TV shows were censored. We had no medium to speak but Filipinos were able to go out in the streets and prove that freedom cannot be suppressed even by violent means. That was 25 years ago. But more than 300 years of Spanish colonialization and Spanish oppression, the Philippines learned, too, that " *the pen is mightier than the sword*" - or perhaps, if another dictator comes along, we can say that the "Internet is mightier than an uzi." On the other hand, people in their ivory towers also get "smarter" each day and I am very much aware that they will also use the Internet to suppress the very freedom we fought for. Regards, Charity On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: > All, > For those who don't know Tunisia : Tunisia is a Small country, great > nation. First Arab country that abolished slavery in 1848. First Arab > country to establish a constitution in 1861. First Arab country to abolish > polygamy in 1956. First Arab country to legalize abortion in 1973. Tunisia > is the first Arab country to kick out its dictator and this without the help > of any foreign nation! > Today Tunisia has reached a critical and important point in its history > after succeeding in its revolution. President Ben Ali has left the country, > and government has collapsed leaving the country in an unpredictable > situation. > A new “Coalition Government” has been announced bringing old dissidents and > Human Rights activists in team with a main focus of preparing a democratic > transition. > Friday January 14th 2011, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLT2PEmnDI ) I > have been inside the huge protestants in front of the ministry of Interior > and I witnessed brave people asking clearly their dictator to leave. > Since then Tunisian retrieved their freedom lost many years and began > interesting politics. > Young people went on the street asking for more n and more social change > without being politically coached. > I have witnessed, and have been part, of the strength of the "real" > Tunisian Internet community to use Internet and Web 2.0 ( Blogs, Video, > Facebook, Twitter, … ) to support the revolution and everyday’s riots > showing to the world what’s happening due to a lack of official local media > coverage. > My life has been different during these days : my house is in a hot spot; > near El Aouina Army Casern and just between the Airport and the US Embassy. > So I took my wife to her father house, and I stayed alone during 5 days. > Everything was different each day; night riots with fire shooting between > protestants and police during the first 2 days , near helicopter > surveillance between army and snipers belonging to Ben Ali Presidential > militia during the last 3days. > I have never felt the importance of the security before that. It was the > same feeling that had the Tunisian people which led them to go out and > organize “Population committees” in each city to protect each city from Ben > Ali militia. > Tunisian Internet community is free today and will show to the world what > we are capable to accomplish. > > Vive Internet and thank you Vint and Internet pioneers to gave us this > wonderful tool that helped our revolution. > > From the free Tunisia > > Khaled Koubaa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 20 17:56:53 2011 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:56:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <517727.71138.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Tunisia is not free, they will just be ruled by different despots supported by the west as Robert Fisk outlined in the Independent a week or so ago. Incremental changes maybe, significant change - you're dreaming... David ________________________________ From: Charity Gamboa To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Khaled KOUBAA Sent: Fri, 21 January, 2011 5:18:49 AM Subject: Re: [governance] From Free Tunisia Hi Khaled, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. When I was a kid, I have experienced the terror brought about by a dictator toppled by the will and power of its people. I have been in 3 revolutions in my lifetime in the Philippines and I would always tell my students here in the US how important freedom is until you do not have it anymore. During those times, we did not have the Internet to help us with our fight against social injustice. I wonder sometimes what it would have been like if the Internet was around and we were able to speak freely without being condemned. People in other provinces were not even aware of what was going on in Manila because TV shows were censored. We had no medium to speak but Filipinos were able to go out in the streets and prove that freedom cannot be suppressed even by violent means. That was 25 years ago. But more than 300 years of Spanish colonialization and Spanish oppression, the Philippines learned, too, that "the pen is mightier than the sword" - or perhaps, if another dictator comes along, we can say that the "Internet is mightier than an uzi." On the other hand, people in their ivory towers also get "smarter" each day and I am very much aware that they will also use the Internet to suppress the very freedom we fought for. Regards, Charity On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: All, >For those who don't know Tunisia : Tunisia is a Small country, great nation. >First Arab country that abolished slavery in 1848. First Arab country to >establish a constitution in 1861. First Arab country to abolish polygamy in >1956. First Arab country to legalize abortion in 1973. Tunisia is the first Arab >country to kick out its dictator and this without the help of any foreign >nation! >Today Tunisia has reached a critical and important point in its history after >succeeding in its revolution. President Ben Ali has left the country, and >government has collapsed leaving the country in an unpredictable situation. >A new “Coalition Government” has been announced bringing old dissidents and >Human Rights activists in team with a main focus of preparing a democratic >transition. >Friday January 14th 2011, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLT2PEmnDI ) I have >been inside the huge protestants in front of the ministry of Interior and I >witnessed brave people asking clearly their dictator to leave. >Since then Tunisian retrieved their freedom lost many years and began >interesting politics. >Young people went on the street asking for more n and more social change without >being politically coached. >I have witnessed, and have been part, of the strength of the "real" Tunisian >Internet community to use Internet and Web 2.0 ( Blogs, Video, Facebook, >Twitter, … ) to support the revolution and everyday’s riots showing to the world >what’s happening due to a lack of official local media coverage. >My life has been different during these days : my house is in a hot spot; near >El Aouina Army Casern and just between the Airport and the US Embassy. So I took >my wife to her father house, and I stayed alone during 5 days. Everything was >different each day; night riots with fire shooting between protestants and >police during the first 2 days , near helicopter surveillance between army and >snipers belonging to Ben Ali Presidential militia during the last 3days. >I have never felt the importance of the security before that. It was the same >feeling that had the Tunisian people which led them to go out and organize >“Population committees” in each city to protect each city from Ben Ali militia. >Tunisian Internet community is free today and will show to the world what we are >capable to accomplish. > >Vive Internet and thank you Vint and Internet pioneers to gave us this wonderful >tool that helped our revolution. > >From the free Tunisia > >Khaled Koubaa >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jan 20 19:15:14 2011 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:15:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: <517727.71138.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> <517727.71138.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2137572512-1295568886-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-473834529-@b26.c2.bise3.blackberry> Hi David, Robert Fisk didn't react about Tunisia uprising for 4 weeks and only wrote articles at the end, he failed miserably to understand what was happening. I advise you to read the articles of Brian Whitaker who followed closely the events and even predicted the fall of regime. Btw it is up to tunisians now, Rafik BlackBerry from DOCOMO -----Original Message----- From: David Goldstein Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:56:53 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,David Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] From Free Tunisia Tunisia is not free, they will just be ruled by different despots supported by the west as Robert Fisk outlined in the Independent a week or so ago. Incremental changes maybe, significant change - you're dreaming... David ________________________________ From: Charity Gamboa To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Khaled KOUBAA Sent: Fri, 21 January, 2011 5:18:49 AM Subject: Re: [governance] From Free Tunisia Hi Khaled, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. When I was a kid, I have experienced the terror brought about by a dictator toppled by the will and power of its people. I have been in 3 revolutions in my lifetime in the Philippines and I would always tell my students here in the US how important freedom is until you do not have it anymore. During those times, we did not have the Internet to help us with our fight against social injustice. I wonder sometimes what it would have been like if the Internet was around and we were able to speak freely without being condemned. People in other provinces were not even aware of what was going on in Manila because TV shows were censored. We had no medium to speak but Filipinos were able to go out in the streets and prove that freedom cannot be suppressed even by violent means. That was 25 years ago. But more than 300 years of Spanish colonialization and Spanish oppression, the Philippines learned, too, that "the pen is mightier than the sword" - or perhaps, if another dictator comes along, we can say that the "Internet is mightier than an uzi." On the other hand, people in their ivory towers also get "smarter" each day and I am very much aware that they will also use the Internet to suppress the very freedom we fought for. Regards, Charity On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: All, >For those who don't know Tunisia : Tunisia is a Small country, great nation. >First Arab country that abolished slavery in 1848. First Arab country to >establish a constitution in 1861. First Arab country to abolish polygamy in >1956. First Arab country to legalize abortion in 1973. Tunisia is the first Arab >country to kick out its dictator and this without the help of any foreign >nation! >Today Tunisia has reached a critical and important point in its history after >succeeding in its revolution. President Ben Ali has left the country, and >government has collapsed leaving the country in an unpredictable situation. >A new “Coalition Government” has been announced bringing old dissidents and >Human Rights activists in team with a main focus of preparing a democratic >transition. >Friday January 14th 2011, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLT2PEmnDI ) I have >been inside the huge protestants in front of the ministry of Interior and I >witnessed brave people asking clearly their dictator to leave. >Since then Tunisian retrieved their freedom lost many years and began >interesting politics. >Young people went on the street asking for more n and more social change without >being politically coached. >I have witnessed, and have been part, of the strength of the "real" Tunisian >Internet community to use Internet and Web 2.0 ( Blogs, Video, Facebook, >Twitter, … ) to support the revolution and everyday’s riots showing to the world >what’s happening due to a lack of official local media coverage. >My life has been different during these days : my house is in a hot spot; near >El Aouina Army Casern and just between the Airport and the US Embassy. So I took >my wife to her father house, and I stayed alone during 5 days. Everything was >different each day; night riots with fire shooting between protestants and >police during the first 2 days , near helicopter surveillance between army and >snipers belonging to Ben Ali Presidential militia during the last 3days. >I have never felt the importance of the security before that. It was the same >feeling that had the Tunisian people which led them to go out and organize >“Population committees” in each city to protect each city from Ben Ali militia. >Tunisian Internet community is free today and will show to the world what we are >capable to accomplish. > >Vive Internet and thank you Vint and Internet pioneers to gave us this wonderful >tool that helped our revolution. > >From the free Tunisia > >Khaled Koubaa >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 20 19:29:41 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:29:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D3831E0.8010007@paque.net> Message-ID: <8D427AD9997443348B3BF20868829CFF@userPC> I'm not sure if this relevent but I've been moved to put some thoughts down... http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/tunisia-they-have-the-tools-now-wha t-do-they-do-with-them-thinking-about-what-happens-next/ M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:00 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Khaled KOUBAA Subject: Re: [governance] From Free Tunisia Thanks for this post! It is very interesting, particularly in juxtaposition to Evgeny Morozov's posts. See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/st_essay_totalitarians/?utm_source=fee dburner &utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28T op+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher First paragraph: The Internet advances the cause of freedom more effectively than ballistic missiles and Hellfire-equipped drones; at least that's the conventional wisdom among US diplomats and policymakers. "Information freedom supports the peace and security that provide a foundation for global progress" is how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it in a speech last January, her first on democracy and the Internet. George W. Bush's "freedom agenda" is out; the Twitter agenda is in. Unfortunately, this kind of technological romanticism relies on false historical analogies and sloppy thinking. Modern communications technologies are already being deployed as new forms of repression. Best, Ginger On 1/20/2011 8:18 AM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: All, For those who don't know Tunisia : Tunisia is a Small country, great nation. First Arab country that abolished slavery in 1848. First Arab country to establish a constitution in 1861. First Arab country to abolish polygamy in 1956. First Arab country to legalize abortion in 1973. Tunisia is the first Arab country to kick out its dictator and this without the help of any foreign nation! Today Tunisia has reached a critical and important point in its history after succeeding in its revolution. President Ben Ali has left the country, and government has collapsed leaving the country in an unpredictable situation. A new "Coalition Government" has been announced bringing old dissidents and Human Rights activists in team with a main focus of preparing a democratic transition. Friday January 14th 2011, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLT2PEmnDI ) I have been inside the huge protestants in front of the ministry of Interior and I witnessed brave people asking clearly their dictator to leave. Since then Tunisian retrieved their freedom lost many years and began interesting politics. Young people went on the street asking for more n and more social change without being politically coached. I have witnessed, and have been part, of the strength of the "real" Tunisian Internet community to use Internet and Web 2.0 ( Blogs, Video, Facebook, Twitter, . ) to support the revolution and everyday's riots showing to the world what's happening due to a lack of official local media coverage. My life has been different during these days : my house is in a hot spot; near El Aouina Army Casern and just between the Airport and the US Embassy. So I took my wife to her father house, and I stayed alone during 5 days. Everything was different each day; night riots with fire shooting between protestants and police during the first 2 days , near helicopter surveillance between army and snipers belonging to Ben Ali Presidential militia during the last 3days. I have never felt the importance of the security before that. It was the same feeling that had the Tunisian people which led them to go out and organize "Population committees" in each city to protect each city from Ben Ali militia. Tunisian Internet community is free today and will show to the world what we are capable to accomplish. Vive Internet and thank you Vint and Internet pioneers to gave us this wonderful tool that helped our revolution. From the free Tunisia Khaled Koubaa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBP Online Coordinator DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo... http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 20 19:36:13 2011 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:36:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: <2137572512-1295568886-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-473834529-@b26.c2.bise3.blackberry> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> <517727.71138.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2137572512-1295568886-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-473834529-@b26.c2.bise3.blackberry> Message-ID: <342046.86279.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I'll take Robert Fisk any day. One of the most knowledgeable writers on the Middle East. If you read through the archive of what Fisk has written you will see he has written many times on Tunisia and every other country in the Middle East. ________________________________ From: "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Fri, 21 January, 2011 11:15:14 AM Subject: Re: [governance] From Free Tunisia Hi David, Robert Fisk didn't react about Tunisia uprising for 4 weeks and only wrote articles at the end, he failed miserably to understand what was happening. I advise you to read the articles of Brian Whitaker who followed closely the events and even predicted the fall of regime. Btw it is up to tunisians now, Rafik BlackBerry from DOCOMO ________________________________ From: David Goldstein Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:56:53 -0800 (PST) To: ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org,David Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] From Free Tunisia Tunisia is not free, they will just be ruled by different despots supported by the west as Robert Fisk outlined in the Independent a week or so ago. Incremental changes maybe, significant change - you're dreaming... David ________________________________ From: Charity Gamboa To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Khaled KOUBAA Sent: Fri, 21 January, 2011 5:18:49 AM Subject: Re: [governance] From Free Tunisia Hi Khaled, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. When I was a kid, I have experienced the terror brought about by a dictator toppled by the will and power of its people. I have been in 3 revolutions in my lifetime in the Philippines and I would always tell my students here in the US how important freedom is until you do not have it anymore. During those times, we did not have the Internet to help us with our fight against social injustice. I wonder sometimes what it would have been like if the Internet was around and we were able to speak freely without being condemned. People in other provinces were not even aware of what was going on in Manila because TV shows were censored. We had no medium to speak but Filipinos were able to go out in the streets and prove that freedom cannot be suppressed even by violent means. That was 25 years ago. But more than 300 years of Spanish colonialization and Spanish oppression, the Philippines learned, too, that "the pen is mightier than the sword" - or perhaps, if another dictator comes along, we can say that the "Internet is mightier than an uzi." On the other hand, people in their ivory towers also get "smarter" each day and I am very much aware that they will also use the Internet to suppress the very freedom we fought for. Regards, Charity On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: All, >For those who don't know Tunisia : Tunisia is a Small country, great nation. >First Arab country that abolished slavery in 1848. First Arab country to >establish a constitution in 1861. First Arab country to abolish polygamy in >1956. First Arab country to legalize abortion in 1973. Tunisia is the first Arab >country to kick out its dictator and this without the help of any foreign >nation! >Today Tunisia has reached a critical and important point in its history after >succeeding in its revolution. President Ben Ali has left the country, and >government has collapsed leaving the country in an unpredictable situation. >A new “Coalition Government” has been announced bringing old dissidents and >Human Rights activists in team with a main focus of preparing a democratic >transition. >Friday January 14th 2011, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLT2PEmnDI ) I have >been inside the huge protestants in front of the ministry of Interior and I >witnessed brave people asking clearly their dictator to leave. >Since then Tunisian retrieved their freedom lost many years and began >interesting politics. >Young people went on the street asking for more n and more social change without >being politically coached. >I have witnessed, and have been part, of the strength of the "real" Tunisian >Internet community to use Internet and Web 2.0 ( Blogs, Video, Facebook, >Twitter, … ) to support the revolution and everyday’s riots showing to the world >what’s happening due to a lack of official local media coverage. >My life has been different during these days : my house is in a hot spot; near >El Aouina Army Casern and just between the Airport and the US Embassy. So I took >my wife to her father house, and I stayed alone during 5 days. Everything was >different each day; night riots with fire shooting between protestants and >police during the first 2 days , near helicopter surveillance between army and >snipers belonging to Ben Ali Presidential militia during the last 3days. >I have never felt the importance of the security before that. It was the same >feeling that had the Tunisian people which led them to go out and organize >“Population committees” in each city to protect each city from Ben Ali militia. >Tunisian Internet community is free today and will show to the world what we are >capable to accomplish. > >Vive Internet and thank you Vint and Internet pioneers to gave us this wonderful >tool that helped our revolution. > >From the free Tunisia > >Khaled Koubaa >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 Fri Jan 21 04:08:30 2011 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:08:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: <342046.86279.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> <517727.71138.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2137572512-1295568886-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-473834529-@b26.c2.bise3.blackberry> <342046.86279.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: FYI, the Robert Fisk article is at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/the-brutal-truth-about-tunisia-2186287.html and Brian Whitaker is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/brianwhitaker 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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jan 21 05:07:35 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:37:35 -0430 Subject: Offlist: Private: Re: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: <517727.71138.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> <517727.71138.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D395AE7.1050103@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jan 21 05:09:40 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:39:40 -0430 Subject: Offlist: Private: Re: [governance] From Free Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D395AE7.1050103@paque.net> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> <517727.71138.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4D395AE7.1050103@paque.net> Message-ID: <4D395B64.7050800@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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 21 05:30:49 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:00:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> <517727.71138.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2137572512-1295568886-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-473834529-@b26.c2.bise3.blackberry> <342046.86279.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D396059.4070102@itforchange.net> These articles especially the one by Fisk raises important issues about the global political discourse. And this is my attempt to connect the breath-taking events in Tunisia with the kind of stuff we do here in IGC. The article shows how concepts like democracy and FoE are instrumentalised by powerful players with vested interests. Even with what we all know about the western media, and west interests dominated global media - it was quite surprising for me how little news went around in the days when these events were unfolding in Tunisia. And in relation to it, how the smallest non-event about Iran - of the evil axis - is immediately hot global news. Apparently, western interests supporting authoritarian regimes are not only fine, they are needed, but any anti-west regime is immediately and unpardonably undemocratic, suppressing human rights and the such. It is in this respect important that global civil society really knows and focuses on what it believes in, what is it trying to achieve and who all it aligns with. We seek democracy, equity, power for the people and human rights. We basically seek more equitable distribution of power, and we fight against undue concentration of power, which almost always gets abused. These are the 'civil society' values. I mention this term 'CS values' because I read in one of the emails during the hot discussion on the CSTD WG composition how we should judge governments and other actors vis a vis their adherence to 'CS values' which set me thinking what really was meant by this term. The writer of the email mostly meant MS-ism (multistakeholderism). We need to judge actors in the IG space not just on this one dimension, but on the more basic CS values I mention above. And as long as the practical impact of some kinds of MS-ism is further concentration of IG power in the hands of those who are already most powerful, it hardly relates to 'CS values'.This is what one often sees happening in the global IG realm . We need to judge where does the greatest concentration of power lies today vis a vis how the Internet is being shaped and used globally, and then see what can we do to democratise this power. This in my view is the role of civil society in IG, and is what we should judge ourselves against. I came into MS-ism to ensure that IG political space is opened to those who are most dis-empowered, and when one sees MS-ism often used as a convenient hand maiden by those already most powerful in shaping the Internet - mega digital corporations and western govs - and the CS blindly and uncritically following the bandwagon, I do think we need some serious reconsideration of our ideals and our strategies. I hope the proposed initiative by the co-coordinators to relook at IGC's vision. strategies etc does such deep introspection. Parminder CW Mail wrote: > FYI, the Robert Fisk article is at: > > http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/the-brutal-truth-about-tunisia-2186287.html > > and Brian Whitaker is at: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/brianwhitaker > > CW > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Jan 21 08:07:25 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:07:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Tunisia In-Reply-To: <4D396059.4070102@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:00:49 +0530) References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> <517727.71138.qm@web120506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2137572512-1295568886-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-473834529-@b26.c2.bise3.blackberry> <342046.86279.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4D396059.4070102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110121130725.B833115C197@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > It is in this respect important that global civil society really knows > and focuses on what it believes in, what is it trying to achieve and who > all it aligns with. We seek democracy, equity, power for the people and > human rights. We basically seek more equitable distribution of power, > and we fight against undue concentration of power, which almost always > gets abused. I'd like to wholeheartedly support Parminder's point about putting a strong emphasis on these most important values. In my thinking, the key aspect is that of freedom. Is it good or bad to e.g. strengthen the police? In my view, this depends on whether the specific ways in which the police would be strengthened will increase or decrease the freedom enjoyed by "ordinary people". These freedoms would be increased by measures that have the effect of making it safe for everyone to walk in any part of a town at any time of their choosing, day or night. The freedoms would be decreased by giving the police any powers without checks and balances that allow the general public to effectively verify that the powers are not being abused, etc, etc. I would suggest that these principles apply just as much in the digital realm as they apply offline. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jan 21 20:14:57 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:14:57 -0200 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF Message-ID: The agenda of the next meeting of the CSTD WG has just been released. It is scheduled for 25 and 26 Feb, back to back with the Open consultations (23 and 24 Feb). A draft structure of the report has also been proposed (all docs attached). There are seven substantive questions (II to VIII). Probably separate e-mails threads for the debate of each question will be necessary. Suggestions on how to proceed? Best, Marilia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mongi Hamdi Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:00 AM Subject: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF To: Mongi Hamdi Cc: Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch, Frederic.Riehl at bakom.admin.ch, Franziska Klopfer , Dong Wu < Dong.Wu at unctad.org>, Malou Pasinos Dear Sir/Madam, On behalf of Mr. Frederic Riehl, Chair of the Working Group on Improvement to the Internet Governance Forum (WG-IGF), I have the pleasure to transmit to you: (1) a letter informing you about the next meeting of the group, scheduled to take place in Montreux, Switzerland from 25-26 February 2011; (2) a timeline for the Group's work; and (3) a proposed table of content for the report for your consideration and feedback. I take this opportunity to inform you that we have received the final lists of the 5 representatives from each of the stakeholder groups: Business Community, civil society, and technical and academic community. With respect to the five representatives from intergovernmental organizations, requests have been received from ITU, UNDESA, UNESCO, UNDP, WIPO, UNECA, UNESCWA, and the Council of Europe. With best regards, ********************************************* * Mongi Hamdi Head of the Secretariat of the United Nations Commission* * on Science and Technology for Development* * Palais des Nations* * Room E-7077, UNCTAD* * Geneva, Switzerland Tel. 004122 917 5069* F, F -- 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: letter FRiehl WGIGF_Jan18signed.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 85954 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Timeline WGIGF JantoMarch2011.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 39936 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: draft structure.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 28160 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 21 20:30:33 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:30:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> On 22/01/2011, at 9:14 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > The agenda of the next meeting of the CSTD WG has just been released. It is scheduled for 25 and 26 Feb, back to back with the Open consultations (23 and 24 Feb). > > A draft structure of the report has also been proposed (all docs attached). There are seven substantive questions (II to VIII). Probably separate e-mails threads for the debate of each question will be necessary. Suggestions on how to proceed? I suggest you start these threads in the IGC's CSTD working group mailing list (cstd at igf-online.net), and then summarise back to the main 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 22 02:32:52 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 13:02:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues Message-ID: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> Read below to see another instance of how some countries are more equal than others owing to the manner in which the global Internet architecture and its power nodes are structured today..... It should hardly be surprising that most 'other' countries are rather concerned about this asymmetry and concentration of global IG power. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/10/3110066.htm?section=justin US pursuit of WikiLeaks triggers diplomatic spat By Jennifer Macey Updated Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:43pm AEDT The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five accounts in its investigation of WikiLeaks (AFP: Joe Raedle/Getty Images) AUDIO: Iceland furious over US subpoena of Twitter accounts (PM) RELATED STORY: US orders Twitter to disclose WikiLeaks records The Icelandic government has summoned the US ambassador to explain why the US is seeking personal information from the Twitter account of an Icelandic MP. The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five accounts - including those of the MP and a Dutch computer programmer - in its investigation of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. Legal experts say because Twitter is registered in the US, the company may be obliged to hand over the information. The American ambassador to Reykjavik, Luis Arreaga, has been summoned for a meeting at Iceland's foreign ministry. He has been asked to explain why US officials want the Twitter account details of an Icelandic MP. Iceland's interior minister, Ogmundur Jonasson, says the request is not being taken lightly. "It is very serious that a foreign state, the United States, demands such personal information of an Icelandic person, an elected official," he said. "This is even more serious when put into perspective and concerns freedom of speech and people's freedom in general." Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir is one of five Twitter accounts that have been subpoenaed by the US Justice Department. Although she is a former WikiLeaks collaborator, she denies she has anything to hide. "Not at all, that's not what this is all about. This is about a certain principle," she said. "Here we have a government that is demanding a privately-owned company to give up personal data. "I have not done anything that can be considered criminal. It's not against the law to leak information, it's not against the law to be a source, it's not against the law to publish this information. "The information in question is about crimes committed by the United States government." Along with Ms Jonsdottir, the US Justice Department sought information from four other Twitter accounts. The WikiLeaks account, Dutch computer programmer Rop Gonggrijp, American programmer Jacob Appelbaum, and the account of Private First Class Bradley Manning, the US army intelligence analyst accused of leaking the classified cables, Dr Ben Saul, the director of the Sydney Centre for International Law at Sydney University, says US officials can issue a subpoena against non-US citizens if the company holding that information is registered in the US. "It certainly does seem that the US is exploring all avenues available to it through its domestic law," he said. "Obviously the US itself has no law enforcement power in Europe or in Australia, so what they're obviously trying to do is to obtain the information by going after records held by companies which operate in the US, which are subject to US law. "Citizenship doesn't really matter here. The relevant question is, is there illegal conduct happening? "The real question is how will other countries react, you know, will other governments try to do things to shut down this kind of investigation?" The order issued by the US District Court of Virginia on December 14 gave Twitter three days to release the information, including user names, addresses, connection records, telephone numbers and bank details. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 22 03:35:26 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:35:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> References: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: This has nothing to do with Internet architecture. The US's demands are based on Twitter being a US registered company, nothing to do with the Internet per se. FWIW (not worth much :-)) most of Twitter's Internet architecture is run by a Japanese company, NTT. Thanks, Adam >Read below to see another instance of how some >countries are more equal than others owing to >the manner in which the global Internet >architecture and its power nodes are structured >today..... It should hardly be surprising that >most 'other' countries are rather concerned >about this asymmetry and concentration of >global IG power.  > >http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/10/3110066.htm?section=justin > >US pursuit of WikiLeaks triggers diplomatic spat >By Jennifer Macey > >Updated Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:43pm AEDT > > The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release >information from five accounts in its >investigation of WikiLeaks (AFP: Joe >Raedle/Getty Images) > >AUDIO: Iceland furious over US subpoena of Twitter accounts (PM) >RELATED STORY: US orders Twitter to disclose WikiLeaks records >The Icelandic government has summoned the US >ambassador to explain why the US is seeking >personal information from the Twitter account of >an Icelandic MP. > >The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release >information from five accounts - including those >of the MP and a Dutch computer programmer - in >its investigation of whistleblowing website >WikiLeaks. > >Legal experts say because Twitter is registered >in the US, the company may be obliged to hand >over the information. > >The American ambassador to Reykjavik, Luis >Arreaga, has been summoned for a meeting at >Iceland's foreign ministry. > >He has been asked to explain why US officials >want the Twitter account details of an Icelandic >MP. > >Iceland's interior minister, Ogmundur Jonasson, >says the request is not being taken lightly. > >"It is very serious that a foreign state, the >United States, demands such personal information >of an Icelandic person, an elected official," he >said. > >"This is even more serious when put into >perspective and concerns freedom of speech and >people's freedom in general." > >Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir is one of five >Twitter accounts that have been subpoenaed by >the US Justice Department. > >Although she is a former WikiLeaks collaborator, >she denies she has anything to hide. > >"Not at all, that's not what this is all about. >This is about a certain principle," she said. > >"Here we have a government that is demanding a >privately-owned company to give up personal data. > >"I have not done anything that can be considered >criminal. It's not against the law to leak >information, it's not against the law to be a >source, it's not against the law to publish this >information. > >"The information in question is about crimes >committed by the United States government." > >Along with Ms Jonsdottir, the US Justice >Department sought information from four other >Twitter accounts. > >The WikiLeaks account, Dutch computer programmer >Rop Gonggrijp, American programmer Jacob >Appelbaum, and the account of Private First >Class Bradley Manning, the US army intelligence >analyst accused of leaking the classified cables, > >Dr Ben Saul, the director of the Sydney Centre >for International Law at Sydney University, says >US officials can issue a subpoena against non-US >citizens if the company holding that information >is registered in the US. > >"It certainly does seem that the US is exploring >all avenues available to it through its domestic >law," he said. > >"Obviously the US itself has no law enforcement >power in Europe or in Australia, so what they're >obviously trying to do is to obtain the >information by going after records held by >companies which operate in the US, which are >subject to US law. > >"Citizenship doesn't really matter here. The >relevant question is, is there illegal conduct >happening? > >"The real question is how will other countries >react, you know, will other governments try to >do things to shut down this kind of >investigation?" > >The order issued by the US District Court of >Virginia on December 14 gave Twitter three days >to release the information, including user >names, addresses, connection records, telephone >numbers and bank details. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 Jan 22 04:21:38 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:21:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: References: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I guess what Parminder meant is that the power play on the Internet is at the end of the day usually with the powerful countries :o) and yes, that does affect the architecture of the Internet. Its just a matter of perspective and that does vary according to geographical and economical dissimilarities. -- Cheeers Fouad On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > This has nothing to do with Internet architecture. The US's demands are > based on Twitter being a US registered company, nothing to do with the > Internet per se. > > FWIW (not worth much :-)) most of Twitter's Internet architecture is run by > a Japanese company, NTT. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > >> Read below to see another instance of how some countries are more equal >> than others owing to the manner in which the global Internet architecture >> and its power nodes are structured today..... It should hardly be surprising >> that most 'other' countries are rather concerned about this asymmetry  and >> concentration of global IG power. >> >> >> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/10/3110066.htm?section=justin >> >> US pursuit of WikiLeaks triggers diplomatic spat >> By Jennifer Macey >> >> Updated Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:43pm AEDT >> >>  The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five accounts >> in its investigation of WikiLeaks (AFP: Joe Raedle/Getty Images) >> >> AUDIO: Iceland furious over US subpoena of Twitter accounts (PM) >> RELATED STORY: US orders Twitter to disclose WikiLeaks records >> The Icelandic government has summoned the US ambassador to explain why the >> US is seeking personal information from the Twitter account of an Icelandic >> MP. >> >> The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five accounts - >> including those of the MP and a Dutch computer programmer - in its >> investigation of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. >> >> Legal experts say because Twitter is registered in the US, the company may >> be obliged to hand over the information. >> >> The American ambassador to Reykjavik, Luis Arreaga, has been summoned for >> a meeting at Iceland's foreign ministry. >> >> He has been asked to explain why US officials want the Twitter account >> details of an Icelandic MP. >> >> Iceland's interior minister, Ogmundur Jonasson, says the request is not >> being taken lightly. >> >> "It is very serious that a foreign state, the United States, demands such >> personal information of an Icelandic person, an elected official," he said. >> >> "This is even more serious when put into perspective and concerns freedom >> of speech and people's freedom in general." >> >> Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir is one of five Twitter accounts that have >> been subpoenaed by the US Justice Department. >> >> Although she is a former WikiLeaks collaborator, she denies she has >> anything to hide. >> >> "Not at all, that's not what this is all about. This is about a certain >> principle," she said. >> >> "Here we have a government that is demanding a privately-owned company to >> give up personal data. >> >> "I have not done anything that can be considered criminal. It's not >> against the law to leak information, it's not against the law to be a >> source, it's not against the law to publish this information. >> >> "The information in question is about crimes committed by the United >> States government." >> >> Along with Ms Jonsdottir, the US Justice Department sought information >> from four other Twitter accounts. >> >> The WikiLeaks account, Dutch computer programmer Rop Gonggrijp, American >> programmer Jacob Appelbaum, and the account of Private First Class Bradley >> Manning, the US army intelligence analyst accused of leaking the classified >> cables, >> >> Dr Ben Saul, the director of the Sydney Centre for International Law at >> Sydney University, says US officials can issue a subpoena against non-US >> citizens if the company holding that information is registered in the US. >> >> "It certainly does seem that the US is exploring all avenues available to >> it through its domestic law," he said. >> >> "Obviously the US itself has no law enforcement power in Europe or in >> Australia, so what they're obviously trying to do is to obtain the >> information by going after records held by companies which operate in the >> US, which are subject to US law. >> >> "Citizenship doesn't really matter here. The relevant question is, is >> there illegal conduct happening? >> >> "The real question is how will other countries react, you know, will other >> governments try to do things to shut down this kind of investigation?" >> >> The order issued by the US District Court of Virginia on December 14 gave >> Twitter three days to release the information, including user names, >> addresses, connection records, telephone numbers and bank details. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 22 04:24:22 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:54:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: References: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D3AA246.2080207@itforchange.net> Adam Peake wrote: > This has nothing to do with Internet architecture. The US's demands > are based on Twitter being a US registered company, nothing to do with > the Internet per se. I mean the whole socio-technical architecture of the Internet. It is a mistake, at least from its overall governance and socio-political implications points of view, to see the Internet merely as a technical system. My statement is in the context of the larger view of what is Internet governance, and the Internet's socio-political architecture and its power nodes - in the present case, the extra-ordinary control that the US gov has over it relative to any other body. BTW, this is an interesting discussion. Defining what is the Internet, before we define IG. A narrow definition of IG as basically dealing with Internet's technical architecture as against a broader one signifying a new techno-social system, is behind many a misunderstandings and mis-communications that often arise in discussion on this list. For instance, when I may underscore the need for new global policy institutions that could ensure greater egalitarianism in Internet's development in terms of its social, economic and political impact, McTim would generally respond by exhorting us to put aside such idle talk and come and participate in places where the 'actual IG' takes place. Adam, I am completely in disagreement with you that this has nothing to do with Internet per se. For me, and to most people, Internet is also google, facebook, twitter, online forums of resistance and the such... It is not just the IP protocol, DNS, registries and such kind of stuff. The fact that all the above mega corporates, as well as ICANN itself, are as you say are companies registered in the US is a huge IG issue. I dont want my personal data to be accessed by anyone without my consent. And if exceptional conditions of possible involvement in a crime etc are involved I would have it handled only by a body/ authority in whose constitution I have a democratic role, which regrettably is not the case with the US gov. Parminder > > FWIW (not worth much :-)) most of Twitter's Internet architecture is > run by a Japanese company, NTT. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > >> Read below to see another instance of how some countries are more >> equal than others owing to the manner in which the global Internet >> architecture and its power nodes are structured today..... It should >> hardly be surprising that most 'other' countries are rather concerned >> about this asymmetry and concentration of global IG power. >> >> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/10/3110066.htm?section=justin >> >> >> US pursuit of WikiLeaks triggers diplomatic spat >> By Jennifer Macey >> >> Updated Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:43pm AEDT >> >> The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five >> accounts in its investigation of WikiLeaks (AFP: Joe Raedle/Getty >> Images) >> >> AUDIO: Iceland furious over US subpoena of Twitter accounts (PM) >> RELATED STORY: US orders Twitter to disclose WikiLeaks records >> The Icelandic government has summoned the US ambassador to explain >> why the US is seeking personal information from the Twitter account >> of an Icelandic MP. >> >> The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five >> accounts - including those of the MP and a Dutch computer programmer >> - in its investigation of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. >> >> Legal experts say because Twitter is registered in the US, the >> company may be obliged to hand over the information. >> >> The American ambassador to Reykjavik, Luis Arreaga, has been summoned >> for a meeting at Iceland's foreign ministry. >> >> He has been asked to explain why US officials want the Twitter >> account details of an Icelandic MP. >> >> Iceland's interior minister, Ogmundur Jonasson, says the request is >> not being taken lightly. >> >> "It is very serious that a foreign state, the United States, demands >> such personal information of an Icelandic person, an elected >> official," he said. >> >> "This is even more serious when put into perspective and concerns >> freedom of speech and people's freedom in general." >> >> Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir is one of five Twitter accounts that >> have been subpoenaed by the US Justice Department. >> >> Although she is a former WikiLeaks collaborator, she denies she has >> anything to hide. >> >> "Not at all, that's not what this is all about. This is about a >> certain principle," she said. >> >> "Here we have a government that is demanding a privately-owned >> company to give up personal data. >> >> "I have not done anything that can be considered criminal. It's not >> against the law to leak information, it's not against the law to be a >> source, it's not against the law to publish this information. >> >> "The information in question is about crimes committed by the United >> States government." >> >> Along with Ms Jonsdottir, the US Justice Department sought >> information from four other Twitter accounts. >> >> The WikiLeaks account, Dutch computer programmer Rop Gonggrijp, >> American programmer Jacob Appelbaum, and the account of Private First >> Class Bradley Manning, the US army intelligence analyst accused of >> leaking the classified cables, >> >> Dr Ben Saul, the director of the Sydney Centre for International Law >> at Sydney University, says US officials can issue a subpoena against >> non-US citizens if the company holding that information is registered >> in the US. >> >> "It certainly does seem that the US is exploring all avenues >> available to it through its domestic law," he said. >> >> "Obviously the US itself has no law enforcement power in Europe or in >> Australia, so what they're obviously trying to do is to obtain the >> information by going after records held by companies which operate in >> the US, which are subject to US law. >> >> "Citizenship doesn't really matter here. The relevant question is, is >> there illegal conduct happening? >> >> "The real question is how will other countries react, you know, will >> other governments try to do things to shut down this kind of >> investigation?" >> >> The order issued by the US District Court of Virginia on December 14 >> gave Twitter three days to release the information, including user >> names, addresses, connection records, telephone numbers and bank >> details. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Jan 22 04:25:06 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:25:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Is the thread/mailing list open or closed? -- Fouad? On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 22/01/2011, at 9:14 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > The agenda of the next meeting of the CSTD WG has just been released. It is > scheduled for 25 and 26 Feb, back to back with the Open consultations (23 > and 24 Feb). > > A draft structure of the report has also been proposed (all docs attached). > There are seven substantive questions (II to VIII). Probably separate > e-mails threads for the debate of each question will be necessary. > Suggestions on how to proceed? > > I suggest you start these threads in the IGC's CSTD working group mailing > list (cstd at igf-online.net), and then summarise back to the main 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 22 04:33:40 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:33:40 +1100 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: <4D3AA246.2080207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Jovan¹s article on this is well worth reading http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/after-the-deluge-internet-governance -in-the-aftermath-of-wikileaks/ From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:54:22 +0530 To: , Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] cross-border IG issues Adam Peake wrote: > This has nothing to do with Internet architecture. The US's demands are based > on Twitter being a US registered company, nothing to do with the Internet per > se. I mean the whole socio-technical architecture of the Internet. It is a mistake, at least from its overall governance and socio-political implications points of view, to see the Internet merely as a technical system. My statement is in the context of the larger view of what is Internet governance, and the Internet's socio-political architecture and its power nodes - in the present case, the extra-ordinary control that the US gov has over it relative to any other body. BTW, this is an interesting discussion. Defining what is the Internet, before we define IG. A narrow definition of IG as basically dealing with Internet's technical architecture as against a broader one signifying a new techno-social system, is behind many a misunderstandings and mis-communications that often arise in discussion on this list. For instance, when I may underscore the need for new global policy institutions that could ensure greater egalitarianism in Internet's development in terms of its social, economic and political impact, McTim would generally respond by exhorting us to put aside such idle talk and come and participate in places where the 'actual IG' takes place. Adam, I am completely in disagreement with you that this has nothing to do with Internet per se. For me, and to most people, Internet is also google, facebook, twitter, online forums of resistance and the such... It is not just the IP protocol, DNS, registries and such kind of stuff. The fact that all the above mega corporates, as well as ICANN itself, are as you say are companies registered in the US is a huge IG issue. I dont want my personal data to be accessed by anyone without my consent. And if exceptional conditions of possible involvement in a crime etc are involved I would have it handled only by a body/ authority in whose constitution I have a democratic role, which regrettably is not the case with the US gov. Parminder > > FWIW (not worth much :-)) most of Twitter's Internet architecture is run by a > Japanese company, NTT. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >> Read below to see another instance of how some countries are more equal than >> others owing to the manner in which the global Internet architecture and its >> power nodes are structured today..... It should hardly be surprising that >> most 'other' countries are rather concerned about this asymmetry and >> concentration of global IG power. >> >> htt >> p://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/10/3110066.htm?section=justin >> >> US pursuit of WikiLeaks triggers diplomatic spat >> By Jennifer Macey >> >> Updated Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:43pm AEDT >> >> The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five accounts in >> its investigation of WikiLeaks (AFP: Joe Raedle/Getty Images) >> >> AUDIO: Iceland furious over US subpoena of Twitter accounts (PM) >> RELATED STORY: US orders Twitter to disclose WikiLeaks records >> The Icelandic government has summoned the US ambassador to explain why the US >> is seeking personal information from the Twitter account of an Icelandic MP. >> >> The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five accounts - >> including those of the MP and a Dutch computer programmer - in its >> investigation of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. >> >> Legal experts say because Twitter is registered in the US, the company may be >> obliged to hand over the information. >> >> The American ambassador to Reykjavik, Luis Arreaga, has been summoned for a >> meeting at Iceland's foreign ministry. >> >> He has been asked to explain why US officials want the Twitter account >> details of an Icelandic MP. >> >> Iceland's interior minister, Ogmundur Jonasson, says the request is not being >> taken lightly. >> >> "It is very serious that a foreign state, the United States, demands such >> personal information of an Icelandic person, an elected official," he said. >> >> "This is even more serious when put into perspective and concerns freedom of >> speech and people's freedom in general." >> >> Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir is one of five Twitter accounts that have >> been subpoenaed by the US Justice Department. >> >> Although she is a former WikiLeaks collaborator, she denies she has anything >> to hide. >> >> "Not at all, that's not what this is all about. This is about a certain >> principle," she said. >> >> "Here we have a government that is demanding a privately-owned company to >> give up personal data. >> >> "I have not done anything that can be considered criminal. It's not against >> the law to leak information, it's not against the law to be a source, it's >> not against the law to publish this information. >> >> "The information in question is about crimes committed by the United States >> government." >> >> Along with Ms Jonsdottir, the US Justice Department sought information from >> four other Twitter accounts. >> >> The WikiLeaks account, Dutch computer programmer Rop Gonggrijp, American >> programmer Jacob Appelbaum, and the account of Private First Class Bradley >> Manning, the US army intelligence analyst accused of leaking the classified >> cables, >> >> Dr Ben Saul, the director of the Sydney Centre for International Law at >> Sydney University, says US officials can issue a subpoena against non-US >> citizens if the company holding that information is registered in the US. >> >> "It certainly does seem that the US is exploring all avenues available to it >> through its domestic law," he said. >> >> "Obviously the US itself has no law enforcement power in Europe or in >> Australia, so what they're obviously trying to do is to obtain the >> information by going after records held by companies which operate in the US, >> which are subject to US law. >> >> "Citizenship doesn't really matter here. The relevant question is, is there >> illegal conduct happening? >> >> "The real question is how will other countries react, you know, will other >> governments try to do things to shut down this kind of investigation?" >> >> The order issued by the US District Court of Virginia on December 14 gave >> Twitter three days to release the information, including user names, >> addresses, connection records, telephone numbers and bank details. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 22 04:36:47 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:36:47 +0500 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: References: <4D3AA246.2080207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yeup, shows single country control chaos! -- Foo On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Jovan’s article on this is well worth reading > > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/after-the-deluge-internet-governance-in-the-aftermath-of-wikileaks/ > > > > > ________________________________ > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:54:22 +0530 > To: , Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] cross-border IG issues > > > > Adam Peake wrote: > > This has nothing to do with Internet architecture. The US's demands are > based on Twitter being a US registered company, nothing to do with the > Internet per se. > > I mean the whole socio-technical architecture of the Internet. It is a > mistake, at least from its overall governance and socio-political > implications points of view, to see the Internet merely as a technical > system. My statement is in the context of the larger view of what is > Internet governance, and the Internet's socio-political architecture and its > power nodes - in the present case, the extra-ordinary control that the US > gov has over it relative to any other body. > > BTW, this is an interesting discussion. Defining what is the Internet, > before we define IG. A narrow definition of IG as basically dealing with > Internet's technical architecture as against a broader one signifying a new > techno-social system, is behind many a misunderstandings and > mis-communications that often arise in discussion on this list. > > For instance, when I may underscore the need for new global policy > institutions that could ensure greater egalitarianism in Internet's > development in terms of its social, economic and political impact, McTim > would generally respond by exhorting us to put aside such idle talk and come > and participate in places where the 'actual IG' takes place. > > Adam, I am completely in disagreement with you that this has nothing to do > with Internet per se. For me, and to most people, Internet is also google, > facebook, twitter, online forums of resistance and the such... It is not > just the IP protocol, DNS, registries and such kind of stuff. > > The fact that all the above mega corporates, as well as ICANN itself, are as > you say are companies registered in the US is a huge IG issue. I dont want > my personal data to be accessed by anyone without my consent. And if > exceptional conditions of possible involvement in a crime etc are involved I > would have it handled only by a body/ authority  in whose constitution I > have a democratic role, which regrettably is not the case with the US gov. > > Parminder > > > FWIW (not worth much :-)) most of Twitter's Internet architecture is run by > a Japanese company, NTT. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > Read below to see another instance of how some countries are more equal than > others owing to the manner in which the global Internet architecture and its > power nodes are structured today..... It should hardly be surprising that > most 'other' countries are rather concerned about this asymmetry  and > concentration of global IG power. > > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/10/3110066.htm?section=justin > > US pursuit of WikiLeaks triggers diplomatic spat > By Jennifer Macey > > Updated Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:43pm AEDT > >  The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five accounts in > its investigation of WikiLeaks (AFP: Joe Raedle/Getty Images) > > AUDIO: Iceland furious over US subpoena of Twitter accounts (PM) > RELATED STORY: US orders Twitter to disclose WikiLeaks records > The Icelandic government has summoned the US ambassador to explain why the > US is seeking personal information from the Twitter account of an Icelandic > MP. > > The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five accounts - > including those of the MP and a Dutch computer programmer - in its > investigation of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. > > Legal experts say because Twitter is registered in the US, the company may > be obliged to hand over the information. > > The American ambassador to Reykjavik, Luis Arreaga, has been summoned for a > meeting at Iceland's foreign ministry. > > He has been asked to explain why US officials want the Twitter account > details of an Icelandic MP. > > Iceland's interior minister, Ogmundur Jonasson, says the request is not > being taken lightly. > > "It is very serious that a foreign state, the United States, demands such > personal information of an Icelandic person, an elected official," he said. > > "This is even more serious when put into perspective and concerns freedom of > speech and people's freedom in general." > > Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir is one of five Twitter accounts that have > been subpoenaed by the US Justice Department. > > Although she is a former WikiLeaks collaborator, she denies she has anything > to hide. > > "Not at all, that's not what this is all about. This is about a certain > principle," she said. > > "Here we have a government that is demanding a privately-owned company to > give up personal data. > > "I have not done anything that can be considered criminal. It's not against > the law to leak information, it's not against the law to be a source, it's > not against the law to publish this information. > > "The information in question is about crimes committed by the United States > government." > > Along with Ms Jonsdottir, the US Justice Department sought information from > four other Twitter accounts. > > The WikiLeaks account, Dutch computer programmer Rop Gonggrijp, American > programmer Jacob Appelbaum, and the account of Private First Class Bradley > Manning, the US army intelligence analyst accused of leaking the classified > cables, > > Dr Ben Saul, the director of the Sydney Centre for International Law at > Sydney University, says US officials can issue a subpoena against non-US > citizens if the company holding that information is registered in the US. > > "It certainly does seem that the US is exploring all avenues available to it > through its domestic law," he said. > > "Obviously the US itself has no law enforcement power in Europe or in > Australia, so what they're obviously trying to do is to obtain the > information by going after records held by companies which operate in the > US, which are subject to US law. > > "Citizenship doesn't really matter here. The relevant question is, is there > illegal conduct happening? > > "The real question is how will other countries react, you know, will other > governments try to do things to shut down this kind of investigation?" > > The order issued by the US District Court of Virginia on December 14 gave > Twitter three days to release the information, including user names, > addresses, connection records, telephone numbers and bank details. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 > > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 22 04:38:49 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:08:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4D3AA5A9.1000807@itforchange.net> I think we should have an open discussion on the list. The only case against such an open discussion could have been that it may become too unwieldy etc to help the IGC in the immediate task of informing the work of WGIGF. However, we have seen that despite a couple of exhortations on the list no discussion on IGF improvements have taken off. So any such fear of things becoming too open ended and thus de-focussed may not be justified, at least for the present. Parminder Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Is the thread/mailing list open or closed? > > -- Fouad? > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 22/01/2011, at 9:14 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> The agenda of the next meeting of the CSTD WG has just been released. It is >> scheduled for 25 and 26 Feb, back to back with the Open consultations (23 >> and 24 Feb). >> >> A draft structure of the report has also been proposed (all docs attached). >> There are seven substantive questions (II to VIII). Probably separate >> e-mails threads for the debate of each question will be necessary. >> Suggestions on how to proceed? >> >> I suggest you start these threads in the IGC's CSTD working group mailing >> list (cstd at igf-online.net), and then summarise back to the main 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 >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jan 22 04:43:39 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:43:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 22/01/2011, at 5:25 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Is the thread/mailing list open or closed? The mailing list is open, but only those who were (originally) chosen for the IGC's CSTD working group are currently on it. The archive is at http://igf-online.net/wws/arc/cstd. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Jan 22 04:49:10 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:49:10 +0500 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I am unable to find a public notification or IGC consensus on having such a list run in a closed environment or limiting access to only a group? My bad if I may have missed such a communication? -- Foo On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 22/01/2011, at 5:25 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Is the thread/mailing list open or closed? > > The mailing list is open, but only those who were (originally) chosen for the IGC's CSTD working group are currently on it.  The archive is at http://igf-online.net/wws/arc/cstd. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > 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. > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 22 04:54:15 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:24:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D3AA947.8090608@itforchange.net> Yes, a very good article. Certainly worth reading. To quote "On the one hand, they (gov other than the US) will continue reclaiming control of their national e-spaces, with the risk of fragmentation of the global Internet. On the other hand, they will accelerate pressure on the USA towards complete internationalisation of Internet governance and, in particular, of ICANN." The point is, what are we the global IG related civil society doing about it. What is our stand on these major and pressing IG issues. "Paradoxically, the USA, which has resisted the internationalisation of Internet governance, may become one of its main proponents in 2011. With almost all major Internet companies based in the USA (Google, Facebook, Yahoo), and most Internet traffic passing through the USA, and with English as the main language, the main sufferer of a possible Internet fragmentation could be the United States. For example, if other countries start creating their own national clouds, the main casualty will be companies like Amazon, Google, and Facebook.By having internationally agreed rules, the USA can foster the preservation of one Internet. The necessary rules could be agreed upon by an international convention on the Internet ...." Very much doubt that US will take such a stand. BTW, IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. Again, where is CS and IGC on this. These are the crucial global IG issues today. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: > Jovan’s article on this is well worth reading > > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/after-the-deluge-internet-governance-in-the-aftermath-of-wikileaks/ > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *parminder > *Reply-To: *, parminder > > *Date: *Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:54:22 +0530 > *To: *, Adam Peake > *Subject: *Re: [governance] cross-border IG issues > > > > Adam Peake wrote: > > This has nothing to do with Internet architecture. The US's > demands are based on Twitter being a US registered company, > nothing to do with the Internet per se. > > I mean the whole socio-technical architecture of the Internet. It is a > mistake, at least from its overall governance and socio-political > implications points of view, to see the Internet merely as a technical > system. My statement is in the context of the larger view of what is > Internet governance, and the Internet's socio-political architecture > and its power nodes - in the present case, the extra-ordinary control > that the US gov has over it relative to any other body. > > BTW, this is an interesting discussion. Defining what is the Internet, > before we define IG. A narrow definition of IG as basically dealing > with Internet's technical architecture as against a broader one > signifying a new techno-social system, is behind many a > misunderstandings and mis-communications that often arise in > discussion on this list. > > For instance, when I may underscore the need for new global policy > institutions that could ensure greater egalitarianism in Internet's > development in terms of its social, economic and political impact, > McTim would generally respond by exhorting us to put aside such idle > talk and come and participate in places where the 'actual IG' takes > place. > > Adam, I am completely in disagreement with you that this has nothing > to do with Internet per se. For me, and to most people, Internet is > also google, facebook, twitter, online forums of resistance and the > such... It is not just the IP protocol, DNS, registries and such kind > of stuff. > > The fact that all the above mega corporates, as well as ICANN itself, > are as you say are companies registered in the US is a huge IG issue. > I dont want my personal data to be accessed by anyone without my > consent. And if exceptional conditions of possible involvement in a > crime etc are involved I would have it handled only by a body/ > authority in whose constitution I have a democratic role, which > regrettably is not the case with the US gov. > > Parminder > > > FWIW (not worth much :-)) most of Twitter's Internet architecture > is run by a Japanese company, NTT. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > Read below to see another instance of how some countries are > more equal than others owing to the manner in which the global > Internet architecture and its power nodes are structured > today..... It should hardly be surprising that most 'other' > countries are rather concerned about this asymmetry and > concentration of global IG power. > > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/10/3110066.htm?section=justin > > > > US pursuit of WikiLeaks triggers diplomatic spat > By Jennifer Macey > > Updated Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:43pm AEDT > > The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from > five accounts in its investigation of WikiLeaks (AFP: Joe > Raedle/Getty Images) > > AUDIO: Iceland furious over US subpoena of Twitter accounts (PM) > RELATED STORY: US orders Twitter to disclose WikiLeaks records > The Icelandic government has summoned the US ambassador to > explain why the US is seeking personal information from the > Twitter account of an Icelandic MP. > > The US has subpoenaed Twitter to release information from five > accounts - including those of the MP and a Dutch computer > programmer - in its investigation of whistleblowing website > WikiLeaks. > > Legal experts say because Twitter is registered in the US, the > company may be obliged to hand over the information. > > The American ambassador to Reykjavik, Luis Arreaga, has been > summoned for a meeting at Iceland's foreign ministry. > > He has been asked to explain why US officials want the Twitter > account details of an Icelandic MP. > > Iceland's interior minister, Ogmundur Jonasson, says the > request is not being taken lightly. > > "It is very serious that a foreign state, the United States, > demands such personal information of an Icelandic person, an > elected official," he said. > > "This is even more serious when put into perspective and > concerns freedom of speech and people's freedom in general." > > Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir is one of five Twitter > accounts that have been subpoenaed by the US Justice Department. > > Although she is a former WikiLeaks collaborator, she denies > she has anything to hide. > > "Not at all, that's not what this is all about. This is about > a certain principle," she said. > > "Here we have a government that is demanding a privately-owned > company to give up personal data. > > "I have not done anything that can be considered criminal. > It's not against the law to leak information, it's not against > the law to be a source, it's not against the law to publish > this information. > > "The information in question is about crimes committed by the > United States government." > > Along with Ms Jonsdottir, the US Justice Department sought > information from four other Twitter accounts. > > The WikiLeaks account, Dutch computer programmer Rop > Gonggrijp, American programmer Jacob Appelbaum, and the > account of Private First Class Bradley Manning, the US army > intelligence analyst accused of leaking the classified cables, > > Dr Ben Saul, the director of the Sydney Centre for > International Law at Sydney University, says US officials can > issue a subpoena against non-US citizens if the company > holding that information is registered in the US. > > "It certainly does seem that the US is exploring all avenues > available to it through its domestic law," he said. > > "Obviously the US itself has no law enforcement power in > Europe or in Australia, so what they're obviously trying to do > is to obtain the information by going after records held by > companies which operate in the US, which are subject to US law. > > "Citizenship doesn't really matter here. The relevant question > is, is there illegal conduct happening? > > "The real question is how will other countries react, you > know, will other governments try to do things to shut down > this kind of investigation?" > > The order issued by the US District Court of Virginia on > December 14 gave Twitter three days to release the > information, including user names, addresses, connection > records, telephone numbers and bank details. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 > -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jan 22 05:13:15 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:13:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <49717920-12A6-4C31-84C5-5EC9F0DF8BB0@ciroap.org> On 22/01/2011, at 5:49 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I am unable to find a public notification or IGC consensus on having > such a list run in a closed environment or limiting access to only a > group? It's not limited, feel free to join. -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Jan 22 05:27:25 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:27:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: <49717920-12A6-4C31-84C5-5EC9F0DF8BB0@ciroap.org> References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> <49717920-12A6-4C31-84C5-5EC9F0DF8BB0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Still, there was no need for a separate mailing list IMHO. The interventions on this list in a seperate topiced list would have even helped the participants of the open consultation and MAG meeting.............. -- Foo On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 22/01/2011, at 5:49 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> I am unable to find a public notification or IGC consensus on having >> such a list run in a closed environment or limiting access to only a >> group? > > It's not limited, feel free to join. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jan 22 05:51:36 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:51:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: <4D3AA246.2080207@itforchange.net> References: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> <4D3AA246.2080207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4D3AA246.2080207 at itforchange.net>, at 14:54:22 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, parminder writes >The fact that all the above mega corporates, as well as ICANN itself, I thought you were trying to avoid discussions which confuse governance of the infrastructure with governance of the content. >are as you say are companies registered in the US is a huge IG issue. I >dont want my personal data to be accessed by anyone without my consent. >And if exceptional conditions of possible involvement in a crime etc >are involved I would have it handled only by a body/ authority  in >whose constitution I have a democratic role, which regrettably is not >the case with the US gov. Then it is up to you (and those of a like mind) to "vote with your feet" and subscribe to websites run from different jurisdictions. And if you don't think they exist, it's not the Internet infrastructure that's preventing it. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jan 22 06:14:11 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:14:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme Message-ID: Here (and at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it) is a statement based on the suggestions for the Nairobi meeting programme. I have tried to incorporate everything, so if I missed your suggestion please let me know. Because we generally only put forward three topics, I have not included A2K as a separate theme, but instead have expressly included it in each of the other three themes. --- begins --- For the Nairobi 2011 meeting of the IGF, the Internet Governance Caucus suggests the following main session themes: 1. Open Wired and Mobile Internet Open Internet 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. With the explosion of Internet usage in the developing world mainly occurring on mobile networks, it is particularly important to consider how the ideal of open Internet will apply in the mobile space. Should different rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks? If so, how can communications rights and Access to Knowledge be preserved for those users, in order to avoid an ongoing information divide? In proposing this topic for the Nairobi IGF, we want to particularly ensure that it does not shy away from areas of disagreement. Only by including panelists with divergent views on this topic can the very real and practical Internet governance disputes in this area be adequately and productively aired. 2. Cross border Issues One of the oldest and thorniest issues for Internet governance concerns the cross-border effects of national laws, policies, enforcement practices, and the actions of intermediaries, on those who have had no representation in the making of those laws, policies, etc. Current examples include actions taken by governments and intermediaries against Wikileaks, and the "seizure" of domain names alleged to be connected with content piracy. The process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet policy issues could lead to new proposals that would address some of these cross-border anomalies and deficits. But at this stage of that process, there is little shared understanding of the approach that should be taken. This session will look at the philosophical underpinnings and foundations that need to emerge in a world where something like the Internet transcends boundaries and national jurisdictions. Insights produced through this session may feed into the enhanced coperation process. Once again, it will be important for discussion of this topic to involve stakeholders with diverging views, discussing concrete issues that demand eventual resolution. 3. Development agenda for Internet governance Internet governance is not a neutral activity. All Internet governance decisions have implications for development, though in some cases these implications may be less obvious than in others, and they are easily overlooked. An example is the way in which decisions about such diverse issues as new global top level domains (gTLDs), Unicode, IP enforcement, filtering and censorship, may have an adverse and sometimes unforeseen impact on Access to Knowledge in the developing world. We propose a main session theme on developing a development agenda for Internet governance, building on the similar session in Vilnius. This session will help to draw out areas of Internet governance which have significant impacts on development, and to suggest how development concerns can be mainstreamed in Internet governance institutions that have responsibility in these areas. --- ends --- If you want to make paragraph-level comments, you can do so on the list or you can do so at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it, our Web-based tool which allows for threaded comments on each individual paragraph. I will summarise back here at the end. In other news... you may now edit your profile at http://www.igcaucus.org to include additional optional fields - previously those who tried to do this received an "LDAP error". Other than this, I don't have any more new progress to report on the Web site yet. -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jan 22 06:07:00 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:07:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 23:14:57 on Fri, 21 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel writes, quoting CSTD Secretariat: >[CSTD](1) a letter informing you about the next meeting of the group, >scheduled to take place in Montreux, Switzerland from 25-26 February Putting on my "travel agent" hat, be aware that Montreaux is some 80km from Geneva, about an hour by train. >[CSTD] With respect to the five representatives from intergovernmental >organizations, requests have been received from ITU, UNDESA, UNESCO, >UNDP, WIPO, UNECA, UNESCWA, and the Council of Europe. It's useful to have this long-running issue clarified (ie this category is not "International Organisations", like ICANN). >[CSTD] I take this opportunity to inform you that we have received the >final lists of the 5 representatives from each of the stakeholder >groups: Business Community, civil society, and technical and academic >community. It'll be interesting to see who has been nominated from all these groups, and how much overlap there is with the MAG, whose earlier work is to some extent being reviewed here. > [Timeline para 6]: The first meeting will be an opportunity for the > Working Group to comment on the first draft report and discuss its > content. I hope that we will be able to see rather more of this first draft than just the nine paragraph titles, before the meeting; if we are to comment. -- 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 Sat Jan 22 06:28:46 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:28:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> <49717920-12A6-4C31-84C5-5EC9F0DF8BB0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message , at 15:27:25 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes >Still, there was no need for a separate mailing list IMHO. There's a "Law of social networking" (of which the IGC lists are an example, and social networking has existed for at least 20 years before acquiring that sexy name) which says that if you spin off a separate discussion group it almost always dies. That's just a fact of life. Look at the [lack of] activity on the other three spun-off groups, for example. It requires a big commitment to make it work, which is one reason why small *closed* lists are the most successful - the people who want to discuss their business in private are demonstrating that commitment (to keeping their discussion closed). -- 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 Sat Jan 22 06:30:10 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:30:10 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues References: <4D3AA947.8090608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076FC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. Wolfgang: If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this is different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body. The proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing link in the existing architecture of Internet Governance organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body should fill this gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an important difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is rather similar to what is considered by the Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert Group is that we recognize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental component should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of commitments. The objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision making, the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 22 06:42:18 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 16:42:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> <49717920-12A6-4C31-84C5-5EC9F0DF8BB0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Still, a separate list doesn't make sense............it takes a lot for many to follow just this one from the developing part of the world.........I like the interpretation for small lists and productivity but it doesn't answer the need for openness and accessibility. -- Foo On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , > at 15:27:25 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes >> >> Still, there was no need for a separate mailing list IMHO. > > There's a "Law of social networking" (of which the IGC lists are an example, > and social networking has existed for at least 20 years before acquiring > that sexy name) which says that if you spin off a separate discussion group > it almost always dies. That's just a fact of life. Look at the [lack of] > activity on the other three spun-off groups, for example. > > It requires a big commitment to make it work, which is one reason why small > *closed* lists are the most successful - the people who want to discuss > their business in private are demonstrating that commitment (to keeping > their discussion closed). > -- > 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 > > -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jan 22 06:56:26 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:56:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 19:14:11 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >Should different rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks? > If so, how can communications rights and Access to Knowledge be >preserved for those users, in order to avoid an ongoing information >divide I recall debates (in the UK) about fifteen years ago where the theme was wanting "freephone" or "800" access to ISP modem banks on the grounds that paying around five dollars[1] an hour for a regular phone call was some kind of infringement of a right to free expression. No-one was able to explain how the dial-up telephone infrastructure which is required to support [what eventually became at some times of day the biggest user of the telephone network] was to be paid for. Eventually a compromise of paying at "local call" cost of perhaps 2 cents a minute, despite the calls often being long distance, was arrived at. Then ten years ago cable and ADSL happened, and people forgot the charging aspects of dial-up Internet, along with forgetting the restricted bandwidth. Now history is repeating itself with 3G data (very few people even expected to use 2/2.5G data for more than email). Carriers who over-generously offered "unlimited" plans of perhaps one to three Gigabytes a month for thirty dollars (which includes handset rental and voice calls) find their networks choked by people downloading streaming video, and try to invoke caps [limits] typically in the region of half a Gigabyte a month. Which would be several year's worth of email, even for a prolific user such as myself. For those using 3G 'dongles' rather than phones, a cost of around fifteen dollars per Gigabyte is typical (there are no "unlimited" plans that I'm aware of). But that's a lot of money to watch a movie (one Gigabyte is a quarter of a DVD), when it's been estimated that mainstream ADSL costs the ISPs about 20 cents per hour for TV-quality movies. So this is not about Network Neutrality, but "Local Loop neutrality", where end users are in denial about the varying costs of telecoms provision *of that last mile*, be it by GSM, ADSL or whatever. The previous thousand miles will cost much the same irrespective of the technology of the local loop. If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes sense to try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the inbound edge (and leave the publisher to offset that by the income generation in his own business plan), rather than handing out an indefinite "free lunch". Of course, if users are happy to express their freedom in ways other than downloading movies all day, there isn't a problem. [1] I use USA money as it's more recognisable. -- 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 Sat Jan 22 06:57:35 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 16:57:35 +0500 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, Can we include Emerging Issues and suggest Wikileaks and the state of the Internet Governance after Wikileaks or something around this issue? Around would mean the Tunisia case. On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here (and at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it) is a statement based on the > suggestions for the Nairobi meeting programme.  I have tried to incorporate > everything, so if I missed your suggestion please let me know. > Because we generally only put forward three topics, I have not included A2K > as a separate theme, but instead have expressly included it in each of the > other three themes. > --- begins --- > For the Nairobi 2011 meeting of the IGF, the Internet Governance Caucus > suggests the following main session themes: > 1. Open Wired and Mobile Internet > Open Internet 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. > With the explosion of Internet usage in the developing world mainly > occurring on mobile networks, it is particularly important to consider how > the ideal of open Internet will apply in the mobile space.  Should different > rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks?  If so, how can > communications rights and Access to Knowledge be preserved for those users, > in order to avoid an ongoing information divide? > In proposing this topic for the Nairobi IGF, we want to particularly ensure > that it does not shy away from areas of disagreement.  Only by including > panelists with divergent views on this topic can the very real and practical > Internet governance disputes in this area be adequately and productively > aired. > > 2. Cross border Issues > One of the oldest and thorniest issues for Internet governance concerns the > cross-border effects of national laws, policies, enforcement practices, and > the actions of intermediaries, on those who have had no representation in > the making of those laws, policies, etc.  Current examples include actions > taken by governments and intermediaries against Wikileaks, and the "seizure" > of domain names alleged to be connected with content piracy. > The process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet policy issues could > lead to new proposals that would address some of these cross-border > anomalies and deficits.  But at this stage of that process, there is little > shared understanding of the approach that should be taken.  This session > will look at the philosophical underpinnings and foundations that need to > emerge in a world where something like the Internet transcends boundaries > and national jurisdictions.  Insights produced through this session may feed > into the enhanced coperation process. > Once again, it will be important for discussion of this topic to involve > stakeholders with diverging views, discussing concrete issues that demand > eventual resolution. > 3. Development agenda for Internet governance > Internet governance is not a neutral activity. All Internet governance > decisions have implications for development, though in some cases these > implications may be less obvious than in others, and they are easily > overlooked. > An example is the way in which decisions about such diverse issues as new > global top level domains (gTLDs), Unicode, IP enforcement, filtering and > censorship, may have an adverse and sometimes unforeseen impact on Access to > Knowledge in the developing world. > We propose a main session theme on developing a development agenda for > Internet governance, building on the similar session in Vilnius.  This > session will help to draw out areas of Internet governance which have > significant impacts on development, and to suggest how development concerns > can be mainstreamed in Internet governance institutions that have > responsibility in these areas. > --- ends --- > If you want to make paragraph-level comments, you can do so on the list or > you can do so at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it, our Web-based tool > which allows for threaded comments on each individual paragraph.  I will > summarise back here at the end. > In other news... you may now edit your profile at http://www.igcaucus.org to > include additional optional fields - previously those who tried to do this > received an "LDAP error".  Other than this, I don't have any more new > progress to report on the Web site yet. > > -- > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 22 06:58:39 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:28:39 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076FC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4D3AA947.8090608@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076FC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D3AC66F.80009@itforchange.net> Wolfgang, I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me humbly submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with IT for Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a fact that was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA statement. These overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new institutional structure, listing of global network neutrality and A2K as key global IG issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on this matter. Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken when you say "...the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement represents the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement to be. Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is very clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet and thus must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are obviously ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote some passages from the IBSA statement to show how clearly have you mis-read it. " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be discussed among UN Member States in depth from a public policy point of view due to the absence of an intergovernmental platform mandated to systematically discuss them and make decisions as appropriate. It is thus necessary for governments to be provided a formal platform under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these issues. Such a platform would also complement the Internet Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, sharing experiences and networking on Internet governance." " The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and established will allow the international community to accomplish the developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...." Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.... "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process." Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as "...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is all what they really meant. Parminder Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Parminder: > > IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. > > Wolfgang: > > If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this is different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body. The proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing link in the existing architecture of Internet Governance organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body should fill this gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an important difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is rather similar to what is considered by the Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert Group is that we recognize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental component should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of commitments. The objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision making, the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Sat Jan 22 07:13:35 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:43:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> "If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes sense to try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the inbound edge (and leave the publisher to offset that by the income generation in his own business plan), rather than handing out an indefinite "free lunch". " Pay-for-priority distorts the very nature of the Internet, and over time the Internet will just not look the same. (Charging different fees for download volumes is a very different thing. ) It changes the level playing field nature of this new and revolutionary communication paradigm of the Internet. It thus impacts freedom of expression, economic competitiveness for new players, and egalitarian possibilities that Internet offer. A simple cost-profit and economic feasibility framework is not the best way to understand the implications of the NN issue, as it is not for media and other constructions of the public sphere, and as it not for many other social and cultural issues. Happy to discuss this issue further - quite close to my heart. parminder Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at > 19:14:11 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes > >> Should different rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks? >> If so, how can communications rights and Access to Knowledge be >> preserved for those users, in order to avoid an ongoing information >> divide > > I recall debates (in the UK) about fifteen years ago where the theme > was wanting "freephone" or "800" access to ISP modem banks on the > grounds that paying around five dollars[1] an hour for a regular phone > call was some kind of infringement of a right to free expression. > > No-one was able to explain how the dial-up telephone infrastructure > which is required to support [what eventually became at some times of > day the biggest user of the telephone network] was to be paid for. > > Eventually a compromise of paying at "local call" cost of perhaps 2 > cents a minute, despite the calls often being long distance, was > arrived at. Then ten years ago cable and ADSL happened, and people > forgot the charging aspects of dial-up Internet, along with forgetting > the restricted bandwidth. > > Now history is repeating itself with 3G data (very few people even > expected to use 2/2.5G data for more than email). Carriers who > over-generously offered "unlimited" plans of perhaps one to three > Gigabytes a month for thirty dollars (which includes handset rental > and voice calls) find their networks choked by people downloading > streaming video, and try to invoke caps [limits] typically in the > region of half a Gigabyte a month. Which would be several year's worth > of email, even for a prolific user such as myself. > > For those using 3G 'dongles' rather than phones, a cost of around > fifteen dollars per Gigabyte is typical (there are no "unlimited" > plans that I'm aware of). But that's a lot of money to watch a movie > (one Gigabyte is a quarter of a DVD), when it's been estimated that > mainstream ADSL costs the ISPs about 20 cents per hour for TV-quality > movies. > > So this is not about Network Neutrality, but "Local Loop neutrality", > where end users are in denial about the varying costs of telecoms > provision *of that last mile*, be it by GSM, ADSL or whatever. The > previous thousand miles will cost much the same irrespective of the > technology of the local loop. > > If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes > sense to try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the > inbound edge (and leave the publisher to offset that by the income > generation in his own business plan), rather than handing out an > indefinite "free lunch". > > Of course, if users are happy to express their freedom in ways other > than downloading movies all day, there isn't a problem. > > [1] I use USA money as it's more recognisable. -- 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 Sat Jan 22 08:04:53 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:34:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: References: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> <4D3AA246.2080207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D3AD5F5.90707@itforchange.net> Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4D3AA246.2080207 at itforchange.net>, at 14:54:22 on Sat, 22 > Jan 2011, parminder writes > >> The fact that all the above mega corporates, as well as ICANN itself, > > I thought you were trying to avoid discussions which confuse > governance of the infrastructure with governance of the content. > >> are as you say are companies registered in the US is a huge IG issue. >> I dont want my personal data to be accessed by anyone without my >> consent. And if exceptional conditions of possible involvement in a >> crime etc are involved I would have it handled only by a body/ >> authority in whose constitution I have a democratic role, which >> regrettably is not the case with the US gov. > > Then it is up to you (and those of a like mind) to "vote with your > feet" and subscribe to websites run from different jurisdictions. And > if you don't think they exist, it's not the Internet infrastructure > that's preventing it. What do you think is preventing it? If your response to cross border issues I bring up is to advice cutting back to an Internet (or Internets) that fits jurisdictional boundaries, it is indeed an internally coherent solution. However, I still think that it is possible to preserve a global Internet if we can muster enough political will and courage to develop the necessary global political system. parminder -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jan 22 08:54:31 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:54:31 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues References: <4D3AA947.8090608@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076FC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D3AC66F.80009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076FE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Parminder like all diplomatic documents you can read them in different ways. The authors say that such an (intergovernmental) mechanism would "complement" the IGF, not "sbstitute" the IGF. With other words, we have a multistkaeholder mechanism and part of this - as a key element in such a multiplayer multilayer mechanism -you have an intergovernmental body which has a special responsibility for development and public policy issues (like other ülayers in the mechanism have a special responsibility for other elements of the whoe diversified and decentrlized mechanism). Remember the Internet Governance definition adopted by the Head of states of all UN members said that the stakeholder operate "in their respective roles" and should share "principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures". I read this that we have to deal with two layers: Each stakeholder group has its own responsibility (and has its own institutional mechanism). Governments have their intergovernmental organisations like the GAC, ITU, UN and probably something which will deal with the new Internet related challenges. Other stakeholders have their mechanism (like the private sector has ICANN, IETF, RIRs and probably also new bodies if this is needed). On the upper layer the various stakeholders have to "share decision making" by takling into account the "respective role". In practice this means that means that governments are certainly better qualified in a multistakeholder mechanism to contribute to the management of public policy issues while non-governmental technical bodies are better qualified to deal with the technical issues. However all stakeholder groups should have in their "inner life" open, transparent and democratic procedures and have also channels for participation of the other stakeholders. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: Sa 22.01.2011 12:58 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Ian Peter Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues Wolfgang, I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me humbly submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with IT for Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a fact that was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA statement. These overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new institutional structure, listing of global network neutrality and A2K as key global IG issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on this matter. Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken when you say "...the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement represents the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement to be. Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is very clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet and thus must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are obviously ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote some passages from the IBSA statement to show how clearly have you mis-read it. " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be discussed among UN Member States in depth from a public policy point of view due to the absence of an intergovernmental platform mandated to systematically discuss them and make decisions as appropriate. It is thus necessary for governments to be provided a formal platform under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these issues. Such a platform would also complement the Internet Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, sharing experiences and networking on Internet governance." " The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and established will allow the international community to accomplish the developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...." Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.... "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process." Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as "...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is all what they really meant. Parminder Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Parminder: IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. Wolfgang: If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this is different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body. The proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing link in the existing architecture of Internet Governance organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body should fill this gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an important difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is rather similar to what is considered by the Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert Group is that we recogn ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental component should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of commitments. The objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision making, the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jan 22 09:51:28 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:51:28 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: <4D3AC66F.80009@itforchange.net> References: <4D3AA947.8090608@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076FC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D3AC66F.80009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Thanks for clarifying what you meant about architecture of the Internet. As I said, the Twitter matter you mentioned has nothing to do with the Internet in and of itself, you keep confusing issues of content and infrastructure. Can't help you, it's been going on for years, so let's just forget it. About the IBSA statement, I hope you and IT for Change had no part in drafting or encouraging paragraph 8 of the statement: "8. Keeping in view the urgency and importance of establishing such a platform, the IBSA countries reiterate the need to ensure that the present consultations result in a clear roadmap for operationalizing Enhanced Cooperation. In this context, we would like to propose that an inter-governmental working group be established under the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the focal point in the UN system-wide follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS. The Working Group should be mandated to prepare a report on the possible institutional design and roadmap for enhanced cooperation in consultation with all stakeholders, and asked to submit its report to the UN General Assembly in 2011. The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process." It would be ironic given that the IGC's nominating committee recommended you as a member of the *multistakeholder* working group rather than the inter-governmental process the IBSA statement suggested. Perhaps you could clarify, did you support or accept para 8 of the IBSA statement? I read the IBSA statement as extremely detrimental to the Internet (broadly) and the interests of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders. Given the list of policy issues in the paragraph that precedes it, para 6 extremely troubling. Just don't know what there is to like about a proposal that only favors narrow government interests. Adam >Wolfgang, > >I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. >In fact, let me humbly submit that IBSA >statement does have important overlaps with IT >for Change's statement and does draw some >inspiration from it, a fact that was graciously >acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA >statement. These overlaps are in terms of call >for a possible new institutional structure, >listing of global network neutrality and A2K as >key global IG issues and call for setting up a >CSTD WG on this matter. > >Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken >when you say "...the objective is to create an >enhanced network where stakeholders can >"enhance" their communication, coordination and >collaboration both among themselves and and with >other stakeholders. " which statement represents >the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA >statement to be. > >Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of >options over, but it is very clear that >'enhanced cooperation' process has not started >yet and thus must start at the earliest. What >you speak of above are obviously ongoing >processes. Though, our position is not exactly >that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote >some passages from the IBSA statement to show >how clearly have you mis-read it. > > " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to >be discussed among UN Member States in depth >from a public policy point of view due to the >absence of an intergovernmental platform >mandated to systematically discuss them and make >decisions as appropriate. It is thus necessary >for governments to be provided a formal platform >under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these >issues. Such a platform would also complement >the Internet Governance Forum, a >multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, sharing >experiences and networking on Internet >governance." > >" The IBSA believes that this platform once >identified and established will allow the >international community to accomplish the >developmental objectives of the Tunis >Agenda,...." > >Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.... > > "The Working Group should also take on board >inputs from all international organizations >including the ITU, and should recommend on the >feasibility and desirability of placing the >Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an >existing international organization or recommend >establishing a new body for dealing with >Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap >and timeframe for the process." > >Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as > >"...to create an enhanced network where >stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, >coordination and collaboration both among >themselves and and with other stakeholders. " > >However I am very eager to hear you argue why >you think that this is all what they really >meant. > >Parminder > > > > > >Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >>Parminder: >> >>IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as >>also my own organization) did call for such a >>possible new global institutional development >>(a framework convention ?) in their submission >>to the open consultations on 'enhanced >>cooperation'. >> >>Wolfgang: >> >>If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you >>will discover that this is different from >>previous proposals for an intergovernmental >>body. The proposal says very carefully that >>there is a gap or missing link in the existing >>architecture of Internet Governance >>organisations. The proposed intergovernmental >>body should fill this gap not in a way to >>substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the >>existing mechnisms. With other words, it is >>about "enhancement", not about "subordination" >>or "substitution" or "oversight" or >>"replacement" or "takeover". And this is an >>important difference. The Chinese MAG member >>proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to >>substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an >>intergovernmental negotiation process to move >>towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. >>The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is >>rather similar to what is considered by the >>Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the >>CeO Cross Border Internet Expert Group is that >>we recogn >>ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" >>of governments in Internet Governance but in a >>way that this intergovernmental component >>should be embedded into a multistakeholder >>framework of commitments. The objective is not >>to create a new hierachiy for top down policy >>and decision making, the objective is to >>create an enhanced network where stakeholders >>can "enhance" their communication, coordination >>and collaboration both among themselves and and >>with other stakeholders. >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 22 17:04:41 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:04:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> References: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, very good summary of the main issues under the three themes. While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal issue, I believe it is very important that we go beyond words and really mainstream it on the debates. I have just returned from the A2K Global Academy in Cape Town and one of the topics discussed, particularly in the presentation delivered by Laura De Nardis, was the interplay between infrastructure issues (such as peering agreements, interconnection costs and network neutrality) and A2K. The theme is also important if we consider that one of the main transboder issues under debate is IP enforcement and ISP liability. In sum, the regimes of “governance of knowledge” and of Internet governance are very much interconnected. It is regrettable to notice that the space that A2K has had in IGF agenda has continuously diminished over the years. Last year A2K was placed under "Security, openness and privacy" main session, which already embodies a lot of controversial and important topics. As predicted, A2K had no space for discussion. Best, Marilia On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:13 AM, parminder wrote: > "If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes sense > to try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the inbound edge > (and leave the publisher to offset that by the income generation in his own > business plan), rather than handing out an indefinite "free lunch". " > > Pay-for-priority distorts the very nature of the Internet, and over time > the Internet will just not look the same. (Charging different fees for > download volumes is a very different thing. ) It changes the level playing > field nature of this new and revolutionary communication paradigm of the > Internet. It thus impacts freedom of expression, economic competitiveness > for new players, and egalitarian possibilities that Internet offer. A simple > cost-profit and economic feasibility framework is not the best way to > understand the implications of the NN issue, as it is not for media and > other constructions of the public sphere, and as it not for many other > social and cultural issues. Happy to discuss this issue further - quite > close to my heart. > > parminder > > Roland Perry wrote: > > In message , > at 19:14:11 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes > > Should different rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks? If > so, how can communications rights and Access to Knowledge be preserved for > those users, in order to avoid an ongoing information divide > > > I recall debates (in the UK) about fifteen years ago where the theme was > wanting "freephone" or "800" access to ISP modem banks on the grounds that > paying around five dollars[1] an hour for a regular phone call was some kind > of infringement of a right to free expression. > > No-one was able to explain how the dial-up telephone infrastructure which > is required to support [what eventually became at some times of day the > biggest user of the telephone network] was to be paid for. > > Eventually a compromise of paying at "local call" cost of perhaps 2 cents a > minute, despite the calls often being long distance, was arrived at. Then > ten years ago cable and ADSL happened, and people forgot the charging > aspects of dial-up Internet, along with forgetting the restricted bandwidth. > > > Now history is repeating itself with 3G data (very few people even expected > to use 2/2.5G data for more than email). Carriers who over-generously > offered "unlimited" plans of perhaps one to three Gigabytes a month for > thirty dollars (which includes handset rental and voice calls) find their > networks choked by people downloading streaming video, and try to invoke > caps [limits] typically in the region of half a Gigabyte a month. Which > would be several year's worth of email, even for a prolific user such as > myself. > > For those using 3G 'dongles' rather than phones, a cost of around fifteen > dollars per Gigabyte is typical (there are no "unlimited" plans that I'm > aware of). But that's a lot of money to watch a movie (one Gigabyte is a > quarter of a DVD), when it's been estimated that mainstream ADSL costs the > ISPs about 20 cents per hour for TV-quality movies. > > So this is not about Network Neutrality, but "Local Loop neutrality", where > end users are in denial about the varying costs of telecoms provision *of > that last mile*, be it by GSM, ADSL or whatever. The previous thousand miles > will cost much the same irrespective of the technology of the local loop. > > If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes sense to > try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the inbound edge (and > leave the publisher to offset that by the income generation in his own > business plan), rather than handing out an indefinite "free lunch". > > Of course, if users are happy to express their freedom in ways other than > downloading movies all day, there isn't a problem. > > [1] I use USA money as it's more recognisable. > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jan 22 17:05:50 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:05:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> References: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4D3AC9EF.3030200 at itforchange.net>, at 17:43:35 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, parminder writes >"If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes >sense to try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the >inbound edge (and leave the publisher to offset that by the income >generation in his own business plan), rather than handing out an >indefinite "free lunch". " > >Pay-for-priority distorts the very nature of the Internet, and over >time the Internet will just not look the same. (Charging different fees >for download volumes is a very different thing. ) The only cases where "priority" in real time matters is streaming content such as VoIP and video. The latter is mainly a "download volume" issue, but there are some issues with VoIP where telcos and governments sometimes see it as an abstraction of revenue. To that extent I agree that an Internet without VoIP would be different. >It changes the level playing field nature of this new and revolutionary >communication paradigm of the Internet. It thus impacts freedom of >expression, economic competitiveness for new players, and egalitarian >possibilities that Internet offer. But only for the one application (VoIP) which competes head-on with the carriers. There isn't another (unless you count IM vs SMS, and I don't see much liklihood of mobile networks throttling IM to force you to use SMS instead). >A simple cost-profit and economic feasibility >framework is not the best way to understand the implications of the NN >issue, as it is not for media and other constructions of the public >sphere, and as it not for many other social and cultural issues. Happy >to discuss this issue further - quite close to my heart. Also very happy to discuss which applications, other than video streaming and VoIP, you think might be affected by lack of neutrality. And can I assume from your opening remarks that you think it's OK to charge for the extra burden of streaming video? -- 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 Sat Jan 22 17:10:29 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:10:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: <4D3AD5F5.90707@itforchange.net> References: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> <4D3AA246.2080207@itforchange.net> <4D3AD5F5.90707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4D3AD5F5.90707 at itforchange.net>, at 18:34:53 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, parminder writes >Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4D3AA246.2080207 at itforchange.net>, at 14:54:22 on Sat, > 22 Jan 2011, parminder writes > The fact that all the above mega corporates, as well as ICANN >> itself, > I thought you were trying to avoid discussions which confuse > governance of the infrastructure with governance of the content. > are as you say are companies registered in the US is a huge IG >> issue. I dont want my personal data to be accessed by anyone >> without my consent. And if exceptional conditions of possible >> involvement in a crime etc are involved I would have it handled >> only by a body/ authority  in whose constitution I have a >> democratic role, which regrettably is not the case with the US >> gov. > Then it is up to you (and those of a like mind) to "vote with your > feet" and subscribe to websites run from different jurisdictions. > And if you don't think they exist, it's not the Internet > infrastructure that's preventing it. >What do you think is preventing it? Mainly the first-mover advantage that seems to be very much the hallmark of famous US-based applications. >If your response to cross border issues I bring up is to advice cutting >back to an Internet (or Internets) that fits jurisdictional boundaries, >it is indeed an internally coherent solution. However, I still think >that it is possible to preserve a global Internet if we can muster >enough political  will and courage to develop the necessary global >political system. I'd be very happy to see a co-ordinated regulatory framework applied globally, for issues such as Data Privacy (and disclosure to law enforcement) and so on. The whole world signed up to the Budapest Convention! -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sat Jan 22 17:24:50 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:24:50 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: "If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes sense to try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the inbound edge (and leave the publisher to offset that by the income generation in his own business plan), rather than handing out an indefinite "free lunch". One of the panelists in the recent A2K GA argued that there is no technical reason to treat cable and wireless differently. In fact, the traffic that circulates in regular "wired" connection is partly transmitted in a wireless manner already. >From what I have seen on previous NN debates in IGF, the industry tends to focus on technical design while CS tends to focus on rights and no real dialogue comes out of the session. It would be very good to invite people to the debate that could question the premises used by the industry. That would help to "force" a dialogue and to bridge the technical and the rights approach. On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <4D3AC9EF.3030200 at itforchange.net>, at 17:43:35 on Sat, 22 Jan > 2011, parminder writes > > "If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes >> sense to try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the >> inbound edge (and leave the publisher to offset that by the income >> generation in his own business plan), rather than handing out an >> indefinite "free lunch". " >> >> Pay-for-priority distorts the very nature of the Internet, and over >> time the Internet will just not look the same. (Charging different fees >> for download volumes is a very different thing. ) >> > > The only cases where "priority" in real time matters is streaming content > such as VoIP and video. The latter is mainly a "download volume" issue, but > there are some issues with VoIP where telcos and governments sometimes see > it as an abstraction of revenue. To that extent I agree that an Internet > without VoIP would be different. > > > It changes the level playing field nature of this new and revolutionary >> communication paradigm of the Internet. It thus impacts freedom of >> expression, economic competitiveness for new players, and egalitarian >> possibilities that Internet offer. >> > > But only for the one application (VoIP) which competes head-on with the > carriers. There isn't another (unless you count IM vs SMS, and I don't see > much liklihood of mobile networks throttling IM to force you to use SMS > instead). > > > A simple cost-profit and economic feasibility >> framework is not the best way to understand the implications of the NN >> issue, as it is not for media and other constructions of the public >> sphere, and as it not for many other social and cultural issues. Happy >> to discuss this issue further - quite close to my heart. >> > > Also very happy to discuss which applications, other than video streaming > and VoIP, you think might be affected by lack of neutrality. > > And can I assume from your opening remarks that you think it's OK to charge > for the extra burden of streaming video? > > > -- > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Jan 22 17:24:32 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:24:32 +1100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I¹m with Marilia for advancing the A2K agenda. From: Marilia Maciel Reply-To: , Marilia Maciel Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:04:41 -0200 To: Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme Hi Jeremy, very good summary of the main issues under the three themes. While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal issue, I believe it is very important that we go beyond words and really mainstream it on the debates. I have just returned from the A2K Global Academy in Cape Town and one of the topics discussed, particularly in the presentation delivered by Laura De Nardis, was the interplay between infrastructure issues (such as peering agreements, interconnection costs and network neutrality) and A2K. The theme is also important if we consider that one of the main transboder issues under debate is IP enforcement and ISP liability. In sum, the regimes of ³governance of knowledge² and of Internet governance are very much interconnected. It is regrettable to notice that the space that A2K has had in IGF agenda has continuously diminished over the years. Last year A2K was placed under "Security, openness and privacy" main session, which already embodies a lot of controversial and important topics. As predicted, A2K had no space for discussion. Best, Marilia On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:13 AM, parminder wrote: > > "If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes sense to > try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the inbound edge (and > leave the publisher to offset that by the income generation in his own > business plan), rather than handing out an indefinite "free lunch". " > > Pay-for-priority distorts the very nature of the Internet, and over time the > Internet will just not look the same. (Charging different fees for download > volumes is a very different thing. ) It changes the level playing field nature > of this new and revolutionary communication paradigm of the Internet. It thus > impacts freedom of expression, economic competitiveness for new players, and > egalitarian possibilities that Internet offer. A simple cost-profit and > economic feasibility framework is not the best way to understand the > implications of the NN issue, as it is not for media and other constructions > of the public sphere, and as it not for many other social and cultural issues. > Happy to discuss this issue further - quite close to my heart. > > parminder > > Roland Perry wrote: >> In message >> , at 19:14:11 on >> Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm >> writes >> >> >>> Should different rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks?  If so, >>> how can communications rights and Access to Knowledge be preserved for those >>> users, in order to avoid an ongoing information divide >>> >> >> I recall debates (in the UK) about fifteen years ago where the theme was >> wanting "freephone" or "800" access to ISP modem banks on the grounds that >> paying around five dollars[1] an hour for a regular phone call was some kind >> of infringement of a right to free expression. >> >> No-one was able to explain how the dial-up telephone infrastructure which is >> required to support [what eventually became at some times of day the biggest >> user of the telephone network] was to be paid for. >> >> Eventually a compromise of paying at "local call" cost of perhaps 2 cents a >> minute, despite the calls often being long distance, was arrived at. Then ten >> years ago cable and ADSL happened, and people forgot the charging aspects of >> dial-up Internet, along with forgetting the restricted bandwidth. >> >> Now history is repeating itself with 3G data (very few people even expected >> to use 2/2.5G data for more than email). Carriers who over-generously offered >> "unlimited" plans of perhaps one to three Gigabytes a month for thirty >> dollars (which includes handset rental and voice calls) find their networks >> choked by people downloading streaming video, and try to invoke caps [limits] >> typically in the region of half a Gigabyte a month. Which would be several >> year's worth of email, even for a prolific user such as myself. >> >> For those using 3G 'dongles' rather than phones, a cost of around fifteen >> dollars per Gigabyte is typical (there are no "unlimited" plans that I'm >> aware of). But that's a lot of money to watch a movie (one Gigabyte is a >> quarter of a DVD), when it's been estimated that mainstream ADSL costs the >> ISPs about 20 cents per hour for TV-quality movies. >> >> So this is not about Network Neutrality, but "Local Loop neutrality", where >> end users are in denial about the varying costs of telecoms provision *of >> that last mile*, be it by GSM, ADSL or whatever. The previous thousand miles >> will cost much the same irrespective of the technology of the local loop. >> >> If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes sense to >> try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the inbound edge (and >> leave the publisher to offset that by the income generation in his own >> business plan), rather than handing out an indefinite "free lunch". >> >> Of course, if users are happy to express their freedom in ways other than >> downloading movies all day, there isn't a problem. >> >> [1] I use USA money as it's more recognisable. >> > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jan 22 18:46:58 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:46:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2FC06E48-1780-45EF-89DC-1207BFA2F8DB@ciroap.org> On 23/01/2011, at 6:04 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal issue, I believe it is very important that we go beyond words and really mainstream it on the debates. > Marilia and Ian, I'm not sure from your comments if you are both saying that you want to see us putting forward a separate fourth theme (since I don't see anyone suggesting that we should remove one of the existing three themes). Could you clarify and, if that is what you are saying, perhaps suggest some text? -- 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sat Jan 22 19:02:03 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:02:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: <2FC06E48-1780-45EF-89DC-1207BFA2F8DB@ciroap.org> References: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> <2FC06E48-1780-45EF-89DC-1207BFA2F8DB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, I did not suggest it as a forth theme, since you said that we generally only put forward three topics. If you guys believe that a fourth theme should be added, I would be happy to draft a text. If three themes seem to be the best way to go, I would like to ask us to *really* make A2K present in all discussions as you suggested. For that, we will need to carefully think about the approach and the names of speakers for the main sessions, who could link A2K with NN, transborder issues, etc. Of course, workshop proposals would be also important to reach a more rounded understanding of these interplays. Marília On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 23/01/2011, at 6:04 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal issue, I > believe it is very important that we go beyond words and really mainstream > it on the debates. > > Marilia and Ian, I'm not sure from your comments if you are both saying > that you want to see us putting forward a separate fourth theme (since I > don't see anyone suggesting that we should remove one of the existing three > themes). Could you clarify and, if that is what you are saying, perhaps > suggest some text? > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > * > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to > consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > Twitter #CICongress > * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Jan 22 21:47:59 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:47:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> <2FC06E48-1780-45EF-89DC-1207BFA2F8DB@ciroap.org>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, A quick word of encouragement for Marila to draft a fourth possible a2k theme, can't hurt right. But in general I am fine with Jeremy's distillation of three workable themes Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:02 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme Hi Jeremy, I did not suggest it as a forth theme, since you said that we generally only put forward three topics. If you guys believe that a fourth theme should be added, I would be happy to draft a text. If three themes seem to be the best way to go, I would like to ask us to *really* make A2K present in all discussions as you suggested. For that, we will need to carefully think about the approach and the names of speakers for the main sessions, who could link A2K with NN, transborder issues, etc. Of course, workshop proposals would be also important to reach a more rounded understanding of these interplays. Marília On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: On 23/01/2011, at 6:04 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal issue, I believe it is very important that we go beyond words and really mainstream it on the debates. Marilia and Ian, I'm not sure from your comments if you are both saying that you want to see us putting forward a separate fourth theme (since I don't see anyone suggesting that we should remove one of the existing three themes). Could you clarify and, if that is what you are saying, perhaps suggest some text? -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 22 22:04:30 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 22:04:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: References: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> <4D3AA246.2080207@itforchange.net> <4D3AD5F5.90707@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, A couple points: First in honor of President Hu of China's just concluded US visit, we should remember by far the largest mobile telco - and hence probably largest player in mobile Internet if not already the largest - is China Mobile. Which is approaching 600m subscribers. Total Internet subs in China are about 500m. The increasingly dominant search provider is Baidu, not Google; according to a report from a couple days ago 'Baidu's share of the increasingly lucrative sector hit 75.5 per cent in the last three months of the year, compared with 73 per cent in the third quarter.' That is 4thquarter 2010 numbers. So point is focusing on US companies alone misses - a lot - of the present global Internet, not just in China. Second, in regard to charging for priority...that has been widely done for many years, albeit it is usually the content owners/advertisers paying trying to get streams to end users at a higher quality. For example, from Akamai's website: "If you use the Internet for anything - to download music or software, check the headlines, book a flight - you've probably used Akamai's services without even knowing it. We play a critical role in getting content from providers to consumers. Akamai has created a digital operating environment for the Web. Our global platform of thousands of specially-equipped servers helps the Internet withstand the crush of daily requests for rich, dynamic, and interactive content, transactions, and applications. When delivering on these requests, Akamai detects and avoids Internet problem spots and vulnerabilities, to ensure Websites perform optimally, media and software download flawlessly, and applications perform reliably." My aim is not to nitpick, and I continue to support a framework convention or other mechanism - like a declaration of Internet Rights and Principles - to strengthen enhanced cooperation/global Internet governance. In sum, yes there are many cross-border Internet issues; yes the US government and US-based corporations are players, but the framing is - dated - if it misses inclusion of half a billion users and companies that serve them. And don't notice all the companies paying other companies for priority access - to us end users. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:10 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] cross-border IG issues In message <4D3AD5F5.90707 at itforchange.net>, at 18:34:53 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, parminder writes >Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4D3AA246.2080207 at itforchange.net>, at 14:54:22 on Sat, > 22 Jan 2011, parminder writes > The fact that all the above mega corporates, as well as ICANN >> itself, > I thought you were trying to avoid discussions which confuse > governance of the infrastructure with governance of the content. > are as you say are companies registered in the US is a huge IG >> issue. I dont want my personal data to be accessed by anyone >> without my consent. And if exceptional conditions of possible >> involvement in a crime etc are involved I would have it handled >> only by a body/ authority in whose constitution I have a >> democratic role, which regrettably is not the case with the US >> gov. > Then it is up to you (and those of a like mind) to "vote with your > feet" and subscribe to websites run from different jurisdictions. > And if you don't think they exist, it's not the Internet > infrastructure that's preventing it. >What do you think is preventing it? Mainly the first-mover advantage that seems to be very much the hallmark of famous US-based applications. >If your response to cross border issues I bring up is to advice cutting >back to an Internet (or Internets) that fits jurisdictional boundaries, >it is indeed an internally coherent solution. However, I still think >that it is possible to preserve a global Internet if we can muster >enough political will and courage to develop the necessary global >political system. I'd be very happy to see a co-ordinated regulatory framework applied globally, for issues such as Data Privacy (and disclosure to law enforcement) and so on. The whole world signed up to the Budapest Convention! -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 23 01:00:42 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:30:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D3BC40A.2050405@itforchange.net> Jeremy, Thanks for this framing. Largely works for me. However, I prefer the use of the term or topic 'Network Neutrality on wired and wireless networks'. A couple of reasons for that. Outside the US the NN term is the one most clearly recognized, and used in telecom policy related discussions. For that matter, in EU too , NN is the recognised term, and the CoE expert group on cross border issues has 'cross border NN' as one of its main themes. Using the term open Internet also has the disadvantage of the discussion getting too defocussed over the umbrella theme of 'openness' at it got discussed in the earlier IGFs. Quite regrettably, many of those who do not want NN like themes to be taken up seriously at the global policy level use various kinds of thematic obfuscation to avoid meaningful discussion on this theme. We should avoid that trap. The issues around NN are rather clear today, and that is the clear discussion we want. Also IGC and others have held workshops on NN in the earlier IGFs, and theses efforts background taking up NN as a plenary theme. For all these reasons I think we shd stick to NN rather use the term 'open internet' though I completely understand Lee's arguments in this regard. Parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here (and at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it) is a statement based > on the suggestions for the Nairobi meeting programme. I have tried to > incorporate everything, so if I missed your suggestion please let me > know. > > Because we generally only put forward three topics, I have not > included A2K as a separate theme, but instead have expressly included > it in each of the other three themes. > > --- begins --- > > For the Nairobi 2011 meeting of the IGF, the Internet Governance > Caucus suggests the following main session themes: > > *1. Open **Wired and Mobile **Internet* > > Open Internet 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. > > With the explosion of Internet usage in the developing world mainly > occurring on mobile networks, it is particularly important to consider > how the ideal of open Internet will apply in the mobile space. Should > different rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks? If so, > how can communications rights and Access to Knowledge be preserved for > those users, in order to avoid an ongoing information divide? > > In proposing this topic for the Nairobi IGF, we want to particularly > ensure that it does not shy away from areas of disagreement. Only by > including panelists with divergent views on this topic can the very > real and practical Internet governance disputes in this area be > adequately and productively aired. > > *2. Cross border Issues* > > One of the oldest and thorniest issues for Internet governance > concerns the cross-border effects of national laws, policies, > enforcement practices, and the actions of intermediaries, on those who > have had no representation in the making of those laws, policies, etc. > Current examples include actions taken by governments and > intermediaries against Wikileaks, and the "seizure" of domain names > alleged to be connected with content piracy. > > The process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet policy issues > could lead to new proposals that would address some of these > cross-border anomalies and deficits. But at this stage of that > process, there is little shared understanding of the approach that > should be taken. This session will look at the philosophical > underpinnings and foundations that need to emerge in a world where > something like the Internet transcends boundaries and national > jurisdictions. Insights produced through this session may feed into > the enhanced coperation process. > > Once again, it will be important for discussion of this topic to > involve stakeholders with diverging views, discussing concrete issues > that demand eventual resolution. > > *3. Development agenda for Internet governance* > > Internet governance is not a neutral activity. All Internet governance > decisions have implications for development, though in some cases > these implications may be less obvious than in others, and they are > easily overlooked. > > An example is the way in which decisions about such diverse issues as > new global top level domains (gTLDs), Unicode, IP enforcement, > filtering and censorship, may have an adverse and sometimes unforeseen > impact on Access to Knowledge in the developing world. > > We propose a main session theme on developing a development agenda for > Internet governance, building on the similar session in Vilnius. This > session will help to draw out areas of Internet governance which have > significant impacts on development, and to suggest how development > concerns can be mainstreamed in Internet governance institutions that > have responsibility in these areas. > > --- ends --- > > If you want to make paragraph-level comments, you can do so on the > list or you can do so at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it, our > Web-based tool which allows for threaded comments on each individual > paragraph. I will summarise back here at the end. > > In other news... you may now edit your profile at > http://www.igcaucus.org to include additional optional fields - > previously those who tried to do this received an "LDAP error". Other > than this, I don't have any more new progress to report on the Web > site yet. > -- > > *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. > -- 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 Sun Jan 23 01:34:55 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:04:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] net neutrality Message-ID: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to *not* do something about this issue. So many times a discussion on NN on this list has run into this wall - it is a very complex issues with many sides to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a good enough reason for abdication. One often hears excuses like, with voice and video domination the internet today NN is a meaningless concept. Not so at all. We can have specific provisions whereby specific applications can have different treatments while being content-provider neutral, this latter being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have oftne been mentioned in discussions here earlier. These guidelines allow space to manage voice and vedio applications related issues. IS there any reason why Norway's guidelines cannot be used globally, and why should IGC be forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon enough there is not a basic global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway like countries may not be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness of the Internet and its basic architectural principles. What I am arguing for is that we should not only propose NN as a plenary topic and absolutely put our foot down that it must be accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find the whole exercise meaningless and may not even want to participate.... I mean the kind of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder The end of the net as we know it Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them first. Barry Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the latest episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your laptop’s speakers, you’re left staring at the whirring, circular icon as the video buffers and buffers and buffers... That’s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just moments ago. There’s nothing wrong with your connection; it must be iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out if anyone else is having problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on your screen leaves you looking more startled than Bill Bailey. “This service isn’t supported on your broadband service. Click here to visit our social-networking partner, Facebook.” Net neutrality? We don’t have it today The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat. Britain’s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier internet, where websites and services that are willing to pay are thrust into the “fast lane”, while those that don’t are left fighting for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. They’re not so much ripping up the cherished notion of net neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and lighting the match. The only question is: can they get away with it? *No such thing as net neutrality* It’s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality – ISPs treating different types of internet traffic or content equally – is already a busted flush. “Net neutrality? We don’t have it today,” argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, Britain’s second biggest ISP. “We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all levels, with huge levels of widespread discrimination of traffic types. [Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low speed; some buy a lot of capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped. “So the suggestion that – ‘oh dear, it is terrible, we might move to a two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let’s get real, we have a very multifaceted and multitiered internet today,” Heaney said. Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be “unthinkable” to return to an internet where every packet of data was given equal weight. “Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in which all data, all the bits and the packets were treated in the same way as they passed through the network,” said Simon Milner, BT’s director of group industry policy. “That was an internet that wasn’t about the internet that we have today: it wasn’t about speech, it wasn’t about video, and it certainly wasn’t about television. “Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that applications would grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some tools were needed to make this network work more effectively, and that’s why traffic management techniques and guaranteed quality of service were developed in the 1990s, and then deep-packet inspection came along roughly ten years ago,” he added. “These techniques and equipment are essential for the development of the internet we see today.” It’s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen Internet don’t employ any traffic shaping across their network, and Zen has won the /PC Pro/ Best Broadband ISP award for the past seven years. Even today’s traffic management methods can cause huge problems for certain websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a common victim of ISPs’ traffic management policies, often being deprioritised to a snail’s pace during peak hours. While the intended target may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients to download illicit copies of the latest movie releases, legitimate applications can also fall victim to such blunderbuss filtering. “Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,” said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP service Skype. “They go from the lovely peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, all the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which used to run on P2P software] or Skype. So what does that mean? If I manage my traffic from a technical perspective, knowing that Skype actually doesn’t eat up much bandwidth at all, why should it be deprioritised because it’s peer-to-peer?” Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more vividly than on the mobile internet Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more vividly than on the mobile internet. Websites and services blocked at the whim of the network, video so compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and varying charges for different types of data are already commonplace. Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful of losing phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching the BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all networks outlaw tethering a mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on standard “unlimited data” contracts. Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has this chilling warning for fixed-line broadband users: “Look at the mobile market, think if that is how you want your internet and your devices to work in the future, because that’s where things are leading.” *Video blockers* Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic blocking measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there’s one area in which ISPs are gagging to rip up what’s left of the cherished concept of net neutrality, it’s video. Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the largest single category of internet traffic, according to Cisco’s Visual Networking Index. It’s the chief reason why the amount of data used by the average internet connection has shot up by 31% over the past year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month. Internet TV Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for ISPs and broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter traffic management policies to make sure networks don’t collapse under the weight of video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay content delivery networks (CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds every year to distribute their video across the network and closer to the consumer; this helps avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands of people attempt to stream The Apprentice at the same time. Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video broadcasters to pay them – instead of the CDNs – for guaranteed bandwidth. So if, for example, the BBC wants to guarantee that TalkTalk customers can watch uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing to pay for the privilege. A senior executive at a major broadcaster told /PC Pro/ that his company has already been approached by two leading ISPs looking to cut such a deal. Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the “fast lane”; those who don’t will be left to fight their way through the regular internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a video, perhaps even one you’ve paid for, may no longer depend on the raw speed of your connection or the amount of network congestion, but whether the broadcaster has paid your ISP for a prioritised stream. “We absolutely could see situations in which some content or application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service above best efforts,” admitted BT’s Simon Milner at a recent Westminster eForum. “That is the kind of thing that we’d have to explain in our traffic management policies, and indeed we’d do so, and then if somebody decided, ‘well, actually I don’t want to have that kind of service’, they would be free to go elsewhere.” We absolutely could see situations in which some content or application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service above best efforts It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk would be willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big enough cheque, TalkTalk’s Andrew Heaney replied: “We’d do a deal, and we’d look at YouTube and we’d look at BBC and we should have freedom to sign whatever deal works.” That’s the country’s two biggest ISPs – with more than eight million broadband households between them – openly admitting they’d either cut off or effectively cripple video streams from an internet broadcaster if it wasn’t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. “The founding principle of the internet is that everyone – from individuals to global companies – has equal access,” wrote the BBC’s director of future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net neutrality. “Since the beginning, the internet has been ‘neutral’, and everyone has been treated the same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes allow broadband providers to effectively pick and choose what you see first and fastest.” ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out certain sites or services. “We strongly believe that traffic throttling shouldn’t be conducted on the basis of content provider; throttling access to content from a particular company or institution,” the broadcaster said in a recent submission to regulator Ofcom’s consultation on net neutrality. Sky, on the other hand – which is both a broadcaster and one of the country’s leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit from shutting out rival broadcasters – raised no such objection in its submission to Ofcom. “Competition can and should be relied upon to provide the necessary consumer safeguards,” Sky argued. Can it? Would YouTube – which was initially run from a small office above a pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion takeover – have got off the ground if its three founders had been forced to pay ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos could be watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. *Walled-garden web* It isn’t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially be blocked by ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself barred if one of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with an ISP, returning the web to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of the late 1990s. Stop sign This isn’t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely popular sites being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by the Government. “I sign up to the two-year contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months my daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door and says ‘father, I can’t access Facebook any more’,” hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of international ICT policy at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. “I say ‘Why?’. She says ‘It’s quite obvious, I have gone to the site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, don’t take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn’t pay them the money, but YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube’: Minister, is that acceptable? That is the sort of question we face.” *Where’s the regulator?* So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say “yes”, think about the prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? It ran a consultation on net neutrality earlier this year, with spiky contributions from ISPs and broadcasters alike, but it appears to be coming down on the side of the broadband providers. “I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net neutrality] that we see the real economic merits to the idea of allowing a two-sided market to emerge,” said Alex Blowers, international director at Ofcom. “Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to us that the consumer expectation will be a service that’s of a reasonably consistent quality, that allows you to actually sit down at the beginning of a film and watch it to the end without constant problems of jitter or the picture hanging,” he said. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse to pay the ISPs’ bounty will be subject to stuttering quality. Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. “We are concerned that Ofcom isn’t currently taking a firm stance in relation to throttling,” ITV said in its submission to the regulator. The BBC also said it has “concerns about the increasing potential incentives for discriminatory behaviour by network operators, which risks undermining the internet’s character, and ultimately resulting in consumer harm”. Ofcom’s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as “there is very little evidence” that “the big beasts of the content application and services world are coming together and doing deals with big beasts of the network and ISP world”. The regulator also places great faith in the power of competition: the theory that broadband subscribers would simply jump ship to another ISP if their provider started doing beastly things – for example, cutting off services such as the iPlayer. It’s a theory echoed by the ISPs themselves. “If we started blocking access to certain news sites, you could be sure within about 23 minutes it would be up on a blog and we’d be chastised for it, quite rightly too,” said TalkTalk’s Heaney. First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute the content, services and applications they want Yet, in the age of bundled packages – where broadband subscriptions are routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, telephone or mobile services – hopping from one ISP to another is rarely simple. Not to mention the 18-month or two-year contracts broadband customers are frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed out in its submission to the regulator, “Ofcom’s 2009 research showed that a quarter of households found it difficult to switch broadband and bundled services”, with the “perceived hassle of the switching process” and “the threat of additional charges” dissuading potential switchers. “Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that’s that,” argued the Open Rights Group’s Jim Killock. “So you make your choice and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the internet is you make your choice, you don’t like it, you change your mind.” The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open internet may lie with the EU (although even its determination is wavering). The EU’s 2009 framework requires national regulators such as Ofcom to promote “the ability of end users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice” and that ISPs are transparent about any traffic management. It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners in the “fast lane” and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to set “minimum quality of service requirements” – forcing ISPs to reserve a set amount of bandwidth so that their traffic management doesn’t hobble those sites that can’t afford to pay. It’s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn’t have to use this new power handed down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. “There doesn’t yet seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a public intervention that would effectively create a new industry structure around this idea of a guaranteed ‘best efforts’ internet underpinned by legislation,” said Ofcom’s Blowers. It’s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. “Ofcom’s approach creates large risks for the open internet,” said Killock. “Its attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are weak, by relying on transparency and competition alone, and it’s unfortunate it hasn’t addressed the idea of a minimum service guarantee.” At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn’t be permitted to block legal websites or services that conflict with their commercial interests. “First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute the content, services and applications they want,” said European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes earlier this year. “Discrimination against undesired competitors – for instance, those providing voice-over the internet services – shouldn’t be allowed.” Yet, Ofcom doesn’t even regard this as a major issue. “When VoIP services were first launched in the UK, most [mobile] network operators were against permitting VoIP,” Blowers said. “We now know that you can find packages from a number of suppliers that do permit VoIP services. So I’m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of gaming behaviour around blocking services will be a real problem.” If the EU doesn’t drag the UK’s relaxed regulator into line with the rest of the world, it will be British internet users who have the real problem. *Author:* Barry Collins Read more: The end of the net as we know it | Broadband | Features | PC Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y -- PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: it_photo_159070_50.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8272 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: it_photo_159073_50.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5729 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 23 01:48:31 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:48:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> References: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Some background (self serving plug to a paper written by some colleagues and me, "A Comparison of Network Neutrality Approaches In: The U.S., Japan, and the European Union".) Adam >Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. > >I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, >can afford to *not* do something about this >issue. So many times a discussion on NN on this >list has run into this wall - it is a very >complex issues with many sides to it'. So ??? I >dont think this is a good enough reason for >abdication. One often hears excuses like, with >voice and video domination the internet today NN >is a meaningless concept. Not so at all. We can >have specific provisions whereby specific >applications can have different treatments while >being content-provider neutral, this latter >being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have >oftne been mentioned in discussions here >earlier. These guidelines allow space to manage >voice and vedio applications related issues. IS >there any reason why Norway's guidelines cannot >be used globally, and why should IGC be >forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon >enough there is not a basic global consensus on >NN guidelines even Norway like countries may not >be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness >of the Internet and its basic architectural >principles. > >What I am arguing for is that we should not only >propose NN as a plenary topic and absolutely put >our foot down that it must be accepted as a >plenary topic, or else we find the whole >exercise meaningless and may not even want to >participate.... I mean the kind of warnings we >issue about Ms-ism. Parminder > > > The end of the net as we know it > >Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 > >ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that >don't pay them first. Barry Collins fears a >disastrous end to net neutrality > >You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC >iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the latest >episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, >plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your >laptop¹s speakers, you¹re left staring at the >whirring, circular icon as the video buffers and >buffers and buffers... > >That¹s odd. Not only have you got a new >40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but you >were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just >moments ago. There¹s nothing wrong with your >connection; it must be iPlayer. So you head to >Twitter to find out if anyone else is having >problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The >message that appears on your screen leaves you >looking more startled than Bill Bailey. ³This >service isn¹t supported on your broadband >service. Click here to visit our >social-networking partner, Facebook.² > > Net neutrality? We don¹t have it today > >The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is >under threat. Britain¹s leading ISPs are >attempting to construct a two-tier internet, >where websites and services that are willing to >pay are thrust into the ³fast lane², while those >that don¹t are left fighting for scraps of >bandwidth or even blocked outright. They¹re not >so much ripping up the cherished notion of net >neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and >lighting the match. The only question is: can >they get away with it? > >*No such thing as net neutrality* > >It¹s worth pointing out that the concept of net >neutrality ­ ISPs treating different types of >internet traffic or content equally ­ is already >a busted flush. ³Net neutrality? We don¹t have >it today,² argues Andrew Heaney, executive >director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, >Britain¹s second biggest ISP. > >³We have an unbelievably good, differentiated >network at all levels, with huge levels of >widespread discrimination of traffic types. >[Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low >speed; some buy a lot of capacity, some buy >less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped. >³So the suggestion that ­ Œoh dear, it is >terrible, we might move to a two-tiered internet >in the future'... well, let¹s get real, we have >a very multifaceted and multitiered internet >today,² Heaney said. > >Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be >³unthinkable² to return to an internet where >every packet of data was given equal weight. >³Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in >which all data, all the bits and the packets >were treated in the same way as they passed >through the network,² said Simon Milner, BT¹s >director of group industry policy. ³That was an >internet that wasn¹t about the internet that we >have today: it wasn¹t about speech, it wasn¹t >about video, and it certainly wasn¹t about >television. > >³Twenty years ago, the computer scientists >realised that applications would grab as much >bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some >tools were needed to make this network work more >effectively, and that¹s why traffic management >techniques and guaranteed quality of service >were developed in the 1990s, and then >deep-packet inspection came along roughly ten >years ago,² he added. ³These techniques and >equipment are essential for the development of >the internet we see today.² > >It¹s interesting to note that some smaller (and, >yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen Internet >don¹t employ any traffic shaping across their >network, and Zen has won the /PC Pro/ Best >Broadband ISP award > for >the past seven years. > >Even today¹s traffic management methods can >cause huge problems for certain websites and >services. Peer-to-peer services are a common >victim of ISPs¹ traffic management policies, >often being deprioritised to a snail¹s pace >during peak hours. While the intended target may >be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients >to download illicit copies of the latest movie >releases, legitimate applications can also fall >victim to such blunderbuss filtering. > >³Peer-to-peer applications are very wide >ranging,² said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director of >government and regulatory affairs at VoIP >service Skype. ³They go from the lovely >peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that were >referred to in the Digital Economy Act, all the >way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which >used to run on P2P software] or Skype. So what >does that mean? If I manage my traffic from a >technical perspective, knowing that Skype >actually doesn¹t eat up much bandwidth at all, >why should it be deprioritised because it¹s >peer-to-peer?² > > Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt > more vividly than on the mobile internet > >Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic >management been felt more vividly than on the >mobile internet. Websites and services blocked >at the whim of the network, video so compressed >it looks like an Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and >varying charges for different types of data are >already commonplace. > >Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile >networks fearful of losing phone call revenue; >02 bans iPhone owners from watching the BBC >iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all >networks outlaw tethering a mobile phone to a >laptop or tablet on standard ³unlimited data² >contracts. > >Jim Killock, executive director of the Open >Rights Group, has this chilling warning for >fixed-line broadband users: ³Look at the mobile >market, think if that is how you want your >internet and your devices to work in the future, >because that¹s where things are leading.² > >*Video blockers* > >Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted >the more drastic blocking measures chosen by the >mobile operators. But if there¹s one area in >which ISPs are gagging to rip up what¹s left of >the cherished concept of net neutrality, it¹s >video. > >Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer >to become the largest single category of >internet traffic, according to Cisco¹s Visual >Networking Index. It¹s the chief reason why the >amount of data used by the average internet >connection has shot up by 31% over the past >year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month. > >Internet TV > > >Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major >headache for ISPs and broadcasters alike. ISPs >are introducing ever tighter traffic management >policies to make sure networks don¹t collapse >under the weight of video-on-demand during peak >hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters such as the BBC >and Channel 4 pay content delivery networks >(CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds every >year to distribute their video across the >network and closer to the consumer; this helps >avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of >thousands of people attempt to stream The >Apprentice at the same time. > >Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and >get video broadcasters to pay them ­ instead of >the CDNs ­ for guaranteed bandwidth. So if, for >example, the BBC wants to guarantee that >TalkTalk customers can watch uninterrupted HD >streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing >to pay for the privilege. A senior executive at >a major broadcaster told /PC Pro/ that his >company has already been approached by two >leading ISPs looking to cut such a deal. > >Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the >³fast lane²; those who don¹t will be left to >fight their way through the regular internet >traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a >video, perhaps even one you¹ve paid for, may no >longer depend on the raw speed of your >connection or the amount of network congestion, >but whether the broadcaster has paid your ISP >for a prioritised stream. > >³We absolutely could see situations in which >some content or application providers might want >to pay BT for a quality of service above best >efforts,² admitted BT¹s Simon Milner at a recent >Westminster eForum. ³That is the kind of thing >that we¹d have to explain in our traffic >management policies, and indeed we¹d do so, and >then if somebody decided, Œwell, actually I >don¹t want to have that kind of service¹, they >would be free to go elsewhere.² > > We absolutely could see situations in which some content or > application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service > above best efforts > >It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum >whether TalkTalk would be willing to cut off >access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour of >YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big >enough cheque, TalkTalk¹s Andrew Heaney replied: >³We¹d do a deal, and we¹d look at YouTube and >we¹d look at BBC and we should have freedom to >sign whatever deal works.² > >That¹s the country¹s two biggest ISPs ­ with >more than eight million broadband households >between them ­ openly admitting they¹d either >cut off or effectively cripple video streams >from an internet >broadcaster if it wasn¹t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. > >Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters >are fearful. ³The founding principle of the >internet is that everyone ­ from individuals to >global companies ­ has equal access,² wrote the >BBC¹s director of future media and technology, >Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net >neutrality. ³Since the beginning, the internet >has been Œneutral¹, and everyone has been >treated the same. But the emergence of fast and >slow lanes allow broadband providers to >effectively pick and choose what you see first >and fastest.² > >ITV also opposes broadband providers being >allowed to shut out certain sites or services. >³We strongly believe that traffic throttling >shouldn¹t be conducted on the basis of content >provider; throttling access to content from a >particular company or institution,² the >broadcaster said in a recent submission to >regulator Ofcom¹s consultation on net neutrality. > >Sky, on the other hand ­ which is both a >broadcaster and one of the country¹s leading >ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit >from shutting out rival broadcasters ­ raised no >such objection in its submission to Ofcom. >³Competition can and should be relied upon to >provide the necessary consumer safeguards,² Sky >argued. > >Can it? Would YouTube ­ which was initially run >from a small office above a pizzeria before >Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion >takeover ­ have got off the ground if its three >founders had been forced to pay ISPs across the >globe to ensure its videos could be watched >smoothly? It seems unlikely. > >*Walled-garden web* > >It isn¹t only high-bandwidth video sites that >could potentially be blocked by ISPs. Virtually >any type of site could find itself barred if one >of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with >an ISP, returning the web to the kind of AOL >walled-garden approach of the late 1990s. > >Stop sign > > >This isn¹t journalistic scaremongering: the >prospect of hugely popular sites being blocked >by ISPs is already being debated by the >Government. ³I sign up to the two-year contract >[with an ISP] and after 18 months my daughter >comes and knocks on the lounge door and says >Œfather, I can¹t access Facebook any more¹,² >hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of >international ICT policy at the Department for >Business, Innovation and Skills. ³I say ŒWhy?¹. >She says ŒIt¹s quite obvious, I have gone to the >site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, >Sky, whatever, don¹t take Facebook any more. >Facebook wouldn¹t pay them the money, but >YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube¹: >Minister, is that acceptable? That is the sort >of question we face.² > >*Where¹s the regulator?* > >So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to >say ³yes², think about the prospect of ISPs >putting some sites in the fast lane and leaving >the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? >It ran a consultation on net neutrality earlier >this year, with spiky contributions from ISPs >and broadcasters alike, but it appears to be >coming down on the side of the broadband >providers. > >³I think we were very clear in our discussion >document [on net neutrality] that we see the >real economic merits to the idea of allowing a >two-sided market to emerge,² said Alex Blowers, >international director at Ofcom. > >³Particularly for applications such as IPTV, >where it seems to us that the consumer >expectation will be a service that¹s of a >reasonably consistent quality, that allows you >to actually sit down at the beginning of a film >and watch it to the end without constant >problems of jitter or the picture hanging,² he >said. Taking that argument to its logical >conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse to >pay the ISPs¹ bounty will be subject to >stuttering quality. > >Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be >tougher. ³We are concerned that Ofcom isn¹t >currently taking a firm stance in relation to >throttling,² ITV said in its submission to the >regulator. The BBC also said it has ³concerns >about the increasing potential incentives for >discriminatory behaviour by network operators, >which risks undermining the internet¹s >character, and ultimately resulting in consumer >harm². > >Ofcom¹s Blowers argues regulation would be >premature as ³there is very little evidence² >that ³the big beasts of the content application >and services world are coming together and doing >deals with big beasts of the network and ISP >world². > >The regulator also places great faith in the >power of competition: the theory that broadband >subscribers would simply jump ship to another >ISP if their provider started doing beastly >things ­ for example, cutting off services such >as the iPlayer. It¹s a theory echoed by the ISPs >themselves. ³If we started blocking access to >certain news sites, you could be sure within >about 23 minutes it would be up on a blog and >we¹d be chastised for it, quite rightly too,² >said TalkTalk¹s Heaney. > > First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute > the content, services and applications they want > >Yet, in the age of bundled packages ­ where >broadband subscriptions are routinely sold as >part of the same deal as TV, telephone or mobile >services ­ hopping from one ISP to another is >rarely simple. Not to mention the 18-month or >two-year contracts broadband customers are >frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed out in >its submission to the regulator, ³Ofcom¹s 2009 >research showed that a quarter of households >found it difficult to switch broadband and >bundled services², with the ³perceived hassle of >the switching process² and ³the threat of >additional charges² dissuading potential >switchers. > >³Once you have bought a device or entered a >contract, that¹s that,² argued the Open Rights >Group¹s Jim Killock. ³So you make your choice >and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the >internet is you make your choice, you don¹t like >it, you change your mind.² > >The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a >free and open internet may lie with the EU >(although even its determination is wavering). >The EU¹s 2009 framework requires national >regulators such as Ofcom to promote ³the ability >of end users to access and distribute >information or run applications and services of >their choice² and that ISPs are transparent >about any traffic management. > >It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting >favoured partners in the ³fast lane² and >crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to >set ³minimum quality of service requirements² ­ >forcing ISPs to reserve a set amount of >bandwidth so that their traffic management >doesn¹t hobble those sites that can¹t afford to >pay. > >It¹s a concept enthusiastically backed by the >BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or Ofcom, >which doesn¹t have to use this new power handed >down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. >³There doesn¹t yet seem to us to be an >overwhelming case for a public intervention that >would effectively create a new industry >structure around this idea of a guaranteed Œbest >efforts¹ internet underpinned by legislation,² >said Ofcom¹s Blowers. > >It¹s an attitude that sparks dismay from >campaigners. ³Ofcom¹s approach creates large >risks for the open internet,² said Killock. ³Its >attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are >weak, by relying on transparency and competition >alone, and it¹s unfortunate it hasn¹t addressed >the idea of a minimum service guarantee.² > >At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn¹t >be permitted to block legal websites or services >that conflict with their commercial interests. >³First and foremost, users should be able to >access and distribute the content, services and >applications they want,² said European >Commission vice president Neelie Kroes earlier >this year. >³Discrimination against undesired competitors ­ >for instance, those providing voice-over the >internet services ­ shouldn¹t be allowed.² > >Yet, Ofcom doesn¹t even regard this as a major >issue. ³When VoIP services were first launched >in the UK, most [mobile] network operators were >against permitting VoIP,² Blowers said. ³We now >know that you can find packages from a number of >suppliers that do permit VoIP services. >So I¹m not as pessimistic as some may be that >this kind of gaming behaviour around blocking >services will be a real problem.² > >If the EU doesn¹t drag the UK¹s relaxed >regulator into line with the rest of the world, >it will be British internet users who have the >real problem. > >*Author:* Barry Collins > > >Read more: The end of the net as we know it | >Broadband | Features | PC Pro > >http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y > >-- >PK > > >Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. > >I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, >can afford to *not* do something about this >issue. So many times a discussion on NN on this >list has run into this wall - it is a very >complex issues with many sides to it'. So ??? I >dont think this is a good enough reason for >abdication. One often hears excuses like, with >voice and video domination the internet today NN >is a meaningless concept. Not so at all. We can >have specific provisions whereby specific >applications can have different treatments while >being content-provider neutral, this latter >being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have >oftne been mentioned in discussions here >earlier. These guidelines allow space to manage >voice and vedio applications related issues. IS >there any reason why Norway's guidelines cannot >be used globally, and why should IGC be >forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon >enough there is not a basic global consensus on >NN guidelines even Norway like countries may not >be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness >of the Internet and its basic architectural >principles. > >What I am arguing for is that we should not only >propose NN as a plenary topic and absolutely put >our foot down that it must be accepted as a >plenary topic, or else we find the whole >exercise meaningless and may not even want to >participate.... I mean the kind of warnings we >issue about Ms-ism. Parminder > >The end of the net as we know it > >Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 > >ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that >don't pay them first. Barry Collins fears a >disastrous end to net neutrality > >You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC >iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the latest >episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, >plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your >laptop¹s speakers, you¹re left staring at the >whirring, circular icon as the video buffers and >buffers and buffers... > >That¹s odd. Not only have you got a new >40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but you >were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just >moments ago. There¹s nothing wrong with your >connection; it must be iPlayer. So you head to >Twitter to find out if anyone else is having >problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The >message that appears on your screen leaves you >looking more startled than Bill Bailey. ³This >service isn¹t supported on your broadband >service. Click here to visit our >social-networking partner, Facebook.² > >Net neutrality? We don¹t have it today > >The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is >under threat. Britain¹s leading ISPs are >attempting to construct a two-tier internet, >where websites and services that are willing to >pay are thrust into the ³fast lane², while those >that don¹t are left fighting for scraps of >bandwidth or even blocked outright. They¹re not >so much ripping up the cherished notion of net >neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and >lighting the match. The only question is: can >they get away with it? > >No such thing as net neutrality > >It¹s worth pointing out that the concept of net >neutrality ­ ISPs treating different types of >internet traffic or content equally ­ is already >a busted flush. ³Net neutrality? We don¹t have >it today,² argues Andrew Heaney, executive >director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, >Britain¹s second biggest ISP. > >³We have an unbelievably good, differentiated >network at all levels, with huge levels of >widespread discrimination of traffic types. >[Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low >speed; some buy a lot of capacity, some buy >less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped. >³So the suggestion that ­ Œoh dear, it is >terrible, we might move to a two-tiered internet >in the future'... well, let¹s get real, we have >a very multifaceted and multitiered internet >today,² Heaney said. > >Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be >³unthinkable² to return to an internet where >every packet of data was given equal weight. >³Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in >which all data, all the bits and the packets >were treated in the same way as they passed >through the network,² said Simon Milner, BT¹s >director of group industry policy. ³That was an >internet that wasn¹t about the internet that we >have today: it wasn¹t about speech, it wasn¹t >about video, and it certainly wasn¹t about >television. > >³Twenty years ago, the computer scientists >realised that applications would grab as much >bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some >tools were needed to make this network work more >effectively, and that¹s why traffic management >techniques and guaranteed quality of service >were developed in the 1990s, and then >deep-packet inspection came along roughly ten >years ago,² he added. ³These techniques and >equipment are essential for the development of >the internet we see today.² > >It¹s interesting to note that some smaller (and, >yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen Internet >don¹t employ any traffic shaping across their >network, and Zen has won the PC Pro >Best >Broadband ISP award for the past seven years. > >Even today¹s traffic management methods can >cause huge problems for certain websites and >services. Peer-to-peer services are a common >victim of ISPs¹ traffic management policies, >often being deprioritised to a snail¹s pace >during peak hours. While the intended target may >be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients >to download illicit copies of the latest movie >releases, legitimate applications can also fall >victim to such blunderbuss filtering. > >³Peer-to-peer applications are very wide >ranging,² said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director of >government and regulatory affairs at VoIP >service Skype. ³They go from the lovely >peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that were >referred to in the Digital Economy Act, all the >way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which >used to run on P2P software] or Skype. So what >does that mean? If I manage my traffic from a >technical perspective, knowing that Skype >actually doesn¹t eat up much bandwidth at all, >why should it be deprioritised because it¹s >peer-to-peer?² > >Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic >management been felt more vividly than on the >mobile internet > >Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic >management been felt more vividly than on the >mobile internet. Websites and services blocked >at the whim of the network, video so compressed >it looks like an Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and >varying charges for different types of data are >already commonplace. > >Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile >networks fearful of losing phone call revenue; >02 bans iPhone owners from watching the BBC >iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all >networks outlaw tethering a mobile phone to a >laptop or tablet on standard ³unlimited data² >contracts. > >Jim Killock, executive director of the Open >Rights Group, has this chilling warning for >fixed-line broadband users: ³Look at the mobile >market, think if that is how you want your >internet and your devices to work in the future, >because that¹s where things are leading.² > >Video blockers > >Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted >the more drastic blocking measures chosen by the >mobile operators. But if there¹s one area in >which ISPs are gagging to rip up what¹s left of >the cherished concept of net neutrality, it¹s >video. > >Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer >to become the largest single category of >internet traffic, according to Cisco¹s Visual >Networking Index. It¹s the chief reason why the >amount of data used by the average internet >connection has shot up by 31% over the past >year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month. > > >Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major >headache for ISPs and broadcasters alike. ISPs >are introducing ever tighter traffic management >policies to make sure networks don¹t collapse >under the weight of video-on-demand during peak >hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters such as the BBC >and Channel 4 pay content delivery networks >(CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds every >year to distribute their video across the >network and closer to the consumer; this helps >avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of >thousands of people attempt to stream The >Apprentice at the same time. > >Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and >get video broadcasters to pay them ­ instead of >the CDNs ­ for guaranteed bandwidth. So if, for >example, the BBC wants to guarantee that >TalkTalk customers can watch uninterrupted HD >streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing >to pay for the privilege. A senior executive at >a major broadcaster told PC Pro that his company >has already been approached by two leading ISPs >looking to cut such a deal. > >Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the >³fast lane²; those who don¹t will be left to >fight their way through the regular internet >traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a >video, perhaps even one you¹ve paid for, may no >longer depend on the raw speed of your >connection or the amount of network congestion, >but whether the broadcaster has paid your ISP >for a prioritised stream. > >³We absolutely could see situations in which >some content or application providers might want >to pay BT for a quality of service above best >efforts,² admitted BT¹s Simon Milner at a recent >Westminster eForum. ³That is the kind of thing >that we¹d have to explain in our traffic >management policies, and indeed we¹d do so, and >then if somebody decided, Œwell, actually I >don¹t want to have that kind of service¹, they >would be free to go elsewhere.² > >We absolutely could see situations in which some >content or application providers might want to >pay BT for a quality of service above best >efforts > >It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum >whether TalkTalk would be willing to cut off >access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour of >YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big >enough cheque, TalkTalk¹s Andrew Heaney replied: >³We¹d do a deal, and we¹d look at YouTube and >we¹d look at BBC and we should have freedom to >sign whatever deal works.² > >That¹s the country¹s two biggest ISPs ­ with >more than eight million broadband households >between them ­ openly admitting they¹d either >cut off or effectively cripple video streams >from an internet >broadcaster if it wasn¹t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. > >Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters >are fearful. ³The founding principle of the >internet is that everyone ­ from individuals to >global companies ­ has equal access,² wrote the >BBC¹s director of future media and technology, >Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net >neutrality. ³Since the beginning, the internet >has been Œneutral¹, and everyone has been >treated the same. But the emergence of fast and >slow lanes allow broadband providers to >effectively pick and choose what you see first >and fastest.² > >ITV also opposes broadband providers being >allowed to shut out certain sites or services. >³We strongly believe that traffic throttling >shouldn¹t be conducted on the basis of content >provider; throttling access to content from a >particular company or institution,² the >broadcaster said in a recent submission to >regulator Ofcom¹s consultation on net neutrality. > >Sky, on the other hand ­ which is both a >broadcaster and one of the country¹s leading >ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit >from shutting out rival broadcasters ­ raised no >such objection in its submission to Ofcom. >³Competition can and should be relied upon to >provide the necessary consumer safeguards,² Sky >argued. > >Can it? Would YouTube ­ which was initially run >from a small office above a pizzeria before >Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion >takeover ­ have got off the ground if its three >founders had been forced to pay ISPs across the >globe to ensure its videos could be watched >smoothly? It seems unlikely. > >Walled-garden web > >It isn¹t only high-bandwidth video sites that >could potentially be blocked by ISPs. Virtually >any type of site could find itself barred if one >of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with >an ISP, returning the web to the kind of AOL >walled-garden approach of the late 1990s. > > >This isn¹t journalistic scaremongering: the >prospect of hugely popular sites being blocked >by ISPs is already being debated by the >Government. ³I sign up to the two-year contract >[with an ISP] and after 18 months my daughter >comes and knocks on the lounge door and says >Œfather, I can¹t access Facebook any more¹,² >hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of >international ICT policy at the Department for >Business, Innovation and Skills. ³I say ŒWhy?¹. >She says ŒIt¹s quite obvious, I have gone to the >site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, >Sky, whatever, don¹t take Facebook any more. >Facebook wouldn¹t pay them the money, but >YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube¹: >Minister, is that acceptable? That is the sort >of question we face.² > >Where¹s the regulator? > >So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to >say ³yes², think about the prospect of ISPs >putting some sites in the fast lane and leaving >the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? >It ran a consultation on net neutrality earlier >this year, with spiky contributions from ISPs >and broadcasters alike, but it appears to be >coming down on the side of the broadband >providers. > >³I think we were very clear in our discussion >document [on net neutrality] that we see the >real economic merits to the idea of allowing a >two-sided market to emerge,² said Alex Blowers, >international director at Ofcom. > >³Particularly for applications such as IPTV, >where it seems to us that the consumer >expectation will be a service that¹s of a >reasonably consistent quality, that allows you >to actually sit down at the beginning of a film >and watch it to the end without constant >problems of jitter or the picture hanging,² he >said. Taking that argument to its logical >conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse to >pay the ISPs¹ bounty will be subject to >stuttering quality. > >Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be >tougher. ³We are concerned that Ofcom isn¹t >currently taking a firm stance in relation to >throttling,² ITV said in its submission to the >regulator. The BBC also said it has ³concerns >about the increasing potential incentives for >discriminatory behaviour by network operators, >which risks undermining the internet¹s >character, and ultimately resulting in consumer >harm². > >Ofcom¹s Blowers argues regulation would be >premature as ³there is very little evidence² >that ³the big beasts of the content application >and services world are coming together and doing >deals with big beasts of the network and ISP >world². > >The regulator also places great faith in the >power of competition: the theory that broadband >subscribers would simply jump ship to another >ISP if their provider started doing beastly >things ­ for example, cutting off services such >as the iPlayer. It¹s a theory echoed by the ISPs >themselves. ³If we started blocking access to >certain news sites, you could be sure within >about 23 minutes it would be up on a blog and >we¹d be chastised for it, quite rightly too,² >said TalkTalk¹s Heaney. > >First and foremost, users should be able to >access and distribute the content, services and >applications they want > >Yet, in the age of bundled packages ­ where >broadband subscriptions are routinely sold as >part of the same deal as TV, telephone or mobile >services ­ hopping from one ISP to another is >rarely simple. Not to mention the 18-month or >two-year contracts broadband customers are >frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed out in >its submission to the regulator, ³Ofcom¹s 2009 >research showed that a quarter of households >found it difficult to switch broadband and >bundled services², with the ³perceived hassle of >the switching process² and ³the threat of >additional charges² dissuading potential >switchers. > >³Once you have bought a device or entered a >contract, that¹s that,² argued the Open Rights >Group¹s Jim Killock. ³So you make your choice >and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the >internet is you make your choice, you don¹t like >it, you change your mind.² > >The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a >free and open internet may lie with the EU >(although even its determination is wavering). >The EU¹s 2009 framework requires national >regulators such as Ofcom to promote ³the ability >of end users to access and distribute >information or run applications and services of >their choice² and that ISPs are transparent >about any traffic management. > >It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting >favoured partners in the ³fast lane² and >crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to >set ³minimum quality of service requirements² ­ >forcing ISPs to reserve a set amount of >bandwidth so that their traffic management >doesn¹t hobble those sites that can¹t afford to >pay. > >It¹s a concept enthusiastically backed by the >BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or Ofcom, >which doesn¹t have to use this new power handed >down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. >³There doesn¹t yet seem to us to be an >overwhelming case for a public intervention that >would effectively create a new industry >structure around this idea of a guaranteed Œbest >efforts¹ internet underpinned by legislation,² >said Ofcom¹s Blowers. > >It¹s an attitude that sparks dismay from >campaigners. ³Ofcom¹s approach creates large >risks for the open internet,² said Killock. ³Its >attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are >weak, by relying on transparency and competition >alone, and it¹s unfortunate it hasn¹t addressed >the idea of a minimum service guarantee.² > >At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn¹t >be permitted to block legal websites or services >that conflict with their commercial interests. >³First and foremost, users should be able to >access and distribute the content, services and >applications they want,² said European >Commission vice president Neelie Kroes earlier >this year. >³Discrimination against undesired competitors ­ >for instance, those providing voice-over the >internet services ­ shouldn¹t be allowed.² > >Yet, Ofcom doesn¹t even regard this as a major >issue. ³When VoIP services were first launched >in the UK, most [mobile] network operators were >against permitting VoIP,² Blowers said. ³We now >know that you can find packages from a number of >suppliers that do permit VoIP services. >So I¹m not as pessimistic as some may be that >this kind of gaming behaviour around blocking >services will be a real problem.² > >If the EU doesn¹t drag the UK¹s relaxed >regulator into line with the rest of the world, >it will be British internet users who have the >real problem. > >Author: Barry Collins > > >Read more: >The >end of the net as we know it | Broadband | >Features | PC Pro >http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y > > >-- >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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Jan 23 01:57:15 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:57:15 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues References: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> <4D3AA246.2080207@itforchange.net> <4D3AD5F5.90707@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07701@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Lee for reminding us that there are more problems ahead. Has somebody an idea how "open Internet" or "Network Neutrality" is discussed by the Chinese private sector? Has Baidu a different approach than China Mobile or is this all settled by the political leadership? One conclusion, also for our Caucus, is to think about how to pull Chinese companies into a multistakeholder IGF discussion. As far as I remember there were a lot of Chinese academics in the IGF, but no business people. Google, Cisco, Skype etc. were represented in the IGF with key speakers but nobody from Baidu or China Mobile. And what about Chinese Social Networks? QQ has more than 400 million subscribers. http://web2.qq.com/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/05/chinese-social-networks-virtually-out-earn-facebook-and-myspace-a-market-analysis/ Should the IGC organize a discussion at the IGF in Nairobi on Open Internet/NN inviting Verizon, Google, Baidu and Mobile China and another one on Social Networks with QQ and Facebook? Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Lee W McKnight Gesendet: So 23.01.2011 04:04 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Betreff: RE: [governance] cross-border IG issues Hi, A couple points: First in honor of President Hu of China's just concluded US visit, we should remember by far the largest mobile telco - and hence probably largest player in mobile Internet if not already the largest - is China Mobile. Which is approaching 600m subscribers. Total Internet subs in China are about 500m. The increasingly dominant search provider is Baidu, not Google; according to a report from a couple days ago 'Baidu's share of the increasingly lucrative sector hit 75.5 per cent in the last three months of the year, compared with 73 per cent in the third quarter.' That is 4thquarter 2010 numbers. So point is focusing on US companies alone misses - a lot - of the present global Internet, not just in China. Second, in regard to charging for priority...that has been widely done for many years, albeit it is usually the content owners/advertisers paying trying to get streams to end users at a higher quality. For example, from Akamai's website: "If you use the Internet for anything - to download music or software, check the headlines, book a flight - you've probably used Akamai's services without even knowing it. We play a critical role in getting content from providers to consumers. Akamai has created a digital operating environment for the Web. Our global platform of thousands of specially-equipped servers helps the Internet withstand the crush of daily requests for rich, dynamic, and interactive content, transactions, and applications. When delivering on these requests, Akamai detects and avoids Internet problem spots and vulnerabilities, to ensure Websites perform optimally, media and software download flawlessly, and applications perform reliably." My aim is not to nitpick, and I continue to support a framework convention or other mechanism - like a declaration of Internet Rights and Principles - to strengthen enhanced cooperation/global Internet governance. In sum, yes there are many cross-border Internet issues; yes the US government and US-based corporations are players, but the framing is - dated - if it misses inclusion of half a billion users and companies that serve them. And don't notice all the companies paying other companies for priority access - to us end users. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:10 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] cross-border IG issues In message <4D3AD5F5.90707 at itforchange.net>, at 18:34:53 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, parminder writes >Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4D3AA246.2080207 at itforchange.net>, at 14:54:22 on Sat, > 22 Jan 2011, parminder writes > The fact that all the above mega corporates, as well as ICANN >> itself, > I thought you were trying to avoid discussions which confuse > governance of the infrastructure with governance of the content. > are as you say are companies registered in the US is a huge IG >> issue. I dont want my personal data to be accessed by anyone >> without my consent. And if exceptional conditions of possible >> involvement in a crime etc are involved I would have it handled >> only by a body/ authority in whose constitution I have a >> democratic role, which regrettably is not the case with the US >> gov. > Then it is up to you (and those of a like mind) to "vote with your > feet" and subscribe to websites run from different jurisdictions. > And if you don't think they exist, it's not the Internet > infrastructure that's preventing it. >What do you think is preventing it? Mainly the first-mover advantage that seems to be very much the hallmark of famous US-based applications. >If your response to cross border issues I bring up is to advice cutting >back to an Internet (or Internets) that fits jurisdictional boundaries, >it is indeed an internally coherent solution. However, I still think >that it is possible to preserve a global Internet if we can muster >enough political will and courage to develop the necessary global >political system. I'd be very happy to see a co-ordinated regulatory framework applied globally, for issues such as Data Privacy (and disclosure to law enforcement) and so on. The whole world signed up to the Budapest Convention! -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 23 03:31:40 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:01:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D3BE76C.3040608@itforchange.net> Thanks Adam for the paper. Just skimmed through it, but plan to read it fully later. However, I am unable to agree to the conclusions that it is difficult to say what is a NN violation or not, and a one-size-fit-all set of guidelines are difficult, and in any case any ex ante NN regulation is extremely diffcult. Can you suggest why for instance Norway's clear NN guidelines cannot work, and work universally? (see http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf ) It all really depends on what our basic point of departure is. If it is human rights, or rights of all people on the Internet, then that becomes basic and most important and profit-models etc come much later. NN has to be seen from such a huan rights angle. Anyone can argue to any length how ensuring say democratic rights is an expensive model, or media rights interfere with business models and the such. Precisely to avoid such problem we have the concept of rights. So, for many of us net neutrality, or net equality, is a basic right. We start from here. Companies have to adjust their business models to it, and regulators have to ensure that this right is ensured. Now for practical translation of this right. I dont see how it is difficult to understand or enforce a simple regulation that 'there will be no content provider specific pay-for-priority on the public Internet' and if any such practices are found there will be heavy penalty and eventual cancellation of license. This however does exclude public interest communication like emergency services etc about which guidelines will be issued separately. The above is a very specific and clear NN guideline. I will like to hear why is it not enforceable. Lee, managed services of the kind Akamai offers is a different thing. Here they do not use the public internet but private IP based channels. More elaborate NN guidelines will also cover issues about how public Internet and such private IP based networks will co-exist in a manner that larger pulbic interest and people's basic rights are ensured. Not only Norway has clear NN guidelines, even FCC has come up with a NN framework for wired internet and the framework covers all issues. In fact the guidelines and the individual commissioner's comments make very interesting reading. I have no confusion about NN when I read them. Things are crystal clear, as they must be because they are real enforcable laws of the land. The only problem is that FCC left out wireless networks from NN ambit and that is the key issue we need to discuss. In this context it may be considered rather surprising that the main civil society group in IG arena continues to think that NN issue is too complex to be able to be discussed or applied with any degree of coherence. I am not a techie, but I can clearly understand it - to the extent that any 'real life' issue can ever be understood'. On the notion that competitive markets will take care of the NN problem - let me repeat, India's mobile market is perhaps the world's most competitive, and there is a large scale NN violation going on there right now. parminder Adam Peake wrote: > Some background > (self > serving plug to a paper written by some colleagues and me, "A > Comparison of Network Neutrality Approaches In: The U.S., Japan, and > the European Union".) > > Adam > > > >> Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. >> >> I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to *not* >> do something about this issue. So many times a discussion on NN on >> this list has run into this wall - it is a very complex issues with >> many sides to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a good enough reason >> for abdication. One often hears excuses like, with voice and video >> domination the internet today NN is a meaningless concept. Not so at >> all. We can have specific provisions whereby specific applications >> can have different treatments while being content-provider neutral, >> this latter being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have oftne >> been mentioned in discussions here earlier. These guidelines allow >> space to manage voice and vedio applications related issues. IS there >> any reason why Norway's guidelines cannot be used globally, and why >> should IGC be forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon enough >> there is not a basic global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway >> like countries may not be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness >> of the Internet and its basic architectural principles. >> >> What I am arguing for is that we should not only propose NN as a >> plenary topic and absolutely put our foot down that it must be >> accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find the whole exercise >> meaningless and may not even want to participate.... I mean the kind >> of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder >> >> >> The end of the net as we know it >> >> Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >> >> ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them first. >> Barry Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality >> >> You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and >> press Play on the latest episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, >> plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your laptop¹s speakers, >> you¹re left staring at the whirring, circular icon as the video >> buffers and buffers and buffers... >> >> That¹s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre broadband >> connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just >> moments ago. There¹s nothing wrong with your connection; it must be >> iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out if anyone else is having >> problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on >> your screen leaves you looking more startled than Bill Bailey. ³This >> service isn¹t supported on your broadband service. Click here to >> visit our social-networking partner, Facebook.² >> >> Net neutrality? We don¹t have it today >> >> The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat. >> Britain¹s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier >> internet, where websites and services that are willing to pay are >> thrust into the ³fast lane², while those that don¹t are left fighting >> for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. They¹re not so much >> ripping up the cherished notion of net neutrality as pouring petrol >> over the pieces and lighting the match. The only question is: can >> they get away with it? >> >> *No such thing as net neutrality* >> >> It¹s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality ­ ISPs >> treating different types of internet traffic or content equally ­ is >> already a busted flush. ³Net neutrality? We don¹t have it today,² >> argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation >> at TalkTalk, Britain¹s second biggest ISP. >> >> ³We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all levels, >> with huge levels of widespread discrimination of traffic types. [Some >> consumers] buy high speed, some buy low speed; some buy a lot of >> capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped. >> ³So the suggestion that ­ OEoh dear, it is terrible, we might move to >> a two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let¹s get real, we have >> a very multifaceted and multitiered internet today,² Heaney said. >> >> Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be ³unthinkable² to return to >> an internet where every packet of data was given equal weight. ³Yes, >> the internet of 30 years ago was one in which all data, all the bits >> and the packets were treated in the same way as they passed through >> the network,² said Simon Milner, BT¹s director of group industry >> policy. ³That was an internet that wasn¹t about the internet that we >> have today: it wasn¹t about speech, it wasn¹t about video, and it >> certainly wasn¹t about television. >> >> ³Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that applications >> would grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some tools >> were needed to make this network work more effectively, and that¹s >> why traffic management techniques and guaranteed quality of service >> were developed in the 1990s, and then deep-packet inspection came >> along roughly ten years ago,² he added. ³These techniques and >> equipment are essential for the development of the internet we see >> today.² >> >> It¹s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more expensive) >> ISPs such as Zen Internet don¹t employ any traffic shaping across >> their network, and Zen has won the /PC Pro/ Best Broadband ISP award >> for the past seven years. >> >> Even today¹s traffic management methods can cause huge problems for >> certain websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a common >> victim of ISPs¹ traffic management policies, often being >> deprioritised to a snail¹s pace during peak hours. While the intended >> target may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients to download >> illicit copies of the latest movie releases, legitimate applications >> can also fall victim to such blunderbuss filtering. >> >> ³Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,² said Jean-Jacques >> Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP service >> Skype. ³They go from the lovely peer-to-peer file-sharing >> applications that were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, all >> the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which used to run on P2P >> software] or Skype. So what does that mean? If I manage my traffic >> from a technical perspective, knowing that Skype actually doesn¹t eat >> up much bandwidth at all, why should it be deprioritised because it¹s >> peer-to-peer?² >> >> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >> more vividly than on the mobile internet >> >> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more >> vividly than on the mobile internet. Websites and services blocked at >> the whim of the network, video so compressed it looks like an >> Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and varying charges for different types of >> data are already commonplace. >> >> Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful of >> losing phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching the >> BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all networks outlaw >> tethering a mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on standard ³unlimited >> data² contracts. >> >> Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has this >> chilling warning for fixed-line broadband users: ³Look at the mobile >> market, think if that is how you want your internet and your devices >> to work in the future, because that¹s where things are leading.² >> >> *Video blockers* >> >> Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic >> blocking measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there¹s one >> area in which ISPs are gagging to rip up what¹s left of the cherished >> concept of net neutrality, it¹s video. >> >> Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the largest >> single category of internet traffic, according to Cisco¹s Visual >> Networking Index. It¹s the chief reason why the amount of data used >> by the average internet connection has shot up by 31% over the past >> year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month. >> >> Internet TV >> >> >> >> Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for ISPs >> and broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter traffic >> management policies to make sure networks don¹t collapse under the >> weight of video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters >> such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay content delivery networks (CDNs) >> such as Akamai millions of pounds every year to distribute their >> video across the network and closer to the consumer; this helps avoid >> bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands of people attempt to >> stream The Apprentice at the same time. >> >> Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video broadcasters >> to pay them ­ instead of the CDNs ­ for guaranteed bandwidth. So if, >> for example, the BBC wants to guarantee that TalkTalk customers can >> watch uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing >> to pay for the privilege. A senior executive at a major broadcaster >> told /PC Pro/ that his company has already been approached by two >> leading ISPs looking to cut such a deal. >> >> Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the ³fast lane²; those >> who don¹t will be left to fight their way through the regular >> internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a video, perhaps >> even one you¹ve paid for, may no longer depend on the raw speed of >> your connection or the amount of network congestion, but whether the >> broadcaster has paid your ISP for a prioritised stream. >> >> ³We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >> above best efforts,² admitted BT¹s Simon Milner at a recent >> Westminster eForum. ³That is the kind of thing that we¹d have to >> explain in our traffic management policies, and indeed we¹d do so, >> and then if somebody decided, OEwell, actually I don¹t want to have >> that kind of service¹, they would be free to go elsewhere.² >> >> We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >> above best efforts >> >> It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk >> would be willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in >> favour of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big enough >> cheque, TalkTalk¹s Andrew Heaney replied: ³We¹d do a deal, and we¹d >> look at YouTube and we¹d look at BBC and we should have freedom to >> sign whatever deal works.² >> >> That¹s the country¹s two biggest ISPs ­ with more than eight million >> broadband households between them ­ openly admitting they¹d either >> cut off or effectively cripple video streams from an internet >> broadcaster if it wasn¹t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >> >> Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. ³The >> founding principle of the internet is that everyone ­ from >> individuals to global companies ­ has equal access,² wrote the BBC¹s >> director of future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in a recent >> blog post on net neutrality. ³Since the beginning, the internet has >> been OEneutral¹, and everyone has been treated the same. But the >> emergence of fast and slow lanes allow broadband providers to >> effectively pick and choose what you see first and fastest.² >> >> ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out >> certain sites or services. ³We strongly believe that traffic >> throttling shouldn¹t be conducted on the basis of content provider; >> throttling access to content from a particular company or >> institution,² the broadcaster said in a recent submission to >> regulator Ofcom¹s consultation on net neutrality. >> >> Sky, on the other hand ­ which is both a broadcaster and one of the >> country¹s leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit >> from shutting out rival broadcasters ­ raised no such objection in >> its submission to Ofcom. ³Competition can and should be relied upon >> to provide the necessary consumer safeguards,² Sky argued. >> >> Can it? Would YouTube ­ which was initially run from a small office >> above a pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion >> takeover ­ have got off the ground if its three founders had been >> forced to pay ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos could be >> watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >> >> *Walled-garden web* >> >> It isn¹t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially be >> blocked by ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself barred >> if one of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with an ISP, >> returning the web to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of the >> late 1990s. >> >> Stop sign >> >> >> >> This isn¹t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely >> popular sites being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by the >> Government. ³I sign up to the two-year contract [with an ISP] and >> after 18 months my daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door and >> says OEfather, I can¹t access Facebook any more¹,² hypothesised Nigel >> Hickson, head of international ICT policy at the Department for >> Business, Innovation and Skills. ³I say OEWhy?¹. She says OEIt¹s >> quite obvious, I have gone to the site and I have found that >> TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, don¹t take Facebook any more. >> Facebook wouldn¹t pay them the money, but YouTube has, so I have gone >> to YouTube¹: Minister, is that acceptable? That is the sort of >> question we face.² >> >> *Where¹s the regulator?* >> >> So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say ³yes², think >> about the prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and >> leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? It ran a >> consultation on net neutrality earlier this year, with spiky >> contributions from ISPs and broadcasters alike, but it appears to be >> coming down on the side of the broadband providers. >> >> ³I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net >> neutrality] that we see the real economic merits to the idea of >> allowing a two-sided market to emerge,² said Alex Blowers, >> international director at Ofcom. >> >> ³Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to us >> that the consumer expectation will be a service that¹s of a >> reasonably consistent quality, that allows you to actually sit down >> at the beginning of a film and watch it to the end without constant >> problems of jitter or the picture hanging,² he said. Taking that >> argument to its logical conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse >> to pay the ISPs¹ bounty will be subject to stuttering quality. >> >> Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. ³We are >> concerned that Ofcom isn¹t currently taking a firm stance in relation >> to throttling,² ITV said in its submission to the regulator. The BBC >> also said it has ³concerns about the increasing potential incentives >> for discriminatory behaviour by network operators, which risks >> undermining the internet¹s character, and ultimately resulting in >> consumer harm². >> >> Ofcom¹s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as ³there is >> very little evidence² that ³the big beasts of the content application >> and services world are coming together and doing deals with big >> beasts of the network and ISP world². >> >> The regulator also places great faith in the power of competition: >> the theory that broadband subscribers would simply jump ship to >> another ISP if their provider started doing beastly things ­ for >> example, cutting off services such as the iPlayer. It¹s a theory >> echoed by the ISPs themselves. ³If we started blocking access to >> certain news sites, you could be sure within about 23 minutes it >> would be up on a blog and we¹d be chastised for it, quite rightly >> too,² said TalkTalk¹s Heaney. >> >> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute >> the content, services and applications they want >> >> Yet, in the age of bundled packages ­ where broadband subscriptions >> are routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, telephone or >> mobile services ­ hopping from one ISP to another is rarely simple. >> Not to mention the 18-month or two-year contracts broadband customers >> are frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed out in its submission >> to the regulator, ³Ofcom¹s 2009 research showed that a quarter of >> households found it difficult to switch broadband and bundled >> services², with the ³perceived hassle of the switching process² and >> ³the threat of additional charges² dissuading potential switchers. >> >> ³Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that¹s that,² >> argued the Open Rights Group¹s Jim Killock. ³So you make your choice >> and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the internet is you make >> your choice, you don¹t like it, you change your mind.² >> >> The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open >> internet may lie with the EU (although even its determination is >> wavering). The EU¹s 2009 framework requires national regulators such >> as Ofcom to promote ³the ability of end users to access and >> distribute information or run applications and services of their >> choice² and that ISPs are transparent about any traffic management. >> >> It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners in >> the ³fast lane² and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to >> set ³minimum quality of service requirements² ­ forcing ISPs to >> reserve a set amount of bandwidth so that their traffic management >> doesn¹t hobble those sites that can¹t afford to pay. >> >> It¹s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, but not >> by the ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn¹t have to use this new power handed >> down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. ³There doesn¹t yet >> seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a public intervention that >> would effectively create a new industry structure around this idea of >> a guaranteed OEbest efforts¹ internet underpinned by legislation,² >> said Ofcom¹s Blowers. >> >> It¹s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. ³Ofcom¹s >> approach creates large risks for the open internet,² said Killock. >> ³Its attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are weak, by relying >> on transparency and competition alone, and it¹s unfortunate it hasn¹t >> addressed the idea of a minimum service guarantee.² >> >> At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn¹t be permitted to block >> legal websites or services that conflict with their commercial >> interests. ³First and foremost, users should be able to access and >> distribute the content, services and applications they want,² said >> European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes earlier this year. >> ³Discrimination against undesired competitors ­ for instance, those >> providing voice-over the internet services ­ shouldn¹t be allowed.² >> >> Yet, Ofcom doesn¹t even regard this as a major issue. ³When VoIP >> services were first launched in the UK, most [mobile] network >> operators were against permitting VoIP,² Blowers said. ³We now know >> that you can find packages from a number of suppliers that do permit >> VoIP services. >> So I¹m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of gaming >> behaviour around blocking services will be a real problem.² >> >> If the EU doesn¹t drag the UK¹s relaxed regulator into line with the >> rest of the world, it will be British internet users who have the >> real problem. >> >> *Author:* Barry Collins >> >> >> Read more: The end of the net as we know it | Broadband | Features | >> PC Pro >> >> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >> >> >> -- >> PK >> >> >> Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. >> >> I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to *not* >> do something about this issue. So many times a discussion on NN on >> this list has run into this wall - it is a very complex issues with >> many sides to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a good enough reason >> for abdication. One often hears excuses like, with voice and video >> domination the internet today NN is a meaningless concept. Not so at >> all. We can have specific provisions whereby specific applications >> can have different treatments while being content-provider neutral, >> this latter being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have oftne >> been mentioned in discussions here earlier. These guidelines allow >> space to manage voice and vedio applications related issues. IS there >> any reason why Norway's guidelines cannot be used globally, and why >> should IGC be forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon enough >> there is not a basic global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway >> like countries may not be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness >> of the Internet and its basic architectural principles. >> >> What I am arguing for is that we should not only propose NN as a >> plenary topic and absolutely put our foot down that it must be >> accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find the whole exercise >> meaningless and may not even want to participate.... I mean the kind >> of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder >> >> The end of the net as we know it >> >> Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >> >> ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them first. >> Barry Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality >> >> You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and >> press Play on the latest episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, >> plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your laptop¹s speakers, >> you¹re left staring at the whirring, circular icon as the video >> buffers and buffers and buffers... >> >> That¹s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre broadband >> connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just >> moments ago. There¹s nothing wrong with your connection; it must be >> iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out if anyone else is having >> problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on >> your screen leaves you looking more startled than Bill Bailey. ³This >> service isn¹t supported on your broadband service. Click here to >> visit our social-networking partner, Facebook.² >> >> Net neutrality? We don¹t have it today >> >> The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat. >> Britain¹s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier >> internet, where websites and services that are willing to pay are >> thrust into the ³fast lane², while those that don¹t are left fighting >> for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. They¹re not so much >> ripping up the cherished notion of net neutrality as pouring petrol >> over the pieces and lighting the match. The only question is: can >> they get away with it? >> >> No such thing as net neutrality >> >> It¹s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality ­ ISPs >> treating different types of internet traffic or content equally ­ is >> already a busted flush. ³Net neutrality? We don¹t have it today,² >> argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation >> at TalkTalk, Britain¹s second biggest ISP. >> >> ³We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all levels, >> with huge levels of widespread discrimination of traffic types. [Some >> consumers] buy high speed, some buy low speed; some buy a lot of >> capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped. >> ³So the suggestion that ­ OEoh dear, it is terrible, we might move to >> a two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let¹s get real, we have >> a very multifaceted and multitiered internet today,² Heaney said. >> >> Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be ³unthinkable² to return to >> an internet where every packet of data was given equal weight. ³Yes, >> the internet of 30 years ago was one in which all data, all the bits >> and the packets were treated in the same way as they passed through >> the network,² said Simon Milner, BT¹s director of group industry >> policy. ³That was an internet that wasn¹t about the internet that we >> have today: it wasn¹t about speech, it wasn¹t about video, and it >> certainly wasn¹t about television. >> >> ³Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that applications >> would grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some tools >> were needed to make this network work more effectively, and that¹s >> why traffic management techniques and guaranteed quality of service >> were developed in the 1990s, and then deep-packet inspection came >> along roughly ten years ago,² he added. ³These techniques and >> equipment are essential for the development of the internet we see >> today.² >> >> It¹s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more expensive) >> ISPs such as Zen Internet don¹t employ any traffic shaping across >> their network, and Zen has won the PC Pro >> Best Broadband ISP award >> for the past seven years. >> >> Even today¹s traffic management methods can cause huge problems for >> certain websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a common >> victim of ISPs¹ traffic management policies, often being >> deprioritised to a snail¹s pace during peak hours. While the intended >> target may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients to download >> illicit copies of the latest movie releases, legitimate applications >> can also fall victim to such blunderbuss filtering. >> >> ³Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,² said Jean-Jacques >> Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP service >> Skype. ³They go from the lovely peer-to-peer file-sharing >> applications that were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, all >> the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which used to run on P2P >> software] or Skype. So what does that mean? If I manage my traffic >> from a technical perspective, knowing that Skype actually doesn¹t eat >> up much bandwidth at all, why should it be deprioritised because it¹s >> peer-to-peer?² >> >> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more >> vividly than on the mobile internet >> >> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more >> vividly than on the mobile internet. Websites and services blocked at >> the whim of the network, video so compressed it looks like an >> Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and varying charges for different types of >> data are already commonplace. >> >> Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful of >> losing phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching the >> BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all networks outlaw >> tethering a mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on standard ³unlimited >> data² contracts. >> >> Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has this >> chilling warning for fixed-line broadband users: ³Look at the mobile >> market, think if that is how you want your internet and your devices >> to work in the future, because that¹s where things are leading.² >> >> Video blockers >> >> Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic >> blocking measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there¹s one >> area in which ISPs are gagging to rip up what¹s left of the cherished >> concept of net neutrality, it¹s video. >> >> Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the largest >> single category of internet traffic, according to Cisco¹s Visual >> Networking Index. It¹s the chief reason why the amount of data used >> by the average internet connection has shot up by 31% over the past >> year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month. >> >> >> >> Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for ISPs >> and broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter traffic >> management policies to make sure networks don¹t collapse under the >> weight of video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters >> such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay content delivery networks (CDNs) >> such as Akamai millions of pounds every year to distribute their >> video across the network and closer to the consumer; this helps avoid >> bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands of people attempt to >> stream The Apprentice at the same time. >> >> Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video broadcasters >> to pay them ­ instead of the CDNs ­ for guaranteed bandwidth. So if, >> for example, the BBC wants to guarantee that TalkTalk customers can >> watch uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing >> to pay for the privilege. A senior executive at a major broadcaster >> told PC Pro that his company has already been approached by two >> leading ISPs looking to cut such a deal. >> >> Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the ³fast lane²; those >> who don¹t will be left to fight their way through the regular >> internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a video, perhaps >> even one you¹ve paid for, may no longer depend on the raw speed of >> your connection or the amount of network congestion, but whether the >> broadcaster has paid your ISP for a prioritised stream. >> >> ³We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >> above best efforts,² admitted BT¹s Simon Milner at a recent >> Westminster eForum. ³That is the kind of thing that we¹d have to >> explain in our traffic management policies, and indeed we¹d do so, >> and then if somebody decided, OEwell, actually I don¹t want to have >> that kind of service¹, they would be free to go elsewhere.² >> >> We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >> above best efforts >> >> It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk >> would be willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in >> favour of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big enough >> cheque, TalkTalk¹s Andrew Heaney replied: ³We¹d do a deal, and we¹d >> look at YouTube and we¹d look at BBC and we should have freedom to >> sign whatever deal works.² >> >> That¹s the country¹s two biggest ISPs ­ with more than eight million >> broadband households between them ­ openly admitting they¹d either >> cut off or effectively cripple video streams from an internet >> broadcaster if it wasn¹t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >> >> Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. ³The >> founding principle of the internet is that everyone ­ from >> individuals to global companies ­ has equal access,² wrote the BBC¹s >> director of future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in a recent >> blog post on net neutrality. ³Since the beginning, the internet has >> been OEneutral¹, and everyone has been treated the same. But the >> emergence of fast and slow lanes allow broadband providers to >> effectively pick and choose what you see first and fastest.² >> >> ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out >> certain sites or services. ³We strongly believe that traffic >> throttling shouldn¹t be conducted on the basis of content provider; >> throttling access to content from a particular company or >> institution,² the broadcaster said in a recent submission to >> regulator Ofcom¹s consultation on net neutrality. >> >> Sky, on the other hand ­ which is both a broadcaster and one of the >> country¹s leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit >> from shutting out rival broadcasters ­ raised no such objection in >> its submission to Ofcom. ³Competition can and should be relied upon >> to provide the necessary consumer safeguards,² Sky argued. >> >> Can it? Would YouTube ­ which was initially run from a small office >> above a pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion >> takeover ­ have got off the ground if its three founders had been >> forced to pay ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos could be >> watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >> >> Walled-garden web >> >> It isn¹t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially be >> blocked by ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself barred >> if one of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with an ISP, >> returning the web to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of the >> late 1990s. >> >> >> >> This isn¹t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely >> popular sites being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by the >> Government. ³I sign up to the two-year contract [with an ISP] and >> after 18 months my daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door and >> says OEfather, I can¹t access Facebook any more¹,² hypothesised Nigel >> Hickson, head of international ICT policy at the Department for >> Business, Innovation and Skills. ³I say OEWhy?¹. She says OEIt¹s >> quite obvious, I have gone to the site and I have found that >> TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, don¹t take Facebook any more. >> Facebook wouldn¹t pay them the money, but YouTube has, so I have gone >> to YouTube¹: Minister, is that acceptable? That is the sort of >> question we face.² >> >> Where¹s the regulator? >> >> So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say ³yes², think >> about the prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and >> leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? It ran a >> consultation on net neutrality earlier this year, with spiky >> contributions from ISPs and broadcasters alike, but it appears to be >> coming down on the side of the broadband providers. >> >> ³I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net >> neutrality] that we see the real economic merits to the idea of >> allowing a two-sided market to emerge,² said Alex Blowers, >> international director at Ofcom. >> >> ³Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to us >> that the consumer expectation will be a service that¹s of a >> reasonably consistent quality, that allows you to actually sit down >> at the beginning of a film and watch it to the end without constant >> problems of jitter or the picture hanging,² he said. Taking that >> argument to its logical conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse >> to pay the ISPs¹ bounty will be subject to stuttering quality. >> >> Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. ³We are >> concerned that Ofcom isn¹t currently taking a firm stance in relation >> to throttling,² ITV said in its submission to the regulator. The BBC >> also said it has ³concerns about the increasing potential incentives >> for discriminatory behaviour by network operators, which risks >> undermining the internet¹s character, and ultimately resulting in >> consumer harm². >> >> Ofcom¹s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as ³there is >> very little evidence² that ³the big beasts of the content application >> and services world are coming together and doing deals with big >> beasts of the network and ISP world². >> >> The regulator also places great faith in the power of competition: >> the theory that broadband subscribers would simply jump ship to >> another ISP if their provider started doing beastly things ­ for >> example, cutting off services such as the iPlayer. It¹s a theory >> echoed by the ISPs themselves. ³If we started blocking access to >> certain news sites, you could be sure within about 23 minutes it >> would be up on a blog and we¹d be chastised for it, quite rightly >> too,² said TalkTalk¹s Heaney. >> >> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute the >> content, services and applications they want >> >> Yet, in the age of bundled packages ­ where broadband subscriptions >> are routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, telephone or >> mobile services ­ hopping from one ISP to another is rarely simple. >> Not to mention the 18-month or two-year contracts broadband customers >> are frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed out in its submission >> to the regulator, ³Ofcom¹s 2009 research showed that a quarter of >> households found it difficult to switch broadband and bundled >> services², with the ³perceived hassle of the switching process² and >> ³the threat of additional charges² dissuading potential switchers. >> >> ³Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that¹s that,² >> argued the Open Rights Group¹s Jim Killock. ³So you make your choice >> and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the internet is you make >> your choice, you don¹t like it, you change your mind.² >> >> The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open >> internet may lie with the EU (although even its determination is >> wavering). The EU¹s 2009 framework requires national regulators such >> as Ofcom to promote ³the ability of end users to access and >> distribute information or run applications and services of their >> choice² and that ISPs are transparent about any traffic management. >> >> It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners in >> the ³fast lane² and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to >> set ³minimum quality of service requirements² ­ forcing ISPs to >> reserve a set amount of bandwidth so that their traffic management >> doesn¹t hobble those sites that can¹t afford to pay. >> >> It¹s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, but not >> by the ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn¹t have to use this new power handed >> down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. ³There doesn¹t yet >> seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a public intervention that >> would effectively create a new industry structure around this idea of >> a guaranteed OEbest efforts¹ internet underpinned by legislation,² >> said Ofcom¹s Blowers. >> >> It¹s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. ³Ofcom¹s >> approach creates large risks for the open internet,² said Killock. >> ³Its attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are weak, by relying >> on transparency and competition alone, and it¹s unfortunate it hasn¹t >> addressed the idea of a minimum service guarantee.² >> >> At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn¹t be permitted to block >> legal websites or services that conflict with their commercial >> interests. ³First and foremost, users should be able to access and >> distribute the content, services and applications they want,² said >> European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes earlier this year. >> ³Discrimination against undesired competitors ­ for instance, those >> providing voice-over the internet services ­ shouldn¹t be allowed.² >> >> Yet, Ofcom doesn¹t even regard this as a major issue. ³When VoIP >> services were first launched in the UK, most [mobile] network >> operators were against permitting VoIP,² Blowers said. ³We now know >> that you can find packages from a number of suppliers that do permit >> VoIP services. >> So I¹m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of gaming >> behaviour around blocking services will be a real problem.² >> >> If the EU doesn¹t drag the UK¹s relaxed regulator into line with the >> rest of the world, it will be British internet users who have the >> real problem. >> >> Author: Barry Collins >> >> >> Read more: >> The >> end of the net as we know it | Broadband | Features | PC Pro >> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 23 03:45:16 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:45:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4D3BE76C.3040608@itforchange.net> References: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> <4D3BE76C.3040608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I think you could make general principles, and at the level of principles what you have in Norway and Japan is not so different from the FCC's policy principles. Problem comes when you try to enforce those principles. I think that's what we were trying to say with this comment in the conclusion "it is very hard to make broad, sweeping concepts actionable or enforceable as rules". And as another matter I think wireless networks are different from wired, and that's a massive problem given that developing countries will likely be relying on wireless. Adam >Thanks Adam for the paper. Just skimmed through >it, but plan to read it fully later. > >However, I am unable to agree to the conclusions >that it is difficult to say what is a NN >violation or not, and a one-size-fit-all set of >guidelines are difficult, and in any case any ex >ante NN regulation is extremely diffcult. > >Can you suggest why for instance Norway's clear >NN guidelines cannot work, and work universally? >(see >http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf >) > >It all really depends on what our basic point of >departure is. If it is human rights, or rights >of all people on the Internet, then that becomes >basic and most important and profit-models etc >come much later. NN has to be seen from such a >huan rights angle. Anyone can argue to any >length how ensuring say democratic rights is an >expensive model, or media rights interfere with >business models and the such. Precisely to avoid >such problem we have the concept of rights. > >So, for many of us net neutrality, or net >equality, is a basic right. We start from here. >Companies have to adjust their business models >to it, and regulators have to ensure that this >right is ensured. > >Now for practical translation of this right. I >dont see how it is difficult to understand or >enforce a simple regulation that 'there will be >no content provider specific pay-for-priority on >the public Internet' and if any such practices >are found there will be heavy penalty and >eventual cancellation of license. This however >does exclude public interest communication like >emergency services etc about which guidelines >will be issued separately. > >The above is a very specific and clear NN >guideline. I will like to hear why is it not >enforceable. > >Lee, managed services of the kind Akamai offers >is a different thing. Here they do not use the >public internet but private IP based channels. >More elaborate NN guidelines will also cover >issues about how public Internet and such >private IP based networks will co-exist in a >manner that larger pulbic interest and people's >basic rights are ensured. > >Not only Norway has clear NN guidelines, even >FCC has come up with a NN framework for wired >internet and the framework covers all issues. In >fact the guidelines and the individual >commissioner's comments make very interesting >reading. I have no confusion about NN when I >read them. Things are crystal clear, as they >must be because they are real enforcable laws of >the land. The only problem is that FCC left out >wireless networks from NN ambit and that is the >key issue we need to discuss. > >In this context it may be considered rather >surprising that the main civil society group in >IG arena continues to think that NN issue is >too complex to be able to be discussed or >applied with any degree of coherence. I am not a >techie, but I can clearly understand it - to the >extent that any 'real life' issue can ever be >understood'. > >On the notion that competitive markets will take >care of the NN problem - let me repeat, India's >mobile market is perhaps the world's most >competitive, and there is a large scale NN >violation going on there right now. > >parminder > > >Adam Peake wrote: > >>Some background >> >>(self serving plug to a paper written by some >>colleagues and me, "A Comparison of Network >>Neutrality Approaches In: The U.S., Japan, and >>the European Union".) >> >>Adam >> >> >>>Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. >>> >>>I do not think we, as a premier global CS >>>group, can afford to *not* do something about >>>this issue. So many times a discussion on NN >>>on this list has run into this wall - it is a >>>very complex issues with many sides to it'. >>>So ??? I dont think this is a good enough >>>reason for abdication. One often hears excuses >>>like, with voice and video domination the >>>internet today NN is a meaningless concept. >>>Not so at all. We can have specific provisions >>>whereby specific applications can have >>>different treatments while being >>>content-provider neutral, this latter being >>>the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have >>>oftne been mentioned in discussions here >>>earlier. These guidelines allow space to >>>manage voice and vedio applications related >>>issues. IS there any reason why Norway's >>>guidelines cannot be used globally, and why >>>should IGC be forcefully pushing for them. I >>>fear that if soon enough there is not a basic >>>global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway >>>like countries may not be able to preserve NN, >>>such is the globalness of the Internet and its >>>basic architectural principles. >>> >>>What I am arguing for is that we should not >>>only propose NN as a plenary topic and >>>absolutely put our foot down that it must be >>>accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find >>>the whole exercise meaningless and may not >>>even want to participate.... I mean the kind >>>of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder >>> >>> >>> The end of the net as we know it >>> >>>Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >>> >>>ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that >>>don't pay them first. Barry Collins fears a >>>disastrous end to net neutrality >>> >>>You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC >>>iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the latest >>>episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, >>>plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your >>>laptop©–s speakers, you©–re left staring at >>>the whirring, circular icon as the video >>>buffers and buffers and buffers... >>> >>>That©–s odd. Not only have you got a new >>>40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but >>>you were watching a Full HD video on Sky >>>Player just moments ago. There©–s nothing >>>wrong with your connection; it must be >>>iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out if >>>anyone else is having problems streaming >>>Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on >>>your screen leaves you looking more startled >>>than Bill Bailey. ©¯This service isn©–t >>>supported on your broadband service. Click >>>here to visit our social-networking partner, >>>Facebook.©— >>> >>> Net neutrality? We don©–t have it today >>> >>>The free, unrestricted internet as we know it >>>is under threat. Britain©–s leading ISPs are >>>attempting to construct a two-tier internet, >>>where websites and services that are willing >>>to pay are thrust into the ©¯fast lane©—, >>>while those that don©–t are left fighting for >>>scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. >>>They©–re not so much ripping up the cherished >>>notion of net neutrality as pouring petrol >>>over the pieces and lighting the match. The >>>only question is: can they get away with it? >>> >>>*No such thing as net neutrality* >>> >>>It©–s worth pointing out that the concept of >>>net neutrality °© ISPs treating different >>>types of internet traffic or content equally >>>°© is already a busted flush. ©¯Net >>>neutrality? We don©–t have it today,©— argues >>>Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy >>>and regulation at TalkTalk, Britain©–s second >>>biggest ISP. >>> >>>©¯We have an unbelievably good, differentiated >>>network at all levels, with huge levels of >>>widespread discrimination of traffic types. >>>[Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low >>>speed; some buy a lot of capacity, some buy >>>less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy >>>shaped. >>>©¯So the suggestion that °© ‘oh dear, it is >>>terrible, we might move to a two-tiered >>>internet in the future'... well, let©–s get >>>real, we have a very multifaceted and >>>multitiered internet today,©— Heaney said. >>> >>>Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be >>>©¯unthinkable©— to return to an internet where >>>every packet of data was given equal weight. >>>©¯Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in >>>which all data, all the bits and the packets >>>were treated in the same way as they passed >>>through the network,©— said Simon Milner, >>>BT©–s director of group industry policy. >>>©¯That was an internet that wasn©–t about the >>>internet that we have today: it wasn©–t about >>>speech, it wasn©–t about video, and it >>>certainly wasn©–t about television. >>> >>>©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists >>>realised that applications would grab as much >>>bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some >>>tools were needed to make this network work >>>more effectively, and that©–s why traffic >>>management techniques and guaranteed quality >>>of service were developed in the 1990s, and >>>then deep-packet inspection came along roughly >>>ten years ago,©— he added. ©¯These techniques >>>and equipment are essential for the >>>development of the internet we see today.©— >>> >>>It©–s interesting to note that some smaller >>>(and, yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen >>>Internet don©–t employ any traffic shaping >>>across their network, and Zen has won the /PC >>>Pro/ Best Broadband ISP award >>> >>>for the past seven years. >>> >>>Even today©–s traffic management methods can >>>cause huge problems for certain websites and >>>services. Peer-to-peer services are a common >>>victim of ISPs©– traffic management policies, >>>often being deprioritised to a snail©–s pace >>>during peak hours. While the intended target >>>may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent >>>clients to download illicit copies of the >>>latest movie releases, legitimate applications >>>can also fall victim to such blunderbuss >>>filtering. >>> >>>©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide >>>ranging,©— said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director >>>of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP >>>service Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely >>>peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that >>>were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, >>>all the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer >>>[which used to run on P2P software] or Skype. >>>So what does that mean? If I manage my traffic >>>from a technical perspective, knowing that >>>Skype actually doesn©–t eat up much bandwidth >>>at all, why should it be deprioritised because >>>it©–s peer-to-peer?©— >>> >>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >>> more vividly than on the mobile internet >>> >>>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic >>>management been felt more vividly than on the >>>mobile internet. Websites and services blocked >>>at the whim of the network, video so >>>compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda >>>propaganda tape, and varying charges for >>>different types of data are already >>>commonplace. >>> >>>Skype is outlawed by a number of British >>>mobile networks fearful of losing phone call >>>revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching >>>the BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and >>>almost all networks outlaw tethering a mobile >>>phone to a laptop or tablet on standard >>>©¯unlimited data©— contracts. >>> >>>Jim Killock, executive director of the Open >>>Rights Group, has this chilling warning for >>>fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at the >>>mobile market, think if that is how you want >>>your internet and your devices to work in the >>>future, because that©–s where things are >>>leading.©— >>> >>>*Video blockers* >>> >>>Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely >>>resisted the more drastic blocking measures >>>chosen by the mobile operators. But if >>>there©–s one area in which ISPs are gagging to >>>rip up what©–s left of the cherished concept >>>of net neutrality, it©–s video. >>> >>>Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer >>>to become the largest single category of >>>internet traffic, according to Cisco©–s Visual >>>Networking Index. It©–s the chief reason why >>>the amount of data used by the average >>>internet connection has shot up by 31% over >>>the past year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a >>>month. >>> >>>Internet TV >>> >>> >>>Managing video traffic is unquestionably a >>>major headache for ISPs and broadcasters >>>alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter >>>traffic management policies to make sure >>>networks don©–t collapse under the weight of >>>video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, >>>broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay >>>content delivery networks (CDNs) such as >>>Akamai millions of pounds every year to >>>distribute their video across the network and >>>closer to the consumer; this helps avoid >>>bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands >>>of people attempt to stream The Apprentice at >>>the same time. >>> >>>Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and >>>get video broadcasters to pay them °© instead >>>of the CDNs °© for guaranteed bandwidth. So >>>if, for example, the BBC wants to guarantee >>>that TalkTalk customers can watch >>>uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, it had >>>better be willing to pay for the privilege. A >>>senior executive at a major broadcaster told >>>/PC Pro/ that his company has already been >>>approached by two leading ISPs looking to cut >>>such a deal. >>> >>>Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into >>>the ©¯fast lane©—; those who don©–t will be >>>left to fight their way through the regular >>>internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can >>>watch a video, perhaps even one you©–ve paid >>>for, may no longer depend on the raw speed of >>>your connection or the amount of network >>>congestion, but whether the broadcaster has >>>paid your ISP for a prioritised stream. >>> >>>©¯We absolutely could see situations in which >>>some content or application providers might >>>want to pay BT for a quality of service above >>>best efforts,©— admitted BT©–s Simon Milner at >>>a recent Westminster eForum. ©¯That is the >>>kind of thing that we©–d have to explain in >>>our traffic management policies, and indeed >>>we©–d do so, and then if somebody decided, >>>‘well, actually I don©–t want to have that >>>kind of service©–, they would be free to go >>>elsewhere.©— >>> >>> We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >>> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >>> above best efforts >>> >>>It gets worse. Asked directly at the same >>>forum whether TalkTalk would be willing to cut >>>off access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour >>>of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign >>>a big enough cheque, TalkTalk©–s Andrew Heaney >>>replied: ©¯We©–d do a deal, and we©–d look at >>>YouTube and we©–d look at BBC and we should >>>have freedom to sign whatever deal works.©— >>> >>>That©–s the country©–s two biggest ISPs °© >>>with more than eight million broadband >>>households between them °© openly admitting >>>they©–d either cut off or effectively cripple >>>video streams from an internet >>>broadcaster if it wasn©–t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >>> >>>Understandably, many of the leading >>>broadcasters are fearful. ©¯The founding >>>principle of the internet is that everyone °© >>>from individuals to global companies °© has >>>equal access,©— wrote the BBC©–s director of >>>future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in >>>a recent blog post on net neutrality. ©¯Since >>>the beginning, the internet has been >>>‘neutral©–, and everyone has been treated the >>>same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes >>>allow broadband providers to effectively pick >>>and choose what you see first and fastest.©— >>> >>>ITV also opposes broadband providers being >>>allowed to shut out certain sites or services. >>>©¯We strongly believe that traffic throttling >>>shouldn©–t be conducted on the basis of >>>content provider; throttling access to content >>>from a particular company or institution,©— >>>the broadcaster said in a recent submission to >>>regulator Ofcom©–s consultation on net >>>neutrality. >>> >>>Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a >>>broadcaster and one of the country©–s leading >>>ISPs, and a company that could naturally >>>benefit from shutting out rival broadcasters >>>°© raised no such objection in its submission >>>to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can and should be >>>relied upon to provide the necessary consumer >>>safeguards,©— Sky argued. >>> >>>Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially >>>run from a small office above a pizzeria >>>before Google weighed in with its $1.65 >>>billion takeover °© have got off the ground if >>>its three founders had been forced to pay ISPs >>>across the globe to ensure its videos could be >>>watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >>> >>>*Walled-garden web* >>> >>>It isn©–t only high-bandwidth video sites that >>>could potentially be blocked by ISPs. >>>Virtually any type of site could find itself >>>barred if one of its rivals has signed an >>>exclusive deal with an ISP, returning the web >>>to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of >>>the late 1990s. >>> >>>Stop sign >>> >>> >>>This isn©–t journalistic scaremongering: the >>>prospect of hugely popular sites being blocked >>>by ISPs is already being debated by the >>>Government. ©¯I sign up to the two-year >>>contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months my >>>daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door >>>and says ‘father, I can©–t access Facebook any >>>more©–,©— hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of >>>international ICT policy at the Department for >>>Business, Innovation and Skills. ©¯I say >>>‘Why?©–. She says ‘It©–s quite obvious, I have >>>gone to the site and I have found that >>>TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, don©–t >>>take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn©–t pay >>>them the money, but YouTube has, so I have >>>gone to YouTube©–: Minister, is that >>>acceptable? That is the sort of question we >>>face.©— >>> >>>*Where©–s the regulator?* >>> >>>So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes >>>to say ©¯yes©—, think about the prospect of >>>ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and >>>leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining >>>bandwidth? It ran a consultation on net >>>neutrality earlier this year, with spiky >>>contributions from ISPs and broadcasters >>>alike, but it appears to be coming down on the >>>side of the broadband providers. >>> >>>©¯I think we were very clear in our discussion >>>document [on net neutrality] that we see the >>>real economic merits to the idea of allowing a >>>two-sided market to emerge,©— said Alex >>>Blowers, international director at Ofcom. >>> >>>©¯Particularly for applications such as IPTV, >>>where it seems to us that the consumer >>>expectation will be a service that©–s of a >>>reasonably consistent quality, that allows you >>>to actually sit down at the beginning of a >>>film and watch it to the end without constant >>>problems of jitter or the picture hanging,©— >>>he said. Taking that argument to its logical >>>conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse >>>to pay the ISPs©– bounty will be subject to >>>stuttering quality. >>> >>>Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be >>>tougher. ©¯We are concerned that Ofcom isn©–t >>>currently taking a firm stance in relation to >>>throttling,©— ITV said in its submission to >>>the regulator. The BBC also said it has >>>©¯concerns about the increasing potential >>>incentives for discriminatory behaviour by >>>network operators, which risks undermining the >>>internet©–s character, and ultimately >>>resulting in consumer harm©—. >>> >>>Ofcom©–s Blowers argues regulation would be >>>premature as ©¯there is very little evidence©— >>>that ©¯the big beasts of the content >>>application and services world are coming >>>together and doing deals with big beasts of >>>the network and ISP world©—. >>> >>>The regulator also places great faith in the >>>power of competition: the theory that >>>broadband subscribers would simply jump ship >>>to another ISP if their provider started doing >>>beastly things °© for example, cutting off >>>services such as the iPlayer. It©–s a theory >>>echoed by the ISPs themselves. ©¯If we started >>>blocking access to certain news sites, you >>>could be sure within about 23 minutes it would >>>be up on a blog and we©–d be chastised for it, >>>quite rightly too,©— said TalkTalk©–s Heaney. >>> >>> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute >>> the content, services and applications they want >>> >>>Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where >>>broadband subscriptions are routinely sold as >>>part of the same deal as TV, telephone or >>>mobile services °© hopping from one ISP to >>>another is rarely simple. Not to mention the >>>18-month or two-year contracts broadband >>>customers are frequently chained to. As the >>>BBC pointed out in its submission to the >>>regulator, ©¯Ofcom©–s 2009 research showed >>>that a quarter of households found it >>>difficult to switch broadband and bundled >>>services©—, with the ©¯perceived hassle of the >>>switching process©— and ©¯the threat of >>>additional charges©— dissuading potential >>>switchers. >>> >>>©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a >>>contract, that©–s that,©— argued the Open >>>Rights Group©–s Jim Killock. ©¯So you make >>>your choice and you lump it, whereas the whole >>>point of the internet is you make your choice, >>>you don©–t like it, you change your mind.©— >>> >>>The best hope of maintaining the status quo of >>>a free and open internet may lie with the EU >>>(although even its determination is wavering). >>>The EU©–s 2009 framework requires national >>>regulators such as Ofcom to promote ©¯the >>>ability of end users to access and distribute >>>information or run applications and services >>>of their choice©— and that ISPs are >>>transparent about any traffic management. >>> >>>It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting >>>favoured partners in the ©¯fast lane©— and >>>crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power >>>to set ©¯minimum quality of service >>>requirements©— °© forcing ISPs to reserve a >>>set amount of bandwidth so that their traffic >>>management doesn©–t hobble those sites that >>>can©–t afford to pay. >>> >>>It©–s a concept enthusiastically backed by the >>>BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or Ofcom, >>>which doesn©–t have to use this new power >>>handed down by Brussels and seems reluctant to >>>do so. ©¯There doesn©–t yet seem to us to be >>>an overwhelming case for a public intervention >>>that would effectively create a new industry >>>structure around this idea of a guaranteed >>>‘best efforts©– internet underpinned by >>>legislation,©— said Ofcom©–s Blowers. >>> >>>It©–s an attitude that sparks dismay from >>>campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©–s approach creates large >>>risks for the open internet,©— said Killock. >>>©¯Its attempts to manage and mitigate the >>>risks are weak, by relying on transparency and >>>competition alone, and it©–s unfortunate it >>>hasn©–t addressed the idea of a minimum >>>service guarantee.©— >>> >>>At least the EU is adamant that ISPs >>>shouldn©–t be permitted to block legal >>>websites or services that conflict with their >>>commercial interests. ©¯First and foremost, >>>users should be able to access and distribute >>>the content, services and applications they >>>want,©— said European Commission vice >>>president Neelie Kroes earlier this year. >>>©¯Discrimination against undesired competitors >>>°© for instance, those providing voice-over >>>the internet services °© shouldn©–t be >>>allowed.©— >>> >>>Yet, Ofcom doesn©–t even regard this as a >>>major issue. ©¯When VoIP services were first >>>launched in the UK, most [mobile] network >>>operators were against permitting VoIP,©— >>>Blowers said. ©¯We now know that you can find >>>packages from a number of suppliers that do >>>permit VoIP services. >>>So I©–m not as pessimistic as some may be that >>>this kind of gaming behaviour around blocking >>>services will be a real problem.©— >>> >>>If the EU doesn©–t drag the UK©–s relaxed >>>regulator into line with the rest of the >>>world, it will be British internet users who >>>have the real problem. >>> >>>*Author:* Barry Collins >>> >>> >>>Read more: The end of the net as we know it | >>>Broadband | Features | PC Pro >>> >>>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >>> >>>-- >>>PK >>> >>> >>>Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. >>> >>>I do not think we, as a premier global CS >>>group, can afford to *not* do something about >>>this issue. So many times a discussion on NN >>>on this list has run into this wall - it is a >>>very complex issues with many sides to it'. >>>So ??? I dont think this is a good enough >>>reason for abdication. One often hears excuses >>>like, with voice and video domination the >>>internet today NN is a meaningless concept. >>>Not so at all. We can have specific provisions >>>whereby specific applications can have >>>different treatments while being >>>content-provider neutral, this latter being >>>the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have >>>oftne been mentioned in discussions here >>>earlier. These guidelines allow space to >>>manage voice and vedio applications related >>>issues. IS there any reason why Norway's >>>guidelines cannot be used globally, and why >>>should IGC be forcefully pushing for them. I >>>fear that if soon enough there is not a basic >>>global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway >>>like countries may not be able to preserve NN, >>>such is the globalness of the Internet and its >>>basic architectural principles. >>> >>>What I am arguing for is that we should not >>>only propose NN as a plenary topic and >>>absolutely put our foot down that it must be >>>accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find >>>the whole exercise meaningless and may not >>>even want to participate.... I mean the kind >>>of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder >>> >>>The end of the net as we know it >>> >>>Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >>> >>>ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that >>>don't pay them first. Barry Collins fears a >>>disastrous end to net neutrality >>> >>>You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC >>>iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the latest >>>episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, >>>plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your >>>laptop©–s speakers, you©–re left staring at >>>the whirring, circular icon as the video >>>buffers and buffers and buffers... >>> >>>That©–s odd. Not only have you got a new >>>40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but >>>you were watching a Full HD video on Sky >>>Player just moments ago. There©–s nothing >>>wrong with your connection; it must be >>>iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out if >>>anyone else is having problems streaming >>>Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on >>>your screen leaves you looking more startled >>>than Bill Bailey. ©¯This service isn©–t >>>supported on your broadband service. Click >>>here to visit our social-networking partner, >>>Facebook.©— >>> >>>Net neutrality? We don©–t have it today >>> >>>The free, unrestricted internet as we know it >>>is under threat. Britain©–s leading ISPs are >>>attempting to construct a two-tier internet, >>>where websites and services that are willing >>>to pay are thrust into the ©¯fast lane©—, >>>while those that don©–t are left fighting for >>>scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. >>>They©–re not so much ripping up the cherished >>>notion of net neutrality as pouring petrol >>>over the pieces and lighting the match. The >>>only question is: can they get away with it? >>> >>>No such thing as net neutrality >>> >>>It©–s worth pointing out that the concept of >>>net neutrality °© ISPs treating different >>>types of internet traffic or content equally >>>°© is already a busted flush. ©¯Net >>>neutrality? We don©–t have it today,©— argues >>>Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy >>>and regulation at TalkTalk, Britain©–s second >>>biggest ISP. >>> >>>©¯We have an unbelievably good, differentiated >>>network at all levels, with huge levels of >>>widespread discrimination of traffic types. >>>[Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low >>>speed; some buy a lot of capacity, some buy >>>less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy >>>shaped. >>>©¯So the suggestion that °© ‘oh dear, it is >>>terrible, we might move to a two-tiered >>>internet in the future'... well, let©–s get >>>real, we have a very multifaceted and >>>multitiered internet today,©— Heaney said. >>> >>>Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be >>>©¯unthinkable©— to return to an internet where >>>every packet of data was given equal weight. >>>©¯Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in >>>which all data, all the bits and the packets >>>were treated in the same way as they passed >>>through the network,©— said Simon Milner, >>>BT©–s director of group industry policy. >>>©¯That was an internet that wasn©–t about the >>>internet that we have today: it wasn©–t about >>>speech, it wasn©–t about video, and it >>>certainly wasn©–t about television. >>> >>>©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists >>>realised that applications would grab as much >>>bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some >>>tools were needed to make this network work >>>more effectively, and that©–s why traffic >>>management techniques and guaranteed quality >>>of service were developed in the 1990s, and >>>then deep-packet inspection came along roughly >>>ten years ago,©— he added. ©¯These techniques >>>and equipment are essential for the >>>development of the internet we see today.©— >>> >>>It©–s interesting to note that some smaller >>>(and, yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen >>>Internet don©–t employ any traffic shaping >>>across their network, and Zen has won the PC >>>Pro >>>Best >>>Broadband ISP award for the past seven years. >>> >>>Even today©–s traffic management methods can >>>cause huge problems for certain websites and >>>services. Peer-to-peer services are a common >>>victim of ISPs©– traffic management policies, >>>often being deprioritised to a snail©–s pace >>>during peak hours. While the intended target >>>may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent >>>clients to download illicit copies of the >>>latest movie releases, legitimate applications >>>can also fall victim to such blunderbuss >>>filtering. >>> >>>©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide >>>ranging,©— said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director >>>of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP >>>service Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely >>>peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that >>>were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, >>>all the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer >>>[which used to run on P2P software] or Skype. >>>So what does that mean? If I manage my traffic >>>from a technical perspective, knowing that >>>Skype actually doesn©–t eat up much bandwidth >>>at all, why should it be deprioritised because >>>it©–s peer-to-peer?©— >>> >>>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic >>>management been felt more vividly than on the >>>mobile internet >>> >>>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic >>>management been felt more vividly than on the >>>mobile internet. Websites and services blocked >>>at the whim of the network, video so >>>compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda >>>propaganda tape, and varying charges for >>>different types of data are already >>>commonplace. >>> >>>Skype is outlawed by a number of British >>>mobile networks fearful of losing phone call >>>revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching >>>the BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and >>>almost all networks outlaw tethering a mobile >>>phone to a laptop or tablet on standard >>>©¯unlimited data©— contracts. >>> >>>Jim Killock, executive director of the Open >>>Rights Group, has this chilling warning for >>>fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at the >>>mobile market, think if that is how you want >>>your internet and your devices to work in the >>>future, because that©–s where things are >>>leading.©— >>> >>>Video blockers >>> >>>Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely >>>resisted the more drastic blocking measures >>>chosen by the mobile operators. But if >>>there©–s one area in which ISPs are gagging to >>>rip up what©–s left of the cherished concept >>>of net neutrality, it©–s video. >>> >>>Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer >>>to become the largest single category of >>>internet traffic, according to Cisco©–s Visual >>>Networking Index. It©–s the chief reason why >>>the amount of data used by the average >>>internet connection has shot up by 31% over >>>the past year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a >>>month. >>> >>> >>>Managing video traffic is unquestionably a >>>major headache for ISPs and broadcasters >>>alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter >>>traffic management policies to make sure >>>networks don©–t collapse under the weight of >>>video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, >>>broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay >>>content delivery networks (CDNs) such as >>>Akamai millions of pounds every year to >>>distribute their video across the network and >>>closer to the consumer; this helps avoid >>>bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands >>>of people attempt to stream The Apprentice at >>>the same time. >>> >>>Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and >>>get video broadcasters to pay them °© instead >>>of the CDNs °© for guaranteed bandwidth. So >>>if, for example, the BBC wants to guarantee >>>that TalkTalk customers can watch >>>uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, it had >>>better be willing to pay for the privilege. A >>>senior executive at a major broadcaster told >>>PC Pro that his company has already been >>>approached by two leading ISPs looking to cut >>>such a deal. >>> >>>Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into >>>the ©¯fast lane©—; those who don©–t will be >>>left to fight their way through the regular >>>internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can >>>watch a video, perhaps even one you©–ve paid >>>for, may no longer depend on the raw speed of >>>your connection or the amount of network >>>congestion, but whether the broadcaster has >>>paid your ISP for a prioritised stream. >>> >>>©¯We absolutely could see situations in which >>>some content or application providers might >>>want to pay BT for a quality of service above >>>best efforts,©— admitted BT©–s Simon Milner at >>>a recent Westminster eForum. ©¯That is the >>>kind of thing that we©–d have to explain in >>>our traffic management policies, and indeed >>>we©–d do so, and then if somebody decided, >>>‘well, actually I don©–t want to have that >>>kind of service©–, they would be free to go >>>elsewhere.©— >>> >>>We absolutely could see situations in which >>>some content or application providers might >>>want to pay BT for a quality of service above >>>best efforts >>> >>>It gets worse. Asked directly at the same >>>forum whether TalkTalk would be willing to cut >>>off access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour >>>of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign >>>a big enough cheque, TalkTalk©–s Andrew Heaney >>>replied: ©¯We©–d do a deal, and we©–d look at >>>YouTube and we©–d look at BBC and we should >>>have freedom to sign whatever deal works.©— >>> >>>That©–s the country©–s two biggest ISPs °© >>>with more than eight million broadband >>>households between them °© openly admitting >>>they©–d either cut off or effectively cripple >>>video streams from an internet >>>broadcaster if it wasn©–t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >>> >>>Understandably, many of the leading >>>broadcasters are fearful. ©¯The founding >>>principle of the internet is that everyone °© >>>from individuals to global companies °© has >>>equal access,©— wrote the BBC©–s director of >>>future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in >>>a recent blog post on net neutrality. ©¯Since >>>the beginning, the internet has been >>>‘neutral©–, and everyone has been treated the >>>same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes >>>allow broadband providers to effectively pick >>>and choose what you see first and fastest.©— >>> >>>ITV also opposes broadband providers being >>>allowed to shut out certain sites or services. >>>©¯We strongly believe that traffic throttling >>>shouldn©–t be conducted on the basis of >>>content provider; throttling access to content >>>from a particular company or institution,©— >>>the broadcaster said in a recent submission to >>>regulator Ofcom©–s consultation on net >>>neutrality. >>> >>>Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a >>>broadcaster and one of the country©–s leading >>>ISPs, and a company that could naturally >>>benefit from shutting out rival broadcasters >>>°© raised no such objection in its submission >>>to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can and should be >>>relied upon to provide the necessary consumer >>>safeguards,©— Sky argued. >>> >>>Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially >>>run from a small office above a pizzeria >>>before Google weighed in with its $1.65 >>>billion takeover °© have got off the ground if >>>its three founders had been forced to pay ISPs >>>across the globe to ensure its videos could be >>>watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >>> >>>Walled-garden web >>> >>>It isn©–t only high-bandwidth video sites that >>>could potentially be blocked by ISPs. >>>Virtually any type of site could find itself >>>barred if one of its rivals has signed an >>>exclusive deal with an ISP, returning the web >>>to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of >>>the late 1990s. >>> >>> >>>This isn©–t journalistic scaremongering: the >>>prospect of hugely popular sites being blocked >>>by ISPs is already being debated by the >>>Government. ©¯I sign up to the two-year >>>contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months my >>>daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door >>>and says ‘father, I can©–t access Facebook any >>>more©–,©— hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of >>>international ICT policy at the Department for >>>Business, Innovation and Skills. ©¯I say >>>‘Why?©–. She says ‘It©–s quite obvious, I have >>>gone to the site and I have found that >>>TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, don©–t >>>take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn©–t pay >>>them the money, but YouTube has, so I have >>>gone to YouTube©–: Minister, is that >>>acceptable? That is the sort of question we >>>face.©— >>> >>>Where©–s the regulator? >>> >>>So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes >>>to say ©¯yes©—, think about the prospect of >>>ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and >>>leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining >>>bandwidth? It ran a consultation on net >>>neutrality earlier this year, with spiky >>>contributions from ISPs and broadcasters >>>alike, but it appears to be coming down on the >>>side of the broadband providers. >>> >>>©¯I think we were very clear in our discussion >>>document [on net neutrality] that we see the >>>real economic merits to the idea of allowing a >>>two-sided market to emerge,©— said Alex >>>Blowers, international director at Ofcom. >>> >>>©¯Particularly for applications such as IPTV, >>>where it seems to us that the consumer >>>expectation will be a service that©–s of a >>>reasonably consistent quality, that allows you >>>to actually sit down at the beginning of a >>>film and watch it to the end without constant >>>problems of jitter or the picture hanging,©— >>>he said. Taking that argument to its logical >>>conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse >>>to pay the ISPs©– bounty will be subject to >>>stuttering quality. >>> >>>Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be >>>tougher. ©¯We are concerned that Ofcom isn©–t >>>currently taking a firm stance in relation to >>>throttling,©— ITV said in its submission to >>>the regulator. The BBC also said it has >>>©¯concerns about the increasing potential >>>incentives for discriminatory behaviour by >>>network operators, which risks undermining the >>>internet©–s character, and ultimately >>>resulting in consumer harm©—. >>> >>>Ofcom©–s Blowers argues regulation would be >>>premature as ©¯there is very little evidence©— >>>that ©¯the big beasts of the content >>>application and services world are coming >>>together and doing deals with big beasts of >>>the network and ISP world©—. >>> >>>The regulator also places great faith in the >>>power of competition: the theory that >>>broadband subscribers would simply jump ship >>>to another ISP if their provider started doing >>>beastly things °© for example, cutting off >>>services such as the iPlayer. It©–s a theory >>>echoed by the ISPs themselves. ©¯If we started >>>blocking access to certain news sites, you >>>could be sure within about 23 minutes it would >>>be up on a blog and we©–d be chastised for it, >>>quite rightly too,©— said TalkTalk©–s Heaney. >>> >>>First and foremost, users should be able to >>>access and distribute the content, services >>>and applications they want >>> >>>Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where >>>broadband subscriptions are routinely sold as >>>part of the same deal as TV, telephone or >>>mobile services °© hopping from one ISP to >>>another is rarely simple. Not to mention the >>>18-month or two-year contracts broadband >>>customers are frequently chained to. As the >>>BBC pointed out in its submission to the >>>regulator, ©¯Ofcom©–s 2009 research showed >>>that a quarter of households found it >>>difficult to switch broadband and bundled >>>services©—, with the ©¯perceived hassle of the >>>switching process©— and ©¯the threat of >>>additional charges©— dissuading potential >>>switchers. >>> >>>©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a >>>contract, that©–s that,©— argued the Open >>>Rights Group©–s Jim Killock. ©¯So you make >>>your choice and you lump it, whereas the whole >>>point of the internet is you make your choice, >>>you don©–t like it, you change your mind.©— >>> >>>The best hope of maintaining the status quo of >>>a free and open internet may lie with the EU >>>(although even its determination is wavering). >>>The EU©–s 2009 framework requires national >>>regulators such as Ofcom to promote ©¯the >>>ability of end users to access and distribute >>>information or run applications and services >>>of their choice©— and that ISPs are >>>transparent about any traffic management. >>> >>>It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting >>>favoured partners in the ©¯fast lane©— and >>>crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power >>>to set ©¯minimum quality of service >>>requirements©— °© forcing ISPs to reserve a >>>set amount of bandwidth so that their traffic >>>management doesn©–t hobble those sites that >>>can©–t afford to pay. >>> >>>It©–s a concept enthusiastically backed by the >>>BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or Ofcom, >>>which doesn©–t have to use this new power >>>handed down by Brussels and seems reluctant to >>>do so. ©¯There doesn©–t yet seem to us to be >>>an overwhelming case for a public intervention >>>that would effectively create a new industry >>>structure around this idea of a guaranteed >>>‘best efforts©– internet underpinned by >>>legislation,©— said Ofcom©–s Blowers. >>> >>>It©–s an attitude that sparks dismay from >>>campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©–s approach creates large >>>risks for the open internet,©— said Killock. >>>©¯Its attempts to manage and mitigate the >>>risks are weak, by relying on transparency and >>>competition alone, and it©–s unfortunate it >>>hasn©–t addressed the idea of a minimum >>>service guarantee.©— >>> >>>At least the EU is adamant that ISPs >>>shouldn©–t be permitted to block legal >>>websites or services that conflict with their >>>commercial interests. ©¯First and foremost, >>>users should be able to access and distribute >>>the content, services and applications they >>>want,©— said European Commission vice >>>president Neelie Kroes earlier this year. >>>©¯Discrimination against undesired competitors >>>°© for instance, those providing voice-over >>>the internet services °© shouldn©–t be >>>allowed.©— >>> >>>Yet, Ofcom doesn©–t even regard this as a >>>major issue. ©¯When VoIP services were first >>>launched in the UK, most [mobile] network >>>operators were against permitting VoIP,©— >>>Blowers said. ©¯We now know that you can find >>>packages from a number of suppliers that do >>>permit VoIP services. >>>So I©–m not as pessimistic as some may be that >>>this kind of gaming behaviour around blocking >>>services will be a real problem.©— >>> >>>If the EU doesn©–t drag the UK©–s relaxed >>>regulator into line with the rest of the >>>world, it will be British internet users who >>>have the real problem. >>> >>>Author: Barry Collins >>> >>> >>>Read more: >>>The >>>end of the net as we know it | Broadband | >>>Features | PC Pro >>>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >>> >>> >>>-- >>>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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 Sun Jan 23 04:06:16 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:36:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> <4D3BE76C.3040608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D3BEF88.4080507@itforchange.net> Adam Hope you have no problem if i continue with this discussion. I am not picking holes in your paper, but arguing my understanding of NN, and what I see is the urgent need to come up with a global NN framework. Adam Peake wrote: > I think you could make general principles, and at the level of > principles what you have in Norway and Japan is not so different from > the FCC's policy principles. Problem comes when you try to enforce > those principles. Can you tell be how it is difficult to enforce the principle or regulatory law that 'there will be no content provider specific pay-for-priority on the public Internet'. I am very sure it can be enforced with 100 percent clarity and effectiveness... This is also written in the FCC's new NN framework and from all that I know they mean to enforce it. So how you are claiming that this rule may not practically enforcable or to be closer to your language 'problems will come when we try to enforce this rule'. For me this is the basic NN rule and it is very clear and 100 percent enforceable. Many may have claimed at first that regulations that broke up first telephone network monopolies and then broke the hardware-software coupling will be difficult to enforce. However if these regulations were not framed and enforced we may not have seen the information or ICT revolution. The main difference between those times and now is that the ICT structure today is inherently global - and the most powerful countries while they can clearly see the public interest benefit of NN for their own people, they know that with an inequitous and non neutral Internet, it will be their mega digital corporate which will win against newcomers from the developing world. So they are caught between supporting an evident public interest cause and not weakening the special global advantage their companies enjoy today. This is the key 'policy conundrum' in the globalised world today. Parminder > I think that's what we were trying to say with this comment in the > conclusion "it is very hard to make broad, sweeping concepts > actionable or enforceable as rules". And as another matter I think > wireless networks are different from wired, and that's a massive > problem given that developing countries will likely be relying on > wireless. > > Adam > > > >> Thanks Adam for the paper. Just skimmed through it, but plan to read >> it fully later. >> >> However, I am unable to agree to the conclusions that it is difficult >> to say what is a NN violation or not, and a one-size-fit-all set of >> guidelines are difficult, and in any case any ex ante NN regulation >> is extremely diffcult. >> >> Can you suggest why for instance Norway's clear NN guidelines cannot >> work, and work universally? >> (see >> http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf >> ) >> >> It all really depends on what our basic point of departure is. If it >> is human rights, or rights of all people on the Internet, then that >> becomes basic and most important and profit-models etc come much >> later. NN has to be seen from such a huan rights angle. Anyone can >> argue to any length how ensuring say democratic rights is an >> expensive model, or media rights interfere with business models and >> the such. Precisely to avoid such problem we have the concept of rights. >> >> So, for many of us net neutrality, or net equality, is a basic right. >> We start from here. Companies have to adjust their business models to >> it, and regulators have to ensure that this right is ensured. >> >> Now for practical translation of this right. I dont see how it is >> difficult to understand or enforce a simple regulation that 'there >> will be no content provider specific pay-for-priority on the public >> Internet' and if any such practices are found there will be heavy >> penalty and eventual cancellation of license. This however does >> exclude public interest communication like emergency services etc >> about which guidelines will be issued separately. >> >> The above is a very specific and clear NN guideline. I will like to >> hear why is it not enforceable. >> >> Lee, managed services of the kind Akamai offers is a different thing. >> Here they do not use the public internet but private IP based >> channels. More elaborate NN guidelines will also cover issues about >> how public Internet and such private IP based networks will co-exist >> in a manner that larger pulbic interest and people's basic rights are >> ensured. >> >> Not only Norway has clear NN guidelines, even FCC has come up with a >> NN framework for wired internet and the framework covers all issues. >> In fact the guidelines and the individual commissioner's comments >> make very interesting reading. I have no confusion about NN when I >> read them. Things are crystal clear, as they must be because they >> are real enforcable laws of the land. The only problem is that FCC >> left out wireless networks from NN ambit and that is the key issue we >> need to discuss. >> >> In this context it may be considered rather surprising that the main >> civil society group in IG arena continues to think that NN issue is >> too complex to be able to be discussed or applied with any degree of >> coherence. I am not a techie, but I can clearly understand it - to >> the extent that any 'real life' issue can ever be understood'. >> >> On the notion that competitive markets will take care of the NN >> problem - let me repeat, India's mobile market is perhaps the world's >> most competitive, and there is a large scale NN violation going on >> there right now. >> >> parminder >> >> >> Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Some background >>> >>> (self serving plug to a paper written by some colleagues and me, "A >>> Comparison of Network Neutrality Approaches In: The U.S., Japan, and >>> the European Union".) >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>> Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. >>>> >>>> I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to >>>> *not* do something about this issue. So many times a discussion on >>>> NN on this list has run into this wall - it is a very complex >>>> issues with many sides to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a good >>>> enough reason for abdication. One often hears excuses like, with >>>> voice and video domination the internet today NN is a meaningless >>>> concept. Not so at all. We can have specific provisions whereby >>>> specific applications can have different treatments while being >>>> content-provider neutral, this latter being the key issue. Norway's >>>> NN guidelines have oftne been mentioned in discussions here >>>> earlier. These guidelines allow space to manage voice and vedio >>>> applications related issues. IS there any reason why Norway's >>>> guidelines cannot be used globally, and why should IGC be >>>> forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon enough there is >>>> not a basic global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway like >>>> countries may not be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness of >>>> the Internet and its basic architectural principles. >>>> >>>> What I am arguing for is that we should not only propose NN as a >>>> plenary topic and absolutely put our foot down that it must be >>>> accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find the whole exercise >>>> meaningless and may not even want to participate.... I mean the >>>> kind of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> The end of the net as we know it >>>> >>>> Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >>>> >>>> ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them first. >>>> Barry Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality >>>> >>>> You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and >>>> press Play on the latest episode of QI. But instead of that >>>> tedious, plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your laptop©--s >>>> speakers, you©--re left staring at the whirring, circular icon as >>>> the video buffers and buffers and buffers... >>>> >>>> That©--s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre >>>> broadband connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on Sky >>>> Player just moments ago. There©--s nothing wrong with your >>>> connection; it must be iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out >>>> if anyone else is having problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The >>>> message that appears on your screen leaves you looking more >>>> startled than Bill Bailey. ©¯This service isn©--t supported on your >>>> broadband service. Click here to visit our social-networking >>>> partner, Facebook.©--- >>>> >>>> Net neutrality? We don©--t have it today >>>> >>>> The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat. >>>> Britain©--s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier >>>> internet, where websites and services that are willing to pay are >>>> thrust into the ©¯fast lane©---, while those that don©--t are left >>>> fighting for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. >>>> They©--re not so much ripping up the cherished notion of net >>>> neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and lighting the >>>> match. The only question is: can they get away with it? >>>> >>>> *No such thing as net neutrality* >>>> >>>> It©--s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality °© >>>> ISPs treating different types of internet traffic or content >>>> equally °© is already a busted flush. ©¯Net neutrality? We don©--t >>>> have it today,©--- argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of >>>> strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, Britain©--s second biggest ISP. >>>> >>>> ©¯We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all >>>> levels, with huge levels of widespread discrimination of traffic >>>> types. [Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low speed; some >>>> buy a lot of capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped traffic, >>>> some buy shaped. >>>> ©¯So the suggestion that °© 'oh dear, it is terrible, we might move >>>> to a two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let©--s get real, >>>> we have a very multifaceted and multitiered internet today,©--- >>>> Heaney said. >>>> >>>> Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be ©¯unthinkable©--- to >>>> return to an internet where every packet of data was given equal >>>> weight. ©¯Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in which all >>>> data, all the bits and the packets were treated in the same way as >>>> they passed through the network,©--- said Simon Milner, BT©--s >>>> director of group industry policy. ©¯That was an internet that >>>> wasn©--t about the internet that we have today: it wasn©--t about >>>> speech, it wasn©--t about video, and it certainly wasn©--t about >>>> television. >>>> >>>> ©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that >>>> applications would grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and >>>> therefore some tools were needed to make this network work more >>>> effectively, and that©--s why traffic management techniques and >>>> guaranteed quality of service were developed in the 1990s, and then >>>> deep-packet inspection came along roughly ten years ago,©--- he >>>> added. ©¯These techniques and equipment are essential for the >>>> development of the internet we see today.©--- >>>> >>>> It©--s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more >>>> expensive) ISPs such as Zen Internet don©--t employ any traffic >>>> shaping across their network, and Zen has won the /PC Pro/ Best >>>> Broadband ISP award >>>> >>>> for the past seven years. >>>> >>>> Even today©--s traffic management methods can cause huge problems >>>> for certain websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a >>>> common victim of ISPs©-- traffic management policies, often being >>>> deprioritised to a snail©--s pace during peak hours. While the >>>> intended target may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients >>>> to download illicit copies of the latest movie releases, legitimate >>>> applications can also fall victim to such blunderbuss filtering. >>>> >>>> ©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,©--- said >>>> Jean-Jacques Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs >>>> at VoIP service Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely peer-to-peer >>>> file-sharing applications that were referred to in the Digital >>>> Economy Act, all the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which >>>> used to run on P2P software] or Skype. So what does that mean? If I >>>> manage my traffic from a technical perspective, knowing that Skype >>>> actually doesn©--t eat up much bandwidth at all, why should it be >>>> deprioritised because it©--s peer-to-peer?©--- >>>> >>>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >>>> more vividly than on the mobile internet >>>> >>>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >>>> more vividly than on the mobile internet. Websites and services >>>> blocked at the whim of the network, video so compressed it looks >>>> like an Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and varying charges for different >>>> types of data are already commonplace. >>>> >>>> Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful of >>>> losing phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching the >>>> BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all networks outlaw >>>> tethering a mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on standard >>>> ©¯unlimited data©--- contracts. >>>> >>>> Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has this >>>> chilling warning for fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at the >>>> mobile market, think if that is how you want your internet and your >>>> devices to work in the future, because that©--s where things are >>>> leading.©--- >>>> >>>> *Video blockers* >>>> >>>> Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic >>>> blocking measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there©--s >>>> one area in which ISPs are gagging to rip up what©--s left of the >>>> cherished concept of net neutrality, it©--s video. >>>> >>>> Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the >>>> largest single category of internet traffic, according to Cisco©--s >>>> Visual Networking Index. It©--s the chief reason why the amount of >>>> data used by the average internet connection has shot up by 31% >>>> over the past year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month. >>>> >>>> Internet TV >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for ISPs >>>> and broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter traffic >>>> management policies to make sure networks don©--t collapse under >>>> the weight of video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, >>>> broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay content delivery >>>> networks (CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds every year to >>>> distribute their video across the network and closer to the >>>> consumer; this helps avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of >>>> thousands of people attempt to stream The Apprentice at the same time. >>>> >>>> Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video >>>> broadcasters to pay them °© instead of the CDNs °© for guaranteed >>>> bandwidth. So if, for example, the BBC wants to guarantee that >>>> TalkTalk customers can watch uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, >>>> it had better be willing to pay for the privilege. A senior >>>> executive at a major broadcaster told /PC Pro/ that his company has >>>> already been approached by two leading ISPs looking to cut such a >>>> deal. >>>> >>>> Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the ©¯fast lane©---; >>>> those who don©--t will be left to fight their way through the >>>> regular internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a >>>> video, perhaps even one you©--ve paid for, may no longer depend on >>>> the raw speed of your connection or the amount of network >>>> congestion, but whether the broadcaster has paid your ISP for a >>>> prioritised stream. >>>> >>>> ©¯We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >>>> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >>>> above best efforts,©--- admitted BT©--s Simon Milner at a recent >>>> Westminster eForum. ©¯That is the kind of thing that we©--d have to >>>> explain in our traffic management policies, and indeed we©--d do >>>> so, and then if somebody decided, 'well, actually I don©--t want to >>>> have that kind of service©--, they would be free to go elsewhere.©--- >>>> >>>> We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >>>> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >>>> above best efforts >>>> >>>> It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk >>>> would be willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in >>>> favour of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big enough >>>> cheque, TalkTalk©--s Andrew Heaney replied: ©¯We©--d do a deal, and >>>> we©--d look at YouTube and we©--d look at BBC and we should have >>>> freedom to sign whatever deal works.©--- >>>> >>>> That©--s the country©--s two biggest ISPs °© with more than eight >>>> million broadband households between them °© openly admitting >>>> they©--d either cut off or effectively cripple video streams from >>>> an internet >>>> broadcaster if it wasn©--t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >>>> >>>> Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. ©¯The >>>> founding principle of the internet is that everyone °© from >>>> individuals to global companies °© has equal access,©--- wrote the >>>> BBC©--s director of future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in a >>>> recent blog post on net neutrality. ©¯Since the beginning, the >>>> internet has been 'neutral©--, and everyone has been treated the >>>> same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes allow broadband >>>> providers to effectively pick and choose what you see first and >>>> fastest.©--- >>>> >>>> ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out >>>> certain sites or services. ©¯We strongly believe that traffic >>>> throttling shouldn©--t be conducted on the basis of content >>>> provider; throttling access to content from a particular company or >>>> institution,©--- the broadcaster said in a recent submission to >>>> regulator Ofcom©--s consultation on net neutrality. >>>> >>>> Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a broadcaster and one of >>>> the country©--s leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally >>>> benefit from shutting out rival broadcasters °© raised no such >>>> objection in its submission to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can and should >>>> be relied upon to provide the necessary consumer safeguards,©--- >>>> Sky argued. >>>> >>>> Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially run from a small >>>> office above a pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 >>>> billion takeover °© have got off the ground if its three founders >>>> had been forced to pay ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos >>>> could be watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >>>> >>>> *Walled-garden web* >>>> >>>> It isn©--t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially >>>> be blocked by ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself >>>> barred if one of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with an >>>> ISP, returning the web to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of >>>> the late 1990s. >>>> >>>> Stop sign >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This isn©--t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely >>>> popular sites being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by the >>>> Government. ©¯I sign up to the two-year contract [with an ISP] and >>>> after 18 months my daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door and >>>> says 'father, I can©--t access Facebook any more©--,©--- >>>> hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of international ICT policy at the >>>> Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. ©¯I say 'Why?©--. >>>> She says 'It©--s quite obvious, I have gone to the site and I have >>>> found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, don©--t take >>>> Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn©--t pay them the money, but >>>> YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube©--: Minister, is that >>>> acceptable? That is the sort of question we face.©--- >>>> >>>> *Where©--s the regulator?* >>>> >>>> So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say ©¯yes©---, >>>> think about the prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast >>>> lane and leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? It >>>> ran a consultation on net neutrality earlier this year, with spiky >>>> contributions from ISPs and broadcasters alike, but it appears to >>>> be coming down on the side of the broadband providers. >>>> >>>> ©¯I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net >>>> neutrality] that we see the real economic merits to the idea of >>>> allowing a two-sided market to emerge,©--- said Alex Blowers, >>>> international director at Ofcom. >>>> >>>> ©¯Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to us >>>> that the consumer expectation will be a service that©--s of a >>>> reasonably consistent quality, that allows you to actually sit down >>>> at the beginning of a film and watch it to the end without constant >>>> problems of jitter or the picture hanging,©--- he said. Taking that >>>> argument to its logical conclusion means that broadcasters who >>>> refuse to pay the ISPs©-- bounty will be subject to stuttering >>>> quality. >>>> >>>> Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. ©¯We are >>>> concerned that Ofcom isn©--t currently taking a firm stance in >>>> relation to throttling,©--- ITV said in its submission to the >>>> regulator. The BBC also said it has ©¯concerns about the increasing >>>> potential incentives for discriminatory behaviour by network >>>> operators, which risks undermining the internet©--s character, and >>>> ultimately resulting in consumer harm©---. >>>> >>>> Ofcom©--s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as ©¯there >>>> is very little evidence©--- that ©¯the big beasts of the content >>>> application and services world are coming together and doing deals >>>> with big beasts of the network and ISP world©---. >>>> >>>> The regulator also places great faith in the power of competition: >>>> the theory that broadband subscribers would simply jump ship to >>>> another ISP if their provider started doing beastly things °© for >>>> example, cutting off services such as the iPlayer. It©--s a theory >>>> echoed by the ISPs themselves. ©¯If we started blocking access to >>>> certain news sites, you could be sure within about 23 minutes it >>>> would be up on a blog and we©--d be chastised for it, quite rightly >>>> too,©--- said TalkTalk©--s Heaney. >>>> >>>> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute >>>> the content, services and applications they want >>>> >>>> Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where broadband >>>> subscriptions are routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, >>>> telephone or mobile services °© hopping from one ISP to another is >>>> rarely simple. Not to mention the 18-month or two-year contracts >>>> broadband customers are frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed >>>> out in its submission to the regulator, ©¯Ofcom©--s 2009 research >>>> showed that a quarter of households found it difficult to switch >>>> broadband and bundled services©---, with the ©¯perceived hassle of >>>> the switching process©--- and ©¯the threat of additional >>>> charges©--- dissuading potential switchers. >>>> >>>> ©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that©--s >>>> that,©--- argued the Open Rights Group©--s Jim Killock. ©¯So you >>>> make your choice and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the >>>> internet is you make your choice, you don©--t like it, you change >>>> your mind.©--- >>>> >>>> The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open >>>> internet may lie with the EU (although even its determination is >>>> wavering). The EU©--s 2009 framework requires national regulators >>>> such as Ofcom to promote ©¯the ability of end users to access and >>>> distribute information or run applications and services of their >>>> choice©--- and that ISPs are transparent about any traffic management. >>>> >>>> It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners in >>>> the ©¯fast lane©--- and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the >>>> power to set ©¯minimum quality of service requirements©--- °© >>>> forcing ISPs to reserve a set amount of bandwidth so that their >>>> traffic management doesn©--t hobble those sites that can©--t afford >>>> to pay. >>>> >>>> It©--s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, but >>>> not by the ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn©--t have to use this new >>>> power handed down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. ©¯There >>>> doesn©--t yet seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a public >>>> intervention that would effectively create a new industry structure >>>> around this idea of a guaranteed 'best efforts©-- internet >>>> underpinned by legislation,©--- said Ofcom©--s Blowers. >>>> >>>> It©--s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©--s >>>> approach creates large risks for the open internet,©--- said >>>> Killock. ©¯Its attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are weak, >>>> by relying on transparency and competition alone, and it©--s >>>> unfortunate it hasn©--t addressed the idea of a minimum service >>>> guarantee.©--- >>>> >>>> At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn©--t be permitted to >>>> block legal websites or services that conflict with their >>>> commercial interests. ©¯First and foremost, users should be able to >>>> access and distribute the content, services and applications they >>>> want,©--- said European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes >>>> earlier this year. >>>> ©¯Discrimination against undesired competitors °© for instance, >>>> those providing voice-over the internet services °© shouldn©--t be >>>> allowed.©--- >>>> >>>> Yet, Ofcom doesn©--t even regard this as a major issue. ©¯When VoIP >>>> services were first launched in the UK, most [mobile] network >>>> operators were against permitting VoIP,©--- Blowers said. ©¯We now >>>> know that you can find packages from a number of suppliers that do >>>> permit VoIP services. >>>> So I©--m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of gaming >>>> behaviour around blocking services will be a real problem.©--- >>>> >>>> If the EU doesn©--t drag the UK©--s relaxed regulator into line >>>> with the rest of the world, it will be British internet users who >>>> have the real problem. >>>> >>>> *Author:* Barry Collins >>>> >>>> >>>> Read more: The end of the net as we know it | Broadband | Features >>>> | PC Pro >>>> >>>> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PK >>>> >>>> >>>> Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. >>>> >>>> I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to >>>> *not* do something about this issue. So many times a discussion on >>>> NN on this list has run into this wall - it is a very complex >>>> issues with many sides to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a good >>>> enough reason for abdication. One often hears excuses like, with >>>> voice and video domination the internet today NN is a meaningless >>>> concept. Not so at all. We can have specific provisions whereby >>>> specific applications can have different treatments while being >>>> content-provider neutral, this latter being the key issue. Norway's >>>> NN guidelines have oftne been mentioned in discussions here >>>> earlier. These guidelines allow space to manage voice and vedio >>>> applications related issues. IS there any reason why Norway's >>>> guidelines cannot be used globally, and why should IGC be >>>> forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon enough there is >>>> not a basic global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway like >>>> countries may not be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness of >>>> the Internet and its basic architectural principles. >>>> >>>> What I am arguing for is that we should not only propose NN as a >>>> plenary topic and absolutely put our foot down that it must be >>>> accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find the whole exercise >>>> meaningless and may not even want to participate.... I mean the >>>> kind of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder >>>> >>>> The end of the net as we know it >>>> >>>> Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >>>> >>>> ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them first. >>>> Barry Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality >>>> >>>> You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and >>>> press Play on the latest episode of QI. But instead of that >>>> tedious, plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your laptop©--s >>>> speakers, you©--re left staring at the whirring, circular icon as >>>> the video buffers and buffers and buffers... >>>> >>>> That©--s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre >>>> broadband connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on Sky >>>> Player just moments ago. There©--s nothing wrong with your >>>> connection; it must be iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out >>>> if anyone else is having problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The >>>> message that appears on your screen leaves you looking more >>>> startled than Bill Bailey. ©¯This service isn©--t supported on your >>>> broadband service. Click here to visit our social-networking >>>> partner, Facebook.©--- >>>> >>>> Net neutrality? We don©--t have it today >>>> >>>> The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat. >>>> Britain©--s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier >>>> internet, where websites and services that are willing to pay are >>>> thrust into the ©¯fast lane©---, while those that don©--t are left >>>> fighting for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. >>>> They©--re not so much ripping up the cherished notion of net >>>> neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and lighting the >>>> match. The only question is: can they get away with it? >>>> >>>> No such thing as net neutrality >>>> >>>> It©--s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality °© >>>> ISPs treating different types of internet traffic or content >>>> equally °© is already a busted flush. ©¯Net neutrality? We don©--t >>>> have it today,©--- argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of >>>> strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, Britain©--s second biggest ISP. >>>> >>>> ©¯We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all >>>> levels, with huge levels of widespread discrimination of traffic >>>> types. [Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low speed; some >>>> buy a lot of capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped traffic, >>>> some buy shaped. >>>> ©¯So the suggestion that °© 'oh dear, it is terrible, we might move >>>> to a two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let©--s get real, >>>> we have a very multifaceted and multitiered internet today,©--- >>>> Heaney said. >>>> >>>> Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be ©¯unthinkable©--- to >>>> return to an internet where every packet of data was given equal >>>> weight. ©¯Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in which all >>>> data, all the bits and the packets were treated in the same way as >>>> they passed through the network,©--- said Simon Milner, BT©--s >>>> director of group industry policy. ©¯That was an internet that >>>> wasn©--t about the internet that we have today: it wasn©--t about >>>> speech, it wasn©--t about video, and it certainly wasn©--t about >>>> television. >>>> >>>> ©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that >>>> applications would grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and >>>> therefore some tools were needed to make this network work more >>>> effectively, and that©--s why traffic management techniques and >>>> guaranteed quality of service were developed in the 1990s, and then >>>> deep-packet inspection came along roughly ten years ago,©--- he >>>> added. ©¯These techniques and equipment are essential for the >>>> development of the internet we see today.©--- >>>> >>>> It©--s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more >>>> expensive) ISPs such as Zen Internet don©--t employ any traffic >>>> shaping across their network, and Zen has won the PC Pro >>>> Best >>>> Broadband ISP award for the past seven years. >>>> >>>> Even today©--s traffic management methods can cause huge problems >>>> for certain websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a >>>> common victim of ISPs©-- traffic management policies, often being >>>> deprioritised to a snail©--s pace during peak hours. While the >>>> intended target may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients >>>> to download illicit copies of the latest movie releases, legitimate >>>> applications can also fall victim to such blunderbuss filtering. >>>> >>>> ©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,©--- said >>>> Jean-Jacques Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs >>>> at VoIP service Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely peer-to-peer >>>> file-sharing applications that were referred to in the Digital >>>> Economy Act, all the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which >>>> used to run on P2P software] or Skype. So what does that mean? If I >>>> manage my traffic from a technical perspective, knowing that Skype >>>> actually doesn©--t eat up much bandwidth at all, why should it be >>>> deprioritised because it©--s peer-to-peer?©--- >>>> >>>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >>>> more vividly than on the mobile internet >>>> >>>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >>>> more vividly than on the mobile internet. Websites and services >>>> blocked at the whim of the network, video so compressed it looks >>>> like an Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and varying charges for different >>>> types of data are already commonplace. >>>> >>>> Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful of >>>> losing phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching the >>>> BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all networks outlaw >>>> tethering a mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on standard >>>> ©¯unlimited data©--- contracts. >>>> >>>> Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has this >>>> chilling warning for fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at the >>>> mobile market, think if that is how you want your internet and your >>>> devices to work in the future, because that©--s where things are >>>> leading.©--- >>>> >>>> Video blockers >>>> >>>> Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic >>>> blocking measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there©--s >>>> one area in which ISPs are gagging to rip up what©--s left of the >>>> cherished concept of net neutrality, it©--s video. >>>> >>>> Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the >>>> largest single category of internet traffic, according to Cisco©--s >>>> Visual Networking Index. It©--s the chief reason why the amount of >>>> data used by the average internet connection has shot up by 31% >>>> over the past year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for ISPs >>>> and broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter traffic >>>> management policies to make sure networks don©--t collapse under >>>> the weight of video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, >>>> broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay content delivery >>>> networks (CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds every year to >>>> distribute their video across the network and closer to the >>>> consumer; this helps avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of >>>> thousands of people attempt to stream The Apprentice at the same time. >>>> >>>> Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video >>>> broadcasters to pay them °© instead of the CDNs °© for guaranteed >>>> bandwidth. So if, for example, the BBC wants to guarantee that >>>> TalkTalk customers can watch uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, >>>> it had better be willing to pay for the privilege. A senior >>>> executive at a major broadcaster told PC Pro that his company has >>>> already been approached by two leading ISPs looking to cut such a >>>> deal. >>>> >>>> Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the ©¯fast lane©---; >>>> those who don©--t will be left to fight their way through the >>>> regular internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a >>>> video, perhaps even one you©--ve paid for, may no longer depend on >>>> the raw speed of your connection or the amount of network >>>> congestion, but whether the broadcaster has paid your ISP for a >>>> prioritised stream. >>>> >>>> ©¯We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >>>> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >>>> above best efforts,©--- admitted BT©--s Simon Milner at a recent >>>> Westminster eForum. ©¯That is the kind of thing that we©--d have to >>>> explain in our traffic management policies, and indeed we©--d do >>>> so, and then if somebody decided, 'well, actually I don©--t want to >>>> have that kind of service©--, they would be free to go elsewhere.©--- >>>> >>>> We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >>>> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >>>> above best efforts >>>> >>>> It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk >>>> would be willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in >>>> favour of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big enough >>>> cheque, TalkTalk©--s Andrew Heaney replied: ©¯We©--d do a deal, and >>>> we©--d look at YouTube and we©--d look at BBC and we should have >>>> freedom to sign whatever deal works.©--- >>>> >>>> That©--s the country©--s two biggest ISPs °© with more than eight >>>> million broadband households between them °© openly admitting >>>> they©--d either cut off or effectively cripple video streams from >>>> an internet >>>> broadcaster if it wasn©--t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >>>> >>>> Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. ©¯The >>>> founding principle of the internet is that everyone °© from >>>> individuals to global companies °© has equal access,©--- wrote the >>>> BBC©--s director of future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in a >>>> recent blog post on net neutrality. ©¯Since the beginning, the >>>> internet has been 'neutral©--, and everyone has been treated the >>>> same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes allow broadband >>>> providers to effectively pick and choose what you see first and >>>> fastest.©--- >>>> >>>> ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out >>>> certain sites or services. ©¯We strongly believe that traffic >>>> throttling shouldn©--t be conducted on the basis of content >>>> provider; throttling access to content from a particular company or >>>> institution,©--- the broadcaster said in a recent submission to >>>> regulator Ofcom©--s consultation on net neutrality. >>>> >>>> Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a broadcaster and one of >>>> the country©--s leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally >>>> benefit from shutting out rival broadcasters °© raised no such >>>> objection in its submission to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can and should >>>> be relied upon to provide the necessary consumer safeguards,©--- >>>> Sky argued. >>>> >>>> Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially run from a small >>>> office above a pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 >>>> billion takeover °© have got off the ground if its three founders >>>> had been forced to pay ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos >>>> could be watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >>>> >>>> Walled-garden web >>>> >>>> It isn©--t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially >>>> be blocked by ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself >>>> barred if one of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with an >>>> ISP, returning the web to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of >>>> the late 1990s. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This isn©--t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely >>>> popular sites being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by the >>>> Government. ©¯I sign up to the two-year contract [with an ISP] and >>>> after 18 months my daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door and >>>> says 'father, I can©--t access Facebook any more©--,©--- >>>> hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of international ICT policy at the >>>> Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. ©¯I say 'Why?©--. >>>> She says 'It©--s quite obvious, I have gone to the site and I have >>>> found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, don©--t take >>>> Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn©--t pay them the money, but >>>> YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube©--: Minister, is that >>>> acceptable? That is the sort of question we face.©--- >>>> >>>> Where©--s the regulator? >>>> >>>> So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say ©¯yes©---, >>>> think about the prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast >>>> lane and leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? It >>>> ran a consultation on net neutrality earlier this year, with spiky >>>> contributions from ISPs and broadcasters alike, but it appears to >>>> be coming down on the side of the broadband providers. >>>> >>>> ©¯I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net >>>> neutrality] that we see the real economic merits to the idea of >>>> allowing a two-sided market to emerge,©--- said Alex Blowers, >>>> international director at Ofcom. >>>> >>>> ©¯Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to us >>>> that the consumer expectation will be a service that©--s of a >>>> reasonably consistent quality, that allows you to actually sit down >>>> at the beginning of a film and watch it to the end without constant >>>> problems of jitter or the picture hanging,©--- he said. Taking that >>>> argument to its logical conclusion means that broadcasters who >>>> refuse to pay the ISPs©-- bounty will be subject to stuttering >>>> quality. >>>> >>>> Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. ©¯We are >>>> concerned that Ofcom isn©--t currently taking a firm stance in >>>> relation to throttling,©--- ITV said in its submission to the >>>> regulator. The BBC also said it has ©¯concerns about the increasing >>>> potential incentives for discriminatory behaviour by network >>>> operators, which risks undermining the internet©--s character, and >>>> ultimately resulting in consumer harm©---. >>>> >>>> Ofcom©--s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as ©¯there >>>> is very little evidence©--- that ©¯the big beasts of the content >>>> application and services world are coming together and doing deals >>>> with big beasts of the network and ISP world©---. >>>> >>>> The regulator also places great faith in the power of competition: >>>> the theory that broadband subscribers would simply jump ship to >>>> another ISP if their provider started doing beastly things °© for >>>> example, cutting off services such as the iPlayer. It©--s a theory >>>> echoed by the ISPs themselves. ©¯If we started blocking access to >>>> certain news sites, you could be sure within about 23 minutes it >>>> would be up on a blog and we©--d be chastised for it, quite rightly >>>> too,©--- said TalkTalk©--s Heaney. >>>> >>>> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute >>>> the content, services and applications they want >>>> >>>> Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where broadband >>>> subscriptions are routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, >>>> telephone or mobile services °© hopping from one ISP to another is >>>> rarely simple. Not to mention the 18-month or two-year contracts >>>> broadband customers are frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed >>>> out in its submission to the regulator, ©¯Ofcom©--s 2009 research >>>> showed that a quarter of households found it difficult to switch >>>> broadband and bundled services©---, with the ©¯perceived hassle of >>>> the switching process©--- and ©¯the threat of additional >>>> charges©--- dissuading potential switchers. >>>> >>>> ©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that©--s >>>> that,©--- argued the Open Rights Group©--s Jim Killock. ©¯So you >>>> make your choice and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the >>>> internet is you make your choice, you don©--t like it, you change >>>> your mind.©--- >>>> >>>> The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open >>>> internet may lie with the EU (although even its determination is >>>> wavering). The EU©--s 2009 framework requires national regulators >>>> such as Ofcom to promote ©¯the ability of end users to access and >>>> distribute information or run applications and services of their >>>> choice©--- and that ISPs are transparent about any traffic management. >>>> >>>> It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners in >>>> the ©¯fast lane©--- and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the >>>> power to set ©¯minimum quality of service requirements©--- °© >>>> forcing ISPs to reserve a set amount of bandwidth so that their >>>> traffic management doesn©--t hobble those sites that can©--t afford >>>> to pay. >>>> >>>> It©--s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, but >>>> not by the ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn©--t have to use this new >>>> power handed down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. ©¯There >>>> doesn©--t yet seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a public >>>> intervention that would effectively create a new industry structure >>>> around this idea of a guaranteed 'best efforts©-- internet >>>> underpinned by legislation,©--- said Ofcom©--s Blowers. >>>> >>>> It©--s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©--s >>>> approach creates large risks for the open internet,©--- said >>>> Killock. ©¯Its attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are weak, >>>> by relying on transparency and competition alone, and it©--s >>>> unfortunate it hasn©--t addressed the idea of a minimum service >>>> guarantee.©--- >>>> >>>> At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn©--t be permitted to >>>> block legal websites or services that conflict with their >>>> commercial interests. ©¯First and foremost, users should be able to >>>> access and distribute the content, services and applications they >>>> want,©--- said European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes >>>> earlier this year. >>>> ©¯Discrimination against undesired competitors °© for instance, >>>> those providing voice-over the internet services °© shouldn©--t be >>>> allowed.©--- >>>> >>>> Yet, Ofcom doesn©--t even regard this as a major issue. ©¯When VoIP >>>> services were first launched in the UK, most [mobile] network >>>> operators were against permitting VoIP,©--- Blowers said. ©¯We now >>>> know that you can find packages from a number of suppliers that do >>>> permit VoIP services. >>>> So I©--m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of gaming >>>> behaviour around blocking services will be a real problem.©--- >>>> >>>> If the EU doesn©--t drag the UK©--s relaxed regulator into line >>>> with the rest of the world, it will be British internet users who >>>> have the real problem. >>>> >>>> Author: Barry Collins >>>> >>>> >>>> Read more: >>>> The >>>> end of the net as we know it | Broadband | Features | PC Pro >>>> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 23 04:52:11 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:52:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4D3BEF88.4080507@itforchange.net> References: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> <4D3BE76C.3040608@itforchange.net> <4D3BEF88.4080507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: >Adam > >Hope you have no problem if i continue with this >discussion. I am not picking holes in your >paper, but arguing my understanding of NN, and >what I see is the urgent need to come up with a >global NN framework. > >Adam Peake wrote: > >>I think you could make general principles, and >>at the level of principles what you have in >>Norway and Japan is not so different from the >>FCC's policy principles. Problem comes when you >>try to enforce those principles. >> >Can you tell be how it is difficult to enforce >the principle or regulatory law that 'there will >be no content provider specific pay-for-priority >on the public Internet'. To make your statement possible I think you'll need regulation in place, so you need to re-write a lot of telecommunications law. Not easy. Look at the U.S. FCC's tried to bring a 'lite' set of NN rules in its recent Internet order, and Verizon has already challenged the Internet order in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. And Verizon may well win, particularly if it can keep the appeal in the DC Circuit Court (same court that ruled on Comcast against the FCC, Verizon might even get the same judges.) "it is very hard to make broad, sweeping concepts actionable or enforceable as rules". I don't think there's anything wrong with broad, sweeping concepts as principles, so long as we know they are only principles. But how can you make them actionable/enforceable on global basis? Or on a national basis for that matter? There's been an enormous amount written over the past year or so about the FCC's attempts to implement some network neutrality rules. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying network neutrality is not important, I'm a great believer. But you should start saying how you'll implement what your proposing rather than asking questions of others. Adam >I am very sure it can be enforced with 100 >percent clarity and effectiveness... This is >also written in the FCC's new NN framework and >from all that I know they mean to enforce it. So >how you are claiming that this rule may not >practically enforcable or to be closer to your >language 'problems will come when we try to >enforce this rule'. For me this is the basic NN >rule and it is very clear and 100 percent >enforceable. > >Many may have claimed at first that regulations >that broke up first telephone network monopolies >and then broke the hardware-software coupling >will be difficult to enforce. However if these >regulations were not framed and enforced we may >not have seen the information or ICT revolution. > >The main difference between those times and now >is that the ICT structure today is inherently >global - and the most powerful countries while >they can clearly see the public interest benefit >of NN for their own people, they know that with >an inequitous and non neutral Internet, it will >be their mega digital corporate which will win >against newcomers from the developing world. So >they are caught between supporting an evident >public interest cause and not weakening the >special global advantage their companies enjoy >today. This is the key 'policy conundrum' in the >globalised world today. > >Parminder > >>I think that's what we were trying to say with >>this comment in the conclusion "it is very hard >>to make broad, sweeping concepts actionable or >>enforceable as rules". And as another matter I >>think wireless networks are different from >>wired, and that's a massive problem given that >>developing countries will likely be relying on >>wireless. >> >>Adam >> >>>Thanks Adam for the paper. Just skimmed >>>through it, but plan to read it fully later. >>> >>>However, I am unable to agree to the >>>conclusions that it is difficult to say what >>>is a NN violation or not, and a >>>one-size-fit-all set of guidelines are >>>difficult, and in any case any ex ante NN >>>regulation is extremely diffcult. >>> >>>Can you suggest why for instance Norway's >>>clear NN guidelines cannot work, and work >>>universally? >>>(see >>>http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf >>>) >>> >>>It all really depends on what our basic point >>>of departure is. If it is human rights, or >>>rights of all people on the Internet, then >>>that becomes basic and most important and >>>profit-models etc come much later. NN has to >>>be seen from such a huan rights angle. Anyone >>>can argue to any length how ensuring say >>>democratic rights is an expensive model, or >>>media rights interfere with business models >>>and the such. Precisely to avoid such problem >>>we have the concept of rights. >>> >>>So, for many of us net neutrality, or net >>>equality, is a basic right. We start from >>>here. Companies have to adjust their business >>>models to it, and regulators have to ensure >>>that this right is ensured. >>> >>>Now for practical translation of this right. I >>>dont see how it is difficult to understand or >>>enforce a simple regulation that 'there will >>>be no content provider specific >>>pay-for-priority on the public Internet' and >>>if any such practices are found there will be >>>heavy penalty and eventual cancellation of >>>license. This however does exclude public >>>interest communication like emergency services >>>etc about which guidelines will be issued >>>separately. >>> >>>The above is a very specific and clear NN >>>guideline. I will like to hear why is it not >>>enforceable. >>> >>>Lee, managed services of the kind Akamai >>>offers is a different thing. Here they do not >>>use the public internet but private IP based >>>channels. More elaborate NN guidelines will >>>also cover issues about how public Internet >>>and such private IP based networks will >>>co-exist in a manner that larger pulbic >>>interest and people's basic rights are ensured. >>> >>>Not only Norway has clear NN guidelines, even >>>FCC has come up with a NN framework for wired >>>internet and the framework covers all issues. >>>In fact the guidelines and the individual >>>commissioner's comments make very interesting >>>reading. I have no confusion about NN when I >>>read them. Things are crystal clear, as they >>>must be because they are real enforcable laws >>>of the land. The only problem is that FCC left >>>out wireless networks from NN ambit and that >>>is the key issue we need to discuss. >>> >>>In this context it may be considered rather >>>surprising that the main civil society group >>>in IG arena continues to think that NN issue >>>is too complex to be able to be discussed or >>>applied with any degree of coherence. I am not >>>a techie, but I can clearly understand it - to >>>the extent that any 'real life' issue can ever >>>be understood'. >>> >>>On the notion that competitive markets will >>>take care of the NN problem - let me repeat, >>>India's mobile market is perhaps the world's >>>most competitive, and there is a large scale >>>NN violation going on there right now. >>> >>>parminder >>> >>> >>>Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>>Some background >>>> >>>>(self serving plug to a paper written by some >>>>colleagues and me, "A Comparison of Network >>>>Neutrality Approaches In: The U.S., Japan, >>>>and the European Union".) >>>> >>>>Adam >>>> >>>>>Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. >>>>> >>>>>I do not think we, as a premier global CS >>>>>group, can afford to *not* do something >>>>>about this issue. So many times a discussion >>>>>on NN on this list has run into this wall - >>>>>it is a very complex issues with many sides >>>>>to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a good >>>>>enough reason for abdication. One often >>>>>hears excuses like, with voice and video >>>>>domination the internet today NN is a >>>>>meaningless concept. Not so at all. We can >>>>>have specific provisions whereby specific >>>>>applications can have different treatments >>>>>while being content-provider neutral, this >>>>>latter being the key issue. Norway's NN >>>>>guidelines have oftne been mentioned in >>>>>discussions here earlier. These guidelines >>>>>allow space to manage voice and vedio >>>>>applications related issues. IS there any >>>>>reason why Norway's guidelines cannot be >>>>>used globally, and why should IGC be >>>>>forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if >>>>>soon enough there is not a basic global >>>>>consensus on NN guidelines even Norway like >>>>>countries may not be able to preserve NN, >>>>>such is the globalness of the Internet and >>>>>its basic architectural principles. >>>>> >>>>>What I am arguing for is that we should not >>>>>only propose NN as a plenary topic and >>>>>absolutely put our foot down that it must be >>>>>accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find >>>>>the whole exercise meaningless and may not >>>>>even want to participate.... I mean the kind >>>>>of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The end of the net as we know it >>>>> >>>>>Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >>>>> >>>>>ISPs are threatening to cripple websites >>>>>that don't pay them first. Barry Collins >>>>>fears a disastrous end to net neutrality >>>>> >>>>>You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC >>>>>iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the >>>>>latest episode of QI. But instead of that >>>>>tedious, plinky-plonky theme tune droning >>>>>out of your laptop©­s speakers, you©­re left >>>>>staring at the whirring, circular icon as >>>>>the video buffers and buffers and buffers... >>>>> >>>>>That©­s odd. Not only have you got a new >>>>>40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but >>>>>you were watching a Full HD video on Sky >>>>>Player just moments ago. There©­s nothing >>>>>wrong with your connection; it must be >>>>>iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out >>>>>if anyone else is having problems streaming >>>>>Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears >>>>>on your screen leaves you looking more >>>>>startled than Bill Bailey. ©¯This service >>>>>isn©­t supported on your broadband service. >>>>>Click here to visit our social-networking >>>>>partner, Facebook.©‹ >>>>> >>>>> Net neutrality? We don©­t have it today >>>>> >>>>>The free, unrestricted internet as we know >>>>>it is under threat. Britain©­s leading ISPs >>>>>are attempting to construct a two-tier >>>>>internet, where websites and services that >>>>>are willing to pay are thrust into the >>>>>©¯fast lane©‹, while those that don©­t are >>>>>left fighting for scraps of bandwidth or >>>>>even blocked outright. They©­re not so much >>>>>ripping up the cherished notion of net >>>>>neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces >>>>>and lighting the match. The only question >>>>>is: can they get away with it? >>>>> >>>>>*No such thing as net neutrality* >>>>> >>>>>It©­s worth pointing out that the concept of >>>>>net neutrality °© ISPs treating different >>>>>types of internet traffic or content equally >>>>>°© is already a busted flush. ©¯Net >>>>>neutrality? We don©­t have it today,©‹ >>>>>argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of >>>>>strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, >>>>>Britain©­s second biggest ISP. >>>>> >>>>>©¯We have an unbelievably good, >>>>>differentiated network at all levels, with >>>>>huge levels of widespread discrimination of >>>>>traffic types. [Some consumers] buy high >>>>>speed, some buy low speed; some buy a lot of >>>>>capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped >>>>>traffic, some buy shaped. >>>>>©¯So the suggestion that °© Œoh dear, it is >>>>>terrible, we might move to a two-tiered >>>>>internet in the future'... well, let©­s get >>>>>real, we have a very multifaceted and >>>>>multitiered internet today,©‹ Heaney said. >>>>> >>>>>Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be >>>>>©¯unthinkable©‹ to return to an internet >>>>>where every packet of data was given equal >>>>>weight. ©¯Yes, the internet of 30 years ago >>>>>was one in which all data, all the bits and >>>>>the packets were treated in the same way as >>>>>they passed through the network,©‹ said >>>>>Simon Milner, BT©­s director of group >>>>>industry policy. ©¯That was an internet that >>>>>wasn©­t about the internet that we have >>>>>today: it wasn©­t about speech, it wasn©­t >>>>>about video, and it certainly wasn©­t about >>>>>television. >>>>> >>>>>©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists >>>>>realised that applications would grab as >>>>>much bandwidth as they needed, and therefore >>>>>some tools were needed to make this network >>>>>work more effectively, and that©­s why >>>>>traffic management techniques and guaranteed >>>>>quality of service were developed in the >>>>>1990s, and then deep-packet inspection came >>>>>along roughly ten years ago,©‹ he added. >>>>>©¯These techniques and equipment are >>>>>essential for the development of the >>>>>internet we see today.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>It©­s interesting to note that some smaller >>>>>(and, yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen >>>>>Internet don©­t employ any traffic shaping >>>>>across their network, and Zen has won the >>>>>/PC Pro/ Best Broadband ISP award >>>>> >>>>>for the past seven years. >>>>> >>>>>Even today©­s traffic management methods can >>>>>cause huge problems for certain websites and >>>>>services. Peer-to-peer services are a common >>>>>victim of ISPs©­ traffic management >>>>>policies, often being deprioritised to a >>>>>snail©­s pace during peak hours. While the >>>>>intended target may be the bandwidth hogs >>>>>using BitTorrent clients to download illicit >>>>>copies of the latest movie releases, >>>>>legitimate applications can also fall victim >>>>>to such blunderbuss filtering. >>>>> >>>>>©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide >>>>>ranging,©‹ said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director >>>>>of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP >>>>>service Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely >>>>>peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that >>>>>were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, >>>>>all the way to things such as the BBC >>>>>iPlayer [which used to run on P2P software] >>>>>or Skype. So what does that mean? If I >>>>>manage my traffic from a technical >>>>>perspective, knowing that Skype actually >>>>>doesn©­t eat up much bandwidth at all, why >>>>>should it be deprioritised because it©­s >>>>>peer-to-peer?©‹ >>>>> >>>>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >>>>> more vividly than on the mobile internet >>>>> >>>>>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic >>>>>management been felt more vividly than on >>>>>the mobile internet. Websites and services >>>>>blocked at the whim of the network, video so >>>>>compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda >>>>>propaganda tape, and varying charges for >>>>>different types of data are already >>>>>commonplace. >>>>> >>>>>Skype is outlawed by a number of British >>>>>mobile networks fearful of losing phone call >>>>>revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching >>>>>the BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and >>>>>almost all networks outlaw tethering a >>>>>mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on >>>>>standard ©¯unlimited data©‹ contracts. >>>>> >>>>>Jim Killock, executive director of the Open >>>>>Rights Group, has this chilling warning for >>>>>fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at the >>>>>mobile market, think if that is how you want >>>>>your internet and your devices to work in >>>>>the future, because that©­s where things are >>>>>leading.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>*Video blockers* >>>>> >>>>>Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely >>>>>resisted the more drastic blocking measures >>>>>chosen by the mobile operators. But if >>>>>there©­s one area in which ISPs are gagging >>>>>to rip up what©­s left of the cherished >>>>>concept of net neutrality, it©­s video. >>>>> >>>>>Streaming video recently overtook >>>>>peer-to-peer to become the largest single >>>>>category of internet traffic, according to >>>>>Cisco©­s Visual Networking Index. It©­s the >>>>>chief reason why the amount of data used by >>>>>the average internet connection has shot up >>>>>by 31% over the past year, to a once >>>>>unthinkable 14.9GB a month. >>>>> >>>>>Internet TV >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Managing video traffic is unquestionably a >>>>>major headache for ISPs and broadcasters >>>>>alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter >>>>>traffic management policies to make sure >>>>>networks don©­t collapse under the weight of >>>>>video-on-demand during peak hours. >>>>>Meanwhile, broadcasters such as the BBC and >>>>>Channel 4 pay content delivery networks >>>>>(CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds >>>>>every year to distribute their video across >>>>>the network and closer to the consumer; this >>>>>helps avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens >>>>>of thousands of people attempt to stream The >>>>>Apprentice at the same time. >>>>> >>>>>Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman >>>>>and get video broadcasters to pay them °© >>>>>instead of the CDNs °© for guaranteed >>>>>bandwidth. So if, for example, the BBC wants >>>>>to guarantee that TalkTalk customers can >>>>>watch uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, >>>>>it had better be willing to pay for the >>>>>privilege. A senior executive at a major >>>>>broadcaster told /PC Pro/ that his company >>>>>has already been approached by two leading >>>>>ISPs looking to cut such a deal. >>>>> >>>>>Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into >>>>>the ©¯fast lane©‹; those who don©­t will be >>>>>left to fight their way through the regular >>>>>internet traffic jams. Whether or not you >>>>>can watch a video, perhaps even one you©­ve >>>>>paid for, may no longer depend on the raw >>>>>speed of your connection or the amount of >>>>>network congestion, but whether the >>>>>broadcaster has paid your ISP for a >>>>>prioritised stream. >>>>> >>>>>©¯We absolutely could see situations in >>>>>which some content or application providers >>>>>might want to pay BT for a quality of >>>>>service above best efforts,©‹ admitted BT©­s >>>>>Simon Milner at a recent Westminster eForum. >>>>>©¯That is the kind of thing that we©­d have >>>>>to explain in our traffic management >>>>>policies, and indeed we©­d do so, and then >>>>>if somebody decided, Œwell, actually I >>>>>don©­t want to have that kind of service©­, >>>>>they would be free to go elsewhere.©‹ >>>>> >>>>> We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >>>>> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >>>>> above best efforts >>>>> >>>>>It gets worse. Asked directly at the same >>>>>forum whether TalkTalk would be willing to >>>>>cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in >>>>>favour of YouTube if the latter was prepared >>>>>to sign a big enough cheque, TalkTalk©­s >>>>>Andrew Heaney replied: ©¯We©­d do a deal, >>>>>and we©­d look at YouTube and we©­d look at >>>>>BBC and we should have freedom to sign >>>>>whatever deal works.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>That©­s the country©­s two biggest ISPs °© >>>>>with more than eight million broadband >>>>>households between them °© openly admitting >>>>>they©­d either cut off or effectively >>>>>cripple video streams from an internet >>>>>broadcaster if it wasn©­t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >>>>> >>>>>Understandably, many of the leading >>>>>broadcasters are fearful. ©¯The founding >>>>>principle of the internet is that everyone >>>>>°© from individuals to global companies °© >>>>>has equal access,©‹ wrote the BBC©­s >>>>>director of future media and technology, >>>>>Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net >>>>>neutrality. ©¯Since the beginning, the >>>>>internet has been Œneutral©­, and everyone >>>>>has been treated the same. But the emergence >>>>>of fast and slow lanes allow broadband >>>>>providers to effectively pick and choose >>>>>what you see first and fastest.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>ITV also opposes broadband providers being >>>>>allowed to shut out certain sites or >>>>>services. ©¯We strongly believe that traffic >>>>>throttling shouldn©­t be conducted on the >>>>>basis of content provider; throttling access >>>>>to content from a particular company or >>>>>institution,©‹ the broadcaster said in a >>>>>recent submission to regulator Ofcom©­s >>>>>consultation on net neutrality. >>>>> >>>>>Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a >>>>>broadcaster and one of the country©­s >>>>>leading ISPs, and a company that could >>>>>naturally benefit from shutting out rival >>>>>broadcasters °© raised no such objection in >>>>>its submission to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can >>>>>and should be relied upon to provide the >>>>>necessary consumer safeguards,©‹ Sky argued. >>>>> >>>>>Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially >>>>>run from a small office above a pizzeria >>>>>before Google weighed in with its $1.65 >>>>>billion takeover °© have got off the ground >>>>>if its three founders had been forced to pay >>>>>ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos >>>>>could be watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >>>>> >>>>>*Walled-garden web* >>>>> >>>>>It isn©­t only high-bandwidth video sites >>>>>that could potentially be blocked by ISPs. >>>>>Virtually any type of site could find itself >>>>>barred if one of its rivals has signed an >>>>>exclusive deal with an ISP, returning the >>>>>web to the kind of AOL walled-garden >>>>>approach of the late 1990s. >>>>> >>>>>Stop sign >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This isn©­t journalistic scaremongering: the >>>>>prospect of hugely popular sites being >>>>>blocked by ISPs is already being debated by >>>>>the Government. ©¯I sign up to the two-year >>>>>contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months >>>>>my daughter comes and knocks on the lounge >>>>>door and says Œfather, I can©­t access >>>>>Facebook any more©­,©‹ hypothesised Nigel >>>>>Hickson, head of international ICT policy at >>>>>the Department for Business, Innovation and >>>>>Skills. ©¯I say ŒWhy?©­. She says ŒIt©­s >>>>>quite obvious, I have gone to the site and I >>>>>have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, >>>>>whatever, don©­t take Facebook any more. >>>>>Facebook wouldn©­t pay them the money, but >>>>>YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube©­: >>>>>Minister, is that acceptable? That is the >>>>>sort of question we face.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>*Where©­s the regulator?* >>>>> >>>>>So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes >>>>>to say ©¯yes©‹, think about the prospect of >>>>>ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and >>>>>leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining >>>>>bandwidth? It ran a consultation on net >>>>>neutrality earlier this year, with spiky >>>>>contributions from ISPs and broadcasters >>>>>alike, but it appears to be coming down on >>>>>the side of the broadband providers. >>>>> >>>>>©¯I think we were very clear in our >>>>>discussion document [on net neutrality] that >>>>>we see the real economic merits to the idea >>>>>of allowing a two-sided market to emerge,©‹ >>>>>said Alex Blowers, international director at >>>>>Ofcom. >>>>> >>>>>©¯Particularly for applications such as >>>>>IPTV, where it seems to us that the consumer >>>>>expectation will be a service that©­s of a >>>>>reasonably consistent quality, that allows >>>>>you to actually sit down at the beginning of >>>>>a film and watch it to the end without >>>>>constant problems of jitter or the picture >>>>>hanging,©‹ he said. Taking that argument to >>>>>its logical conclusion means that >>>>>broadcasters who refuse to pay the ISPs©­ >>>>>bounty will be subject to stuttering quality. >>>>> >>>>>Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be >>>>>tougher. ©¯We are concerned that Ofcom >>>>>isn©­t currently taking a firm stance in >>>>>relation to throttling,©‹ ITV said in its >>>>>submission to the regulator. The BBC also >>>>>said it has ©¯concerns about the increasing >>>>>potential incentives for discriminatory >>>>>behaviour by network operators, which risks >>>>>undermining the internet©­s character, and >>>>>ultimately resulting in consumer harm©‹. >>>>> >>>>>Ofcom©­s Blowers argues regulation would be >>>>>premature as ©¯there is very little >>>>>evidence©‹ that ©¯the big beasts of the >>>>>content application and services world are >>>>>coming together and doing deals with big >>>>>beasts of the network and ISP world©‹. >>>>> >>>>>The regulator also places great faith in the >>>>>power of competition: the theory that >>>>>broadband subscribers would simply jump ship >>>>>to another ISP if their provider started >>>>>doing beastly things °© for example, cutting >>>>>off services such as the iPlayer. It©­s a >>>>>theory echoed by the ISPs themselves. ©¯If >>>>>we started blocking access to certain news >>>>>sites, you could be sure within about 23 >>>>>minutes it would be up on a blog and we©­d >>>>>be chastised for it, quite rightly too,©‹ >>>>>said TalkTalk©­s Heaney. >>>>> >>>>> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute >>>>> the content, services and applications they want >>>>> >>>>>Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where >>>>>broadband subscriptions are routinely sold >>>>>as part of the same deal as TV, telephone or >>>>>mobile services °© hopping from one ISP to >>>>>another is rarely simple. Not to mention the >>>>>18-month or two-year contracts broadband >>>>>customers are frequently chained to. As the >>>>>BBC pointed out in its submission to the >>>>>regulator, ©¯Ofcom©­s 2009 research showed >>>>>that a quarter of households found it >>>>>difficult to switch broadband and bundled >>>>>services©‹, with the ©¯perceived hassle of >>>>>the switching process©‹ and ©¯the threat of >>>>>additional charges©‹ dissuading potential >>>>>switchers. >>>>> >>>>>©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a >>>>>contract, that©­s that,©‹ argued the Open >>>>>Rights Group©­s Jim Killock. ©¯So you make >>>>>your choice and you lump it, whereas the >>>>>whole point of the internet is you make your >>>>>choice, you don©­t like it, you change your >>>>>mind.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>The best hope of maintaining the status quo >>>>>of a free and open internet may lie with the >>>>>EU (although even its determination is >>>>>wavering). The EU©­s 2009 framework requires >>>>>national regulators such as Ofcom to promote >>>>>©¯the ability of end users to access and >>>>>distribute information or run applications >>>>>and services of their choice©‹ and that ISPs >>>>>are transparent about any traffic management. >>>>> >>>>>It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs >>>>>putting favoured partners in the ©¯fast >>>>>lane©‹ and crippling the rest, by giving >>>>>Ofcom the power to set ©¯minimum quality of >>>>>service requirements©‹ °© forcing ISPs to >>>>>reserve a set amount of bandwidth so that >>>>>their traffic management doesn©­t hobble >>>>>those sites that can©­t afford to pay. >>>>> >>>>>It©­s a concept enthusiastically backed by >>>>>the BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or >>>>>Ofcom, which doesn©­t have to use this new >>>>>power handed down by Brussels and seems >>>>>reluctant to do so. ©¯There doesn©­t yet >>>>>seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a >>>>>public intervention that would effectively >>>>>create a new industry structure around this >>>>>idea of a guaranteed Œbest efforts©­ >>>>>internet underpinned by legislation,©‹ said >>>>>Ofcom©­s Blowers. >>>>> >>>>>It©­s an attitude that sparks dismay from >>>>>campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©­s approach creates >>>>>large risks for the open internet,©‹ said >>>>>Killock. ©¯Its attempts to manage and >>>>>mitigate the risks are weak, by relying on >>>>>transparency and competition alone, and >>>>>it©­s unfortunate it hasn©­t addressed the >>>>>idea of a minimum service guarantee.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>At least the EU is adamant that ISPs >>>>>shouldn©­t be permitted to block legal >>>>>websites or services that conflict with >>>>>their commercial interests. ©¯First and >>>>>foremost, users should be able to access and >>>>>distribute the content, services and >>>>>applications they want,©‹ said European >>>>>Commission vice president Neelie Kroes >>>>>earlier this year. >>>>>©¯Discrimination against undesired >>>>>competitors °© for instance, those providing >>>>>voice-over the internet services °© >>>>>shouldn©­t be allowed.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>Yet, Ofcom doesn©­t even regard this as a >>>>>major issue. ©¯When VoIP services were first >>>>>launched in the UK, most [mobile] network >>>>>operators were against permitting VoIP,©‹ >>>>>Blowers said. ©¯We now know that you can >>>>>find packages from a number of suppliers >>>>>that do permit VoIP services. >>>>>So I©­m not as pessimistic as some may be >>>>>that this kind of gaming behaviour around >>>>>blocking services will be a real problem.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>If the EU doesn©­t drag the UK©­s relaxed >>>>>regulator into line with the rest of the >>>>>world, it will be British internet users who >>>>>have the real problem. >>>>> >>>>>*Author:* Barry Collins >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Read more: The end of the net as we know it >>>>>| Broadband | Features | PC Pro >>>>> >>>>>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>PK >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. >>>>> >>>>>I do not think we, as a premier global CS >>>>>group, can afford to *not* do something >>>>>about this issue. So many times a discussion >>>>>on NN on this list has run into this wall - >>>>>it is a very complex issues with many sides >>>>>to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a good >>>>>enough reason for abdication. One often >>>>>hears excuses like, with voice and video >>>>>domination the internet today NN is a >>>>>meaningless concept. Not so at all. We can >>>>>have specific provisions whereby specific >>>>>applications can have different treatments >>>>>while being content-provider neutral, this >>>>>latter being the key issue. Norway's NN >>>>>guidelines have oftne been mentioned in >>>>>discussions here earlier. These guidelines >>>>>allow space to manage voice and vedio >>>>>applications related issues. IS there any >>>>>reason why Norway's guidelines cannot be >>>>>used globally, and why should IGC be >>>>>forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if >>>>>soon enough there is not a basic global >>>>>consensus on NN guidelines even Norway like >>>>>countries may not be able to preserve NN, >>>>>such is the globalness of the Internet and >>>>>its basic architectural principles. >>>>> >>>>>What I am arguing for is that we should not >>>>>only propose NN as a plenary topic and >>>>>absolutely put our foot down that it must be >>>>>accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find >>>>>the whole exercise meaningless and may not >>>>>even want to participate.... I mean the kind >>>>>of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder >>>>> >>>>>The end of the net as we know it >>>>> >>>>>Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >>>>> >>>>>ISPs are threatening to cripple websites >>>>>that don't pay them first. Barry Collins >>>>>fears a disastrous end to net neutrality >>>>> >>>>>You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC >>>>>iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the >>>>>latest episode of QI. But instead of that >>>>>tedious, plinky-plonky theme tune droning >>>>>out of your laptop©­s speakers, you©­re left >>>>>staring at the whirring, circular icon as >>>>>the video buffers and buffers and buffers... >>>>> >>>>>That©­s odd. Not only have you got a new >>>>>40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but >>>>>you were watching a Full HD video on Sky >>>>>Player just moments ago. There©­s nothing >>>>>wrong with your connection; it must be >>>>>iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out >>>>>if anyone else is having problems streaming >>>>>Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears >>>>>on your screen leaves you looking more >>>>>startled than Bill Bailey. ©¯This service >>>>>isn©­t supported on your broadband service. >>>>>Click here to visit our social-networking >>>>>partner, Facebook.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>Net neutrality? We don©­t have it today >>>>> >>>>>The free, unrestricted internet as we know >>>>>it is under threat. Britain©­s leading ISPs >>>>>are attempting to construct a two-tier >>>>>internet, where websites and services that >>>>>are willing to pay are thrust into the >>>>>©¯fast lane©‹, while those that don©­t are >>>>>left fighting for scraps of bandwidth or >>>>>even blocked outright. They©­re not so much >>>>>ripping up the cherished notion of net >>>>>neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces >>>>>and lighting the match. The only question >>>>>is: can they get away with it? >>>>> >>>>>No such thing as net neutrality >>>>> >>>>>It©­s worth pointing out that the concept of >>>>>net neutrality °© ISPs treating different >>>>>types of internet traffic or content equally >>>>>°© is already a busted flush. ©¯Net >>>>>neutrality? We don©­t have it today,©‹ >>>>>argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of >>>>>strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, >>>>>Britain©­s second biggest ISP. >>>>> >>>>>©¯We have an unbelievably good, >>>>>differentiated network at all levels, with >>>>>huge levels of widespread discrimination of >>>>>traffic types. [Some consumers] buy high >>>>>speed, some buy low speed; some buy a lot of >>>>>capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped >>>>>traffic, some buy shaped. >>>>>©¯So the suggestion that °© Œoh dear, it is >>>>>terrible, we might move to a two-tiered >>>>>internet in the future'... well, let©­s get >>>>>real, we have a very multifaceted and >>>>>multitiered internet today,©‹ Heaney said. >>>>> >>>>>Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be >>>>>©¯unthinkable©‹ to return to an internet >>>>>where every packet of data was given equal >>>>>weight. ©¯Yes, the internet of 30 years ago >>>>>was one in which all data, all the bits and >>>>>the packets were treated in the same way as >>>>>they passed through the network,©‹ said >>>>>Simon Milner, BT©­s director of group >>>>>industry policy. ©¯That was an internet that >>>>>wasn©­t about the internet that we have >>>>>today: it wasn©­t about speech, it wasn©­t >>>>>about video, and it certainly wasn©­t about >>>>>television. >>>>> >>>>>©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists >>>>>realised that applications would grab as >>>>>much bandwidth as they needed, and therefore >>>>>some tools were needed to make this network >>>>>work more effectively, and that©­s why >>>>>traffic management techniques and guaranteed >>>>>quality of service were developed in the >>>>>1990s, and then deep-packet inspection came >>>>>along roughly ten years ago,©‹ he added. >>>>>©¯These techniques and equipment are >>>>>essential for the development of the >>>>>internet we see today.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>It©­s interesting to note that some smaller >>>>>(and, yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen >>>>>Internet don©­t employ any traffic shaping >>>>>across their network, and Zen has won the PC >>>>>Pro >>>>>Best >>>>>Broadband ISP award for the past seven years. >>>>> >>>>>Even today©­s traffic management methods can >>>>>cause huge problems for certain websites and >>>>>services. Peer-to-peer services are a common >>>>>victim of ISPs©­ traffic management >>>>>policies, often being deprioritised to a >>>>>snail©­s pace during peak hours. While the >>>>>intended target may be the bandwidth hogs >>>>>using BitTorrent clients to download illicit >>>>>copies of the latest movie releases, >>>>>legitimate applications can also fall victim >>>>>to such blunderbuss filtering. >>>>> >>>>>©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide >>>>>ranging,©‹ said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director >>>>>of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP >>>>>service Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely >>>>>peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that >>>>>were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, >>>>>all the way to things such as the BBC >>>>>iPlayer [which used to run on P2P software] >>>>>or Skype. So what does that mean? If I >>>>>manage my traffic from a technical >>>>>perspective, knowing that Skype actually >>>>>doesn©­t eat up much bandwidth at all, why >>>>>should it be deprioritised because it©­s >>>>>peer-to-peer?©‹ >>>>> >>>>>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic >>>>>management been felt more vividly than on >>>>>the mobile internet >>>>> >>>>>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic >>>>>management been felt more vividly than on >>>>>the mobile internet. Websites and services >>>>>blocked at the whim of the network, video so >>>>>compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda >>>>>propaganda tape, and varying charges for >>>>>different types of data are already >>>>>commonplace. >>>>> >>>>>Skype is outlawed by a number of British >>>>>mobile networks fearful of losing phone call >>>>>revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching >>>>>the BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and >>>>>almost all networks outlaw tethering a >>>>>mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on >>>>>standard ©¯unlimited data©‹ contracts. >>>>> >>>>>Jim Killock, executive director of the Open >>>>>Rights Group, has this chilling warning for >>>>>fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at the >>>>>mobile market, think if that is how you want >>>>>your internet and your devices to work in >>>>>the future, because that©­s where things are >>>>>leading.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>Video blockers >>>>> >>>>>Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely >>>>>resisted the more drastic blocking measures >>>>>chosen by the mobile operators. But if >>>>>there©­s one area in which ISPs are gagging >>>>>to rip up what©­s left of the cherished >>>>>concept of net neutrality, it©­s video. >>>>> >>>>>Streaming video recently overtook >>>>>peer-to-peer to become the largest single >>>>>category of internet traffic, according to >>>>>Cisco©­s Visual Networking Index. It©­s the >>>>>chief reason why the amount of data used by >>>>>the average internet connection has shot up >>>>>by 31% over the past year, to a once >>>>>unthinkable 14.9GB a month. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Managing video traffic is unquestionably a >>>>>major headache for ISPs and broadcasters >>>>>alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter >>>>>traffic management policies to make sure >>>>>networks don©­t collapse under the weight of >>>>>video-on-demand during peak hours. >>>>>Meanwhile, broadcasters such as the BBC and >>>>>Channel 4 pay content delivery networks >>>>>(CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds >>>>>every year to distribute their video across >>>>>the network and closer to the consumer; this >>>>>helps avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens >>>>>of thousands of people attempt to stream The >>>>>Apprentice at the same time. >>>>> >>>>>Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman >>>>>and get video broadcasters to pay them °© >>>>>instead of the CDNs °© for guaranteed >>>>>bandwidth. So if, for example, the BBC wants >>>>>to guarantee that TalkTalk customers can >>>>>watch uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, >>>>>it had better be willing to pay for the >>>>>privilege. A senior executive at a major >>>>>broadcaster told PC Pro that his company has >>>>>already been approached by two leading ISPs >>>>>looking to cut such a deal. >>>>> >>>>>Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into >>>>>the ©¯fast lane©‹; those who don©­t will be >>>>>left to fight their way through the regular >>>>>internet traffic jams. Whether or not you >>>>>can watch a video, perhaps even one you©­ve >>>>>paid for, may no longer depend on the raw >>>>>speed of your connection or the amount of >>>>>network congestion, but whether the >>>>>broadcaster has paid your ISP for a >>>>>prioritised stream. >>>>> >>>>>©¯We absolutely could see situations in >>>>>which some content or application providers >>>>>might want to pay BT for a quality of >>>>>service above best efforts,©‹ admitted BT©­s >>>>>Simon Milner at a recent Westminster eForum. >>>>>©¯That is the kind of thing that we©­d have >>>>>to explain in our traffic management >>>>>policies, and indeed we©­d do so, and then >>>>>if somebody decided, Œwell, actually I >>>>>don©­t want to have that kind of service©­, >>>>>they would be free to go elsewhere.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>We absolutely could see situations in which >>>>>some content or application providers might >>>>>want to pay BT for a quality of service >>>>>above best efforts >>>>> >>>>>It gets worse. Asked directly at the same >>>>>forum whether TalkTalk would be willing to >>>>>cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in >>>>>favour of YouTube if the latter was prepared >>>>>to sign a big enough cheque, TalkTalk©­s >>>>>Andrew Heaney replied: ©¯We©­d do a deal, >>>>>and we©­d look at YouTube and we©­d look at >>>>>BBC and we should have freedom to sign >>>>>whatever deal works.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>That©­s the country©­s two biggest ISPs °© >>>>>with more than eight million broadband >>>>>households between them °© openly admitting >>>>>they©­d either cut off or effectively >>>>>cripple video streams from an internet >>>>>broadcaster if it wasn©­t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >>>>> >>>>>Understandably, many of the leading >>>>>broadcasters are fearful. ©¯The founding >>>>>principle of the internet is that everyone >>>>>°© from individuals to global companies °© >>>>>has equal access,©‹ wrote the BBC©­s >>>>>director of future media and technology, >>>>>Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net >>>>>neutrality. ©¯Since the beginning, the >>>>>internet has been Œneutral©­, and everyone >>>>>has been treated the same. But the emergence >>>>>of fast and slow lanes allow broadband >>>>>providers to effectively pick and choose >>>>>what you see first and fastest.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>ITV also opposes broadband providers being >>>>>allowed to shut out certain sites or >>>>>services. ©¯We strongly believe that traffic >>>>>throttling shouldn©­t be conducted on the >>>>>basis of content provider; throttling access >>>>>to content from a particular company or >>>>>institution,©‹ the broadcaster said in a >>>>>recent submission to regulator Ofcom©­s >>>>>consultation on net neutrality. >>>>> >>>>>Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a >>>>>broadcaster and one of the country©­s >>>>>leading ISPs, and a company that could >>>>>naturally benefit from shutting out rival >>>>>broadcasters °© raised no such objection in >>>>>its submission to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can >>>>>and should be relied upon to provide the >>>>>necessary consumer safeguards,©‹ Sky argued. >>>>> >>>>>Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially >>>>>run from a small office above a pizzeria >>>>>before Google weighed in with its $1.65 >>>>>billion takeover °© have got off the ground >>>>>if its three founders had been forced to pay >>>>>ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos >>>>>could be watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >>>>> >>>>>Walled-garden web >>>>> >>>>>It isn©­t only high-bandwidth video sites >>>>>that could potentially be blocked by ISPs. >>>>>Virtually any type of site could find itself >>>>>barred if one of its rivals has signed an >>>>>exclusive deal with an ISP, returning the >>>>>web to the kind of AOL walled-garden >>>>>approach of the late 1990s. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This isn©­t journalistic scaremongering: the >>>>>prospect of hugely popular sites being >>>>>blocked by ISPs is already being debated by >>>>>the Government. ©¯I sign up to the two-year >>>>>contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months >>>>>my daughter comes and knocks on the lounge >>>>>door and says Œfather, I can©­t access >>>>>Facebook any more©­,©‹ hypothesised Nigel >>>>>Hickson, head of international ICT policy at >>>>>the Department for Business, Innovation and >>>>>Skills. ©¯I say ŒWhy?©­. She says ŒIt©­s >>>>>quite obvious, I have gone to the site and I >>>>>have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, >>>>>whatever, don©­t take Facebook any more. >>>>>Facebook wouldn©­t pay them the money, but >>>>>YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube©­: >>>>>Minister, is that acceptable? That is the >>>>>sort of question we face.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>Where©­s the regulator? >>>>> >>>>>So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes >>>>>to say ©¯yes©‹, think about the prospect of >>>>>ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and >>>>>leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining >>>>>bandwidth? It ran a consultation on net >>>>>neutrality earlier this year, with spiky >>>>>contributions from ISPs and broadcasters >>>>>alike, but it appears to be coming down on >>>>>the side of the broadband providers. >>>>> >>>>>©¯I think we were very clear in our >>>>>discussion document [on net neutrality] that >>>>>we see the real economic merits to the idea >>>>>of allowing a two-sided market to emerge,©‹ >>>>>said Alex Blowers, international director at >>>>>Ofcom. >>>>> >>>>>©¯Particularly for applications such as >>>>>IPTV, where it seems to us that the consumer >>>>>expectation will be a service that©­s of a >>>>>reasonably consistent quality, that allows >>>>>you to actually sit down at the beginning of >>>>>a film and watch it to the end without >>>>>constant problems of jitter or the picture >>>>>hanging,©‹ he said. Taking that argument to >>>>>its logical conclusion means that >>>>>broadcasters who refuse to pay the ISPs©­ >>>>>bounty will be subject to stuttering quality. >>>>> >>>>>Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be >>>>>tougher. ©¯We are concerned that Ofcom >>>>>isn©­t currently taking a firm stance in >>>>>relation to throttling,©‹ ITV said in its >>>>>submission to the regulator. The BBC also >>>>>said it has ©¯concerns about the increasing >>>>>potential incentives for discriminatory >>>>>behaviour by network operators, which risks >>>>>undermining the internet©­s character, and >>>>>ultimately resulting in consumer harm©‹. >>>>> >>>>>Ofcom©­s Blowers argues regulation would be >>>>>premature as ©¯there is very little >>>>>evidence©‹ that ©¯the big beasts of the >>>>>content application and services world are >>>>>coming together and doing deals with big >>>>>beasts of the network and ISP world©‹. >>>>> >>>>>The regulator also places great faith in the >>>>>power of competition: the theory that >>>>>broadband subscribers would simply jump ship >>>>>to another ISP if their provider started >>>>>doing beastly things °© for example, cutting >>>>>off services such as the iPlayer. It©­s a >>>>>theory echoed by the ISPs themselves. ©¯If >>>>>we started blocking access to certain news >>>>>sites, you could be sure within about 23 >>>>>minutes it would be up on a blog and we©­d >>>>>be chastised for it, quite rightly too,©‹ >>>>>said TalkTalk©­s Heaney. >>>>> >>>>>First and foremost, users should be able to >>>>>access and distribute the content, services >>>>>and applications they want >>>>> >>>>>Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where >>>>>broadband subscriptions are routinely sold >>>>>as part of the same deal as TV, telephone or >>>>>mobile services °© hopping from one ISP to >>>>>another is rarely simple. Not to mention the >>>>>18-month or two-year contracts broadband >>>>>customers are frequently chained to. As the >>>>>BBC pointed out in its submission to the >>>>>regulator, ©¯Ofcom©­s 2009 research showed >>>>>that a quarter of households found it >>>>>difficult to switch broadband and bundled >>>>>services©‹, with the ©¯perceived hassle of >>>>>the switching process©‹ and ©¯the threat of >>>>>additional charges©‹ dissuading potential >>>>>switchers. >>>>> >>>>>©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a >>>>>contract, that©­s that,©‹ argued the Open >>>>>Rights Group©­s Jim Killock. ©¯So you make >>>>>your choice and you lump it, whereas the >>>>>whole point of the internet is you make your >>>>>choice, you don©­t like it, you change your >>>>>mind.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>The best hope of maintaining the status quo >>>>>of a free and open internet may lie with the >>>>>EU (although even its determination is >>>>>wavering). The EU©­s 2009 framework requires >>>>>national regulators such as Ofcom to promote >>>>>©¯the ability of end users to access and >>>>>distribute information or run applications >>>>>and services of their choice©‹ and that ISPs >>>>>are transparent about any traffic management. >>>>> >>>>>It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs >>>>>putting favoured partners in the ©¯fast >>>>>lane©‹ and crippling the rest, by giving >>>>>Ofcom the power to set ©¯minimum quality of >>>>>service requirements©‹ °© forcing ISPs to >>>>>reserve a set amount of bandwidth so that >>>>>their traffic management doesn©­t hobble >>>>>those sites that can©­t afford to pay. >>>>> >>>>>It©­s a concept enthusiastically backed by >>>>>the BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or >>>>>Ofcom, which doesn©­t have to use this new >>>>>power handed down by Brussels and seems >>>>>reluctant to do so. ©¯There doesn©­t yet >>>>>seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a >>>>>public intervention that would effectively >>>>>create a new industry structure around this >>>>>idea of a guaranteed Œbest efforts©­ >>>>>internet underpinned by legislation,©‹ said >>>>>Ofcom©­s Blowers. >>>>> >>>>>It©­s an attitude that sparks dismay from >>>>>campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©­s approach creates >>>>>large risks for the open internet,©‹ said >>>>>Killock. ©¯Its attempts to manage and >>>>>mitigate the risks are weak, by relying on >>>>>transparency and competition alone, and >>>>>it©­s unfortunate it hasn©­t addressed the >>>>>idea of a minimum service guarantee.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>At least the EU is adamant that ISPs >>>>>shouldn©­t be permitted to block legal >>>>>websites or services that conflict with >>>>>their commercial interests. ©¯First and >>>>>foremost, users should be able to access and >>>>>distribute the content, services and >>>>>applications they want,©‹ said European >>>>>Commission vice president Neelie Kroes >>>>>earlier this year. >>>>>©¯Discrimination against undesired >>>>>competitors °© for instance, those providing >>>>>voice-over the internet services °© >>>>>shouldn©­t be allowed.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>Yet, Ofcom doesn©­t even regard this as a >>>>>major issue. ©¯When VoIP services were first >>>>>launched in the UK, most [mobile] network >>>>>operators were against permitting VoIP,©‹ >>>>>Blowers said. ©¯We now know that you can >>>>>find packages from a number of suppliers >>>>>that do permit VoIP services. >>>>>So I©­m not as pessimistic as some may be >>>>>that this kind of gaming behaviour around >>>>>blocking services will be a real problem.©‹ >>>>> >>>>>If the EU doesn©­t drag the UK©­s relaxed >>>>>regulator into line with the rest of the >>>>>world, it will be British internet users who >>>>>have the real problem. >>>>> >>>>>Author: Barry Collins >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Read more: >>>>>The >>>>>end of the net as we know it | Broadband | >>>>>Features | PC Pro >>>>>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>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 >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>To 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 Sun Jan 23 06:42:26 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:12:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> <4D3BE76C.3040608@itforchange.net> <4D3BEF88.4080507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D3C1422.4040105@itforchange.net> >> Can you tell be how it is difficult to enforce the principle or >> regulatory law that 'there will be no content provider specific >> pay-for-priority on the public Internet'. > > > To make your statement possible I think you'll need regulation in > place, so you need to re-write a lot of telecommunications law. Not > easy. > Why not... Was it easier to get in telecom privatisation through the WTO to almost every country in the world, which no doubt did a lot of good. It simply depends on how badly you want something - and who wants it and who doesnt. > Look at the U.S. FCC's tried to bring a 'lite' set of NN rules in its > recent Internet order, and Verizon has already challenged the Internet > order in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. And Verizon may well win, > particularly if it can keep the appeal in the DC Circuit Court (same > court that ruled on Comcast against the FCC, Verizon might even get > the same judges.) > That is just bec US gov and regulators are dithering... (for the reasons see my last email) . If they want it they can have clear enforceable laws and rules in 6 months. But hoping that the top industry players will provide you with draft laws is like getting your health policy written by drug companies. > "it is very hard to make broad, sweeping concepts actionable or > enforceable as rules". > > I don't think there's anything wrong with broad, sweeping concepts as > principles, so long as we know they are only principles. But how can > you make them actionable/enforceable on global basis? Or on a national > basis for that matter? > > There's been an enormous amount written over the past year or so about > the FCC's attempts to implement some network neutrality rules. > > Don't get me wrong, I am not saying network neutrality is not > important, I'm a great believer. But you should start saying how > you'll implement what your proposing rather than asking questions of > others. Simply by notofying the law and enforcing it.... Afterall it is not the first time new laws will be written and notified. THis has been done in telecom and IT areas before. Almost all aspects of our social life is subject to so many enforceable laws. So the simple fact in case of NN is, to many vested interests with just too much of vested interest (in a Internet which serves corporate interests) around, and little or ineffective public interest action (and here IGC figures). How would an argument on - dont get me wrong I am all for human rights but they are difficult to enforce etc look in an IGC kind of a place, Dilly dallying on NN, and not doing enough on proposing global/ national frameworks and action are similarly bad for us. parminder > > Adam > > > >> I am very sure it can be enforced with 100 percent clarity and >> effectiveness... This is also written in the FCC's new NN framework >> and from all that I know they mean to enforce it. So how you are >> claiming that this rule may not practically enforcable or to be >> closer to your language 'problems will come when we try to enforce >> this rule'. For me this is the basic NN rule and it is very clear and >> 100 percent enforceable. >> >> Many may have claimed at first that regulations that broke up first >> telephone network monopolies and then broke the hardware-software >> coupling will be difficult to enforce. However if these regulations >> were not framed and enforced we may not have seen the information or >> ICT revolution. >> >> The main difference between those times and now is that the ICT >> structure today is inherently global - and the most powerful >> countries while they can clearly see the public interest benefit of >> NN for their own people, they know that with an inequitous and non >> neutral Internet, it will be their mega digital corporate which will >> win against newcomers from the developing world. So they are caught >> between supporting an evident public interest cause and not weakening >> the special global advantage their companies enjoy today. This is the >> key 'policy conundrum' in the globalised world today. >> >> Parminder >> >>> I think that's what we were trying to say with this comment in the >>> conclusion "it is very hard to make broad, sweeping concepts >>> actionable or enforceable as rules". And as another matter I think >>> wireless networks are different from wired, and that's a massive >>> problem given that developing countries will likely be relying on >>> wireless. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>>> Thanks Adam for the paper. Just skimmed through it, but plan to >>>> read it fully later. >>>> >>>> However, I am unable to agree to the conclusions that it is >>>> difficult to say what is a NN violation or not, and a >>>> one-size-fit-all set of guidelines are difficult, and in any case >>>> any ex ante NN regulation is extremely diffcult. >>>> >>>> Can you suggest why for instance Norway's clear NN guidelines >>>> cannot work, and work universally? >>>> (see >>>> http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf >>>> ) >>>> >>>> It all really depends on what our basic point of departure is. If >>>> it is human rights, or rights of all people on the Internet, then >>>> that becomes basic and most important and profit-models etc come >>>> much later. NN has to be seen from such a huan rights angle. Anyone >>>> can argue to any length how ensuring say democratic rights is an >>>> expensive model, or media rights interfere with business models and >>>> the such. Precisely to avoid such problem we have the concept of >>>> rights. >>>> >>>> So, for many of us net neutrality, or net equality, is a basic >>>> right. We start from here. Companies have to adjust their business >>>> models to it, and regulators have to ensure that this right is >>>> ensured. >>>> >>>> Now for practical translation of this right. I dont see how it is >>>> difficult to understand or enforce a simple regulation that 'there >>>> will be no content provider specific pay-for-priority on the public >>>> Internet' and if any such practices are found there will be heavy >>>> penalty and eventual cancellation of license. This however does >>>> exclude public interest communication like emergency services etc >>>> about which guidelines will be issued separately. >>>> >>>> The above is a very specific and clear NN guideline. I will like to >>>> hear why is it not enforceable. >>>> >>>> Lee, managed services of the kind Akamai offers is a different >>>> thing. Here they do not use the public internet but private IP >>>> based channels. More elaborate NN guidelines will also cover issues >>>> about how public Internet and such private IP based networks will >>>> co-exist in a manner that larger pulbic interest and people's basic >>>> rights are ensured. >>>> >>>> Not only Norway has clear NN guidelines, even FCC has come up with >>>> a NN framework for wired internet and the framework covers all >>>> issues. In fact the guidelines and the individual commissioner's >>>> comments make very interesting reading. I have no confusion about >>>> NN when I read them. Things are crystal clear, as they must be >>>> because they are real enforcable laws of the land. The only problem >>>> is that FCC left out wireless networks from NN ambit and that is >>>> the key issue we need to discuss. >>>> >>>> In this context it may be considered rather surprising that the >>>> main civil society group in IG arena continues to think that NN >>>> issue is too complex to be able to be discussed or applied with any >>>> degree of coherence. I am not a techie, but I can clearly >>>> understand it - to the extent that any 'real life' issue can ever >>>> be understood'. >>>> >>>> On the notion that competitive markets will take care of the NN >>>> problem - let me repeat, India's mobile market is perhaps the >>>> world's most competitive, and there is a large scale NN violation >>>> going on there right now. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>>> Some background >>>>> >>>>> (self serving plug to a paper written by some colleagues and me, >>>>> "A Comparison of Network Neutrality Approaches In: The U.S., >>>>> Japan, and the European Union".) >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>>> Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to >>>>>> *not* do something about this issue. So many times a discussion >>>>>> on NN on this list has run into this wall - it is a very complex >>>>>> issues with many sides to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a >>>>>> good enough reason for abdication. One often hears excuses like, >>>>>> with voice and video domination the internet today NN is a >>>>>> meaningless concept. Not so at all. We can have specific >>>>>> provisions whereby specific applications can have different >>>>>> treatments while being content-provider neutral, this latter >>>>>> being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have oftne been >>>>>> mentioned in discussions here earlier. These guidelines allow >>>>>> space to manage voice and vedio applications related issues. IS >>>>>> there any reason why Norway's guidelines cannot be used globally, >>>>>> and why should IGC be forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if >>>>>> soon enough there is not a basic global consensus on NN >>>>>> guidelines even Norway like countries may not be able to preserve >>>>>> NN, such is the globalness of the Internet and its basic >>>>>> architectural principles. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I am arguing for is that we should not only propose NN as a >>>>>> plenary topic and absolutely put our foot down that it must be >>>>>> accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find the whole exercise >>>>>> meaningless and may not even want to participate.... I mean the >>>>>> kind of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The end of the net as we know it >>>>>> >>>>>> Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >>>>>> >>>>>> ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them >>>>>> first. Barry Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality >>>>>> >>>>>> You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and >>>>>> press Play on the latest episode of QI. But instead of that >>>>>> tedious, plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your laptop©­s >>>>>> speakers, you©­re left staring at the whirring, circular icon as >>>>>> the video buffers and buffers and buffers... >>>>>> >>>>>> That©­s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre >>>>>> broadband connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on >>>>>> Sky Player just moments ago. There©­s nothing wrong with your >>>>>> connection; it must be iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find >>>>>> out if anyone else is having problems streaming Stephen Fry et >>>>>> al. The message that appears on your screen leaves you looking >>>>>> more startled than Bill Bailey. ©¯This service isn©­t supported >>>>>> on your broadband service. Click here to visit our >>>>>> social-networking partner, Facebook.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> Net neutrality? We don©­t have it today >>>>>> >>>>>> The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat. >>>>>> Britain©­s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier >>>>>> internet, where websites and services that are willing to pay are >>>>>> thrust into the ©¯fast lane©<, while those that don©­t are left >>>>>> fighting for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. >>>>>> They©­re not so much ripping up the cherished notion of net >>>>>> neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and lighting the >>>>>> match. The only question is: can they get away with it? >>>>>> >>>>>> *No such thing as net neutrality* >>>>>> >>>>>> It©­s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality °© >>>>>> ISPs treating different types of internet traffic or content >>>>>> equally °© is already a busted flush. ©¯Net neutrality? We don©­t >>>>>> have it today,©< argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of >>>>>> strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, Britain©­s second biggest ISP. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all >>>>>> levels, with huge levels of widespread discrimination of traffic >>>>>> types. [Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low speed; some >>>>>> buy a lot of capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped traffic, >>>>>> some buy shaped. >>>>>> ©¯So the suggestion that °© OEoh dear, it is terrible, we might >>>>>> move to a two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let©­s get >>>>>> real, we have a very multifaceted and multitiered internet >>>>>> today,©< Heaney said. >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be ©¯unthinkable©< to >>>>>> return to an internet where every packet of data was given equal >>>>>> weight. ©¯Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in which all >>>>>> data, all the bits and the packets were treated in the same way >>>>>> as they passed through the network,©< said Simon Milner, BT©­s >>>>>> director of group industry policy. ©¯That was an internet that >>>>>> wasn©­t about the internet that we have today: it wasn©­t about >>>>>> speech, it wasn©­t about video, and it certainly wasn©­t about >>>>>> television. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that >>>>>> applications would grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and >>>>>> therefore some tools were needed to make this network work more >>>>>> effectively, and that©­s why traffic management techniques and >>>>>> guaranteed quality of service were developed in the 1990s, and >>>>>> then deep-packet inspection came along roughly ten years ago,©< >>>>>> he added. ©¯These techniques and equipment are essential for the >>>>>> development of the internet we see today.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> It©­s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more >>>>>> expensive) ISPs such as Zen Internet don©­t employ any traffic >>>>>> shaping across their network, and Zen has won the /PC Pro/ Best >>>>>> Broadband ISP award >>>>>> >>>>>> for the past seven years. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even today©­s traffic management methods can cause huge problems >>>>>> for certain websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a >>>>>> common victim of ISPs©­ traffic management policies, often being >>>>>> deprioritised to a snail©­s pace during peak hours. While the >>>>>> intended target may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent >>>>>> clients to download illicit copies of the latest movie releases, >>>>>> legitimate applications can also fall victim to such blunderbuss >>>>>> filtering. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,©< said >>>>>> Jean-Jacques Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs >>>>>> at VoIP service Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely peer-to-peer >>>>>> file-sharing applications that were referred to in the Digital >>>>>> Economy Act, all the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which >>>>>> used to run on P2P software] or Skype. So what does that mean? If >>>>>> I manage my traffic from a technical perspective, knowing that >>>>>> Skype actually doesn©­t eat up much bandwidth at all, why should >>>>>> it be deprioritised because it©­s peer-to-peer?©< >>>>>> >>>>>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >>>>>> more vividly than on the mobile internet >>>>>> >>>>>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >>>>>> more vividly than on the mobile internet. Websites and services >>>>>> blocked at the whim of the network, video so compressed it looks >>>>>> like an Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and varying charges for >>>>>> different types of data are already commonplace. >>>>>> >>>>>> Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful >>>>>> of losing phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching >>>>>> the BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all networks >>>>>> outlaw tethering a mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on standard >>>>>> ©¯unlimited data©< contracts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has >>>>>> this chilling warning for fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at >>>>>> the mobile market, think if that is how you want your internet >>>>>> and your devices to work in the future, because that©­s where >>>>>> things are leading.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> *Video blockers* >>>>>> >>>>>> Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic >>>>>> blocking measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there©­s >>>>>> one area in which ISPs are gagging to rip up what©­s left of the >>>>>> cherished concept of net neutrality, it©­s video. >>>>>> >>>>>> Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the >>>>>> largest single category of internet traffic, according to >>>>>> Cisco©­s Visual Networking Index. It©­s the chief reason why the >>>>>> amount of data used by the average internet connection has shot >>>>>> up by 31% over the past year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month. >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet TV >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for >>>>>> ISPs and broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter >>>>>> traffic management policies to make sure networks don©­t collapse >>>>>> under the weight of video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, >>>>>> broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay content delivery >>>>>> networks (CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds every year to >>>>>> distribute their video across the network and closer to the >>>>>> consumer; this helps avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of >>>>>> thousands of people attempt to stream The Apprentice at the same >>>>>> time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video >>>>>> broadcasters to pay them °© instead of the CDNs °© for guaranteed >>>>>> bandwidth. So if, for example, the BBC wants to guarantee that >>>>>> TalkTalk customers can watch uninterrupted HD streams from >>>>>> iPlayer, it had better be willing to pay for the privilege. A >>>>>> senior executive at a major broadcaster told /PC Pro/ that his >>>>>> company has already been approached by two leading ISPs looking >>>>>> to cut such a deal. >>>>>> >>>>>> Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the ©¯fast lane©<; >>>>>> those who don©­t will be left to fight their way through the >>>>>> regular internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a >>>>>> video, perhaps even one you©­ve paid for, may no longer depend on >>>>>> the raw speed of your connection or the amount of network >>>>>> congestion, but whether the broadcaster has paid your ISP for a >>>>>> prioritised stream. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >>>>>> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of >>>>>> service above best efforts,©< admitted BT©­s Simon Milner at a >>>>>> recent Westminster eForum. ©¯That is the kind of thing that we©­d >>>>>> have to explain in our traffic management policies, and indeed >>>>>> we©­d do so, and then if somebody decided, OEwell, actually I >>>>>> don©­t want to have that kind of service©­, they would be free to >>>>>> go elsewhere.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >>>>>> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of >>>>>> service >>>>>> above best efforts >>>>>> >>>>>> It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk >>>>>> would be willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in >>>>>> favour of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big enough >>>>>> cheque, TalkTalk©­s Andrew Heaney replied: ©¯We©­d do a deal, and >>>>>> we©­d look at YouTube and we©­d look at BBC and we should have >>>>>> freedom to sign whatever deal works.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> That©­s the country©­s two biggest ISPs °© with more than eight >>>>>> million broadband households between them °© openly admitting >>>>>> they©­d either cut off or effectively cripple video streams from >>>>>> an internet >>>>>> broadcaster if it wasn©­t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >>>>>> >>>>>> Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. >>>>>> ©¯The founding principle of the internet is that everyone °© from >>>>>> individuals to global companies °© has equal access,©< wrote the >>>>>> BBC©­s director of future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in >>>>>> a recent blog post on net neutrality. ©¯Since the beginning, the >>>>>> internet has been OEneutral©­, and everyone has been treated the >>>>>> same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes allow broadband >>>>>> providers to effectively pick and choose what you see first and >>>>>> fastest.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out >>>>>> certain sites or services. ©¯We strongly believe that traffic >>>>>> throttling shouldn©­t be conducted on the basis of content >>>>>> provider; throttling access to content from a particular company >>>>>> or institution,©< the broadcaster said in a recent submission to >>>>>> regulator Ofcom©­s consultation on net neutrality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a broadcaster and one of >>>>>> the country©­s leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally >>>>>> benefit from shutting out rival broadcasters °© raised no such >>>>>> objection in its submission to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can and >>>>>> should be relied upon to provide the necessary consumer >>>>>> safeguards,©< Sky argued. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially run from a small >>>>>> office above a pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 >>>>>> billion takeover °© have got off the ground if its three founders >>>>>> had been forced to pay ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos >>>>>> could be watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Walled-garden web* >>>>>> >>>>>> It isn©­t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially >>>>>> be blocked by ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself >>>>>> barred if one of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with an >>>>>> ISP, returning the web to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach >>>>>> of the late 1990s. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop sign >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This isn©­t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely >>>>>> popular sites being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by >>>>>> the Government. ©¯I sign up to the two-year contract [with an >>>>>> ISP] and after 18 months my daughter comes and knocks on the >>>>>> lounge door and says OEfather, I can©­t access Facebook any >>>>>> more©­,©< hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of international ICT >>>>>> policy at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. ©¯I >>>>>> say OEWhy?©­. She says OEIt©­s quite obvious, I have gone to the >>>>>> site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, >>>>>> don©­t take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn©­t pay them the >>>>>> money, but YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube©­: Minister, is >>>>>> that acceptable? That is the sort of question we face.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> *Where©­s the regulator?* >>>>>> >>>>>> So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say ©¯yes©<, >>>>>> think about the prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast >>>>>> lane and leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? >>>>>> It ran a consultation on net neutrality earlier this year, with >>>>>> spiky contributions from ISPs and broadcasters alike, but it >>>>>> appears to be coming down on the side of the broadband providers. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net >>>>>> neutrality] that we see the real economic merits to the idea of >>>>>> allowing a two-sided market to emerge,©< said Alex Blowers, >>>>>> international director at Ofcom. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to >>>>>> us that the consumer expectation will be a service that©­s of a >>>>>> reasonably consistent quality, that allows you to actually sit >>>>>> down at the beginning of a film and watch it to the end without >>>>>> constant problems of jitter or the picture hanging,©< he said. >>>>>> Taking that argument to its logical conclusion means that >>>>>> broadcasters who refuse to pay the ISPs©­ bounty will be subject >>>>>> to stuttering quality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. ©¯We are >>>>>> concerned that Ofcom isn©­t currently taking a firm stance in >>>>>> relation to throttling,©< ITV said in its submission to the >>>>>> regulator. The BBC also said it has ©¯concerns about the >>>>>> increasing potential incentives for discriminatory behaviour by >>>>>> network operators, which risks undermining the internet©­s >>>>>> character, and ultimately resulting in consumer harm©<. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ofcom©­s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as ©¯there >>>>>> is very little evidence©< that ©¯the big beasts of the content >>>>>> application and services world are coming together and doing >>>>>> deals with big beasts of the network and ISP world©<. >>>>>> >>>>>> The regulator also places great faith in the power of >>>>>> competition: the theory that broadband subscribers would simply >>>>>> jump ship to another ISP if their provider started doing beastly >>>>>> things °© for example, cutting off services such as the iPlayer. >>>>>> It©­s a theory echoed by the ISPs themselves. ©¯If we started >>>>>> blocking access to certain news sites, you could be sure within >>>>>> about 23 minutes it would be up on a blog and we©­d be chastised >>>>>> for it, quite rightly too,©< said TalkTalk©­s Heaney. >>>>>> >>>>>> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute >>>>>> the content, services and applications they want >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where broadband >>>>>> subscriptions are routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, >>>>>> telephone or mobile services °© hopping from one ISP to another >>>>>> is rarely simple. Not to mention the 18-month or two-year >>>>>> contracts broadband customers are frequently chained to. As the >>>>>> BBC pointed out in its submission to the regulator, ©¯Ofcom©­s >>>>>> 2009 research showed that a quarter of households found it >>>>>> difficult to switch broadband and bundled services©<, with the >>>>>> ©¯perceived hassle of the switching process©< and ©¯the threat of >>>>>> additional charges©< dissuading potential switchers. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that©­s >>>>>> that,©< argued the Open Rights Group©­s Jim Killock. ©¯So you >>>>>> make your choice and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the >>>>>> internet is you make your choice, you don©­t like it, you change >>>>>> your mind.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open >>>>>> internet may lie with the EU (although even its determination is >>>>>> wavering). The EU©­s 2009 framework requires national regulators >>>>>> such as Ofcom to promote ©¯the ability of end users to access and >>>>>> distribute information or run applications and services of their >>>>>> choice©< and that ISPs are transparent about any traffic management. >>>>>> >>>>>> It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners >>>>>> in the ©¯fast lane©< and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the >>>>>> power to set ©¯minimum quality of service requirements©< °© >>>>>> forcing ISPs to reserve a set amount of bandwidth so that their >>>>>> traffic management doesn©­t hobble those sites that can©­t afford >>>>>> to pay. >>>>>> >>>>>> It©­s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, >>>>>> but not by the ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn©­t have to use this new >>>>>> power handed down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. >>>>>> ©¯There doesn©­t yet seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a >>>>>> public intervention that would effectively create a new industry >>>>>> structure around this idea of a guaranteed OEbest efforts©­ >>>>>> internet underpinned by legislation,©< said Ofcom©­s Blowers. >>>>>> >>>>>> It©­s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©­s >>>>>> approach creates large risks for the open internet,©< said >>>>>> Killock. ©¯Its attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are >>>>>> weak, by relying on transparency and competition alone, and it©­s >>>>>> unfortunate it hasn©­t addressed the idea of a minimum service >>>>>> guarantee.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn©­t be permitted to >>>>>> block legal websites or services that conflict with their >>>>>> commercial interests. ©¯First and foremost, users should be able >>>>>> to access and distribute the content, services and applications >>>>>> they want,©< said European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes >>>>>> earlier this year. >>>>>> ©¯Discrimination against undesired competitors °© for instance, >>>>>> those providing voice-over the internet services °© shouldn©­t be >>>>>> allowed.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet, Ofcom doesn©­t even regard this as a major issue. ©¯When >>>>>> VoIP services were first launched in the UK, most [mobile] >>>>>> network operators were against permitting VoIP,©< Blowers said. >>>>>> ©¯We now know that you can find packages from a number of >>>>>> suppliers that do permit VoIP services. >>>>>> So I©­m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of >>>>>> gaming behaviour around blocking services will be a real problem.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> If the EU doesn©­t drag the UK©­s relaxed regulator into line >>>>>> with the rest of the world, it will be British internet users who >>>>>> have the real problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Author:* Barry Collins >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Read more: The end of the net as we know it | Broadband | >>>>>> Features | PC Pro >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PK >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to >>>>>> *not* do something about this issue. So many times a discussion >>>>>> on NN on this list has run into this wall - it is a very complex >>>>>> issues with many sides to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a >>>>>> good enough reason for abdication. One often hears excuses like, >>>>>> with voice and video domination the internet today NN is a >>>>>> meaningless concept. Not so at all. We can have specific >>>>>> provisions whereby specific applications can have different >>>>>> treatments while being content-provider neutral, this latter >>>>>> being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have oftne been >>>>>> mentioned in discussions here earlier. These guidelines allow >>>>>> space to manage voice and vedio applications related issues. IS >>>>>> there any reason why Norway's guidelines cannot be used globally, >>>>>> and why should IGC be forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if >>>>>> soon enough there is not a basic global consensus on NN >>>>>> guidelines even Norway like countries may not be able to preserve >>>>>> NN, such is the globalness of the Internet and its basic >>>>>> architectural principles. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I am arguing for is that we should not only propose NN as a >>>>>> plenary topic and absolutely put our foot down that it must be >>>>>> accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find the whole exercise >>>>>> meaningless and may not even want to participate.... I mean the >>>>>> kind of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> The end of the net as we know it >>>>>> >>>>>> Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >>>>>> >>>>>> ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them >>>>>> first. Barry Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality >>>>>> >>>>>> You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and >>>>>> press Play on the latest episode of QI. But instead of that >>>>>> tedious, plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your laptop©­s >>>>>> speakers, you©­re left staring at the whirring, circular icon as >>>>>> the video buffers and buffers and buffers... >>>>>> >>>>>> That©­s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre >>>>>> broadband connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on >>>>>> Sky Player just moments ago. There©­s nothing wrong with your >>>>>> connection; it must be iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find >>>>>> out if anyone else is having problems streaming Stephen Fry et >>>>>> al. The message that appears on your screen leaves you looking >>>>>> more startled than Bill Bailey. ©¯This service isn©­t supported >>>>>> on your broadband service. Click here to visit our >>>>>> social-networking partner, Facebook.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> Net neutrality? We don©­t have it today >>>>>> >>>>>> The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat. >>>>>> Britain©­s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier >>>>>> internet, where websites and services that are willing to pay are >>>>>> thrust into the ©¯fast lane©<, while those that don©­t are left >>>>>> fighting for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. >>>>>> They©­re not so much ripping up the cherished notion of net >>>>>> neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and lighting the >>>>>> match. The only question is: can they get away with it? >>>>>> >>>>>> No such thing as net neutrality >>>>>> >>>>>> It©­s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality °© >>>>>> ISPs treating different types of internet traffic or content >>>>>> equally °© is already a busted flush. ©¯Net neutrality? We don©­t >>>>>> have it today,©< argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of >>>>>> strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, Britain©­s second biggest ISP. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all >>>>>> levels, with huge levels of widespread discrimination of traffic >>>>>> types. [Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low speed; some >>>>>> buy a lot of capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped traffic, >>>>>> some buy shaped. >>>>>> ©¯So the suggestion that °© OEoh dear, it is terrible, we might >>>>>> move to a two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let©­s get >>>>>> real, we have a very multifaceted and multitiered internet >>>>>> today,©< Heaney said. >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be ©¯unthinkable©< to >>>>>> return to an internet where every packet of data was given equal >>>>>> weight. ©¯Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in which all >>>>>> data, all the bits and the packets were treated in the same way >>>>>> as they passed through the network,©< said Simon Milner, BT©­s >>>>>> director of group industry policy. ©¯That was an internet that >>>>>> wasn©­t about the internet that we have today: it wasn©­t about >>>>>> speech, it wasn©­t about video, and it certainly wasn©­t about >>>>>> television. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that >>>>>> applications would grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and >>>>>> therefore some tools were needed to make this network work more >>>>>> effectively, and that©­s why traffic management techniques and >>>>>> guaranteed quality of service were developed in the 1990s, and >>>>>> then deep-packet inspection came along roughly ten years ago,©< >>>>>> he added. ©¯These techniques and equipment are essential for the >>>>>> development of the internet we see today.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> It©­s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more >>>>>> expensive) ISPs such as Zen Internet don©­t employ any traffic >>>>>> shaping across their network, and Zen has won the PC Pro >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Broadband ISP award for the past seven years. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even today©­s traffic management methods can cause huge problems >>>>>> for certain websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a >>>>>> common victim of ISPs©­ traffic management policies, often being >>>>>> deprioritised to a snail©­s pace during peak hours. While the >>>>>> intended target may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent >>>>>> clients to download illicit copies of the latest movie releases, >>>>>> legitimate applications can also fall victim to such blunderbuss >>>>>> filtering. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,©< said >>>>>> Jean-Jacques Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs >>>>>> at VoIP service Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely peer-to-peer >>>>>> file-sharing applications that were referred to in the Digital >>>>>> Economy Act, all the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which >>>>>> used to run on P2P software] or Skype. So what does that mean? If >>>>>> I manage my traffic from a technical perspective, knowing that >>>>>> Skype actually doesn©­t eat up much bandwidth at all, why should >>>>>> it be deprioritised because it©­s peer-to-peer?©< >>>>>> >>>>>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >>>>>> more vividly than on the mobile internet >>>>>> >>>>>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt >>>>>> more vividly than on the mobile internet. Websites and services >>>>>> blocked at the whim of the network, video so compressed it looks >>>>>> like an Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and varying charges for >>>>>> different types of data are already commonplace. >>>>>> >>>>>> Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful >>>>>> of losing phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching >>>>>> the BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all networks >>>>>> outlaw tethering a mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on standard >>>>>> ©¯unlimited data©< contracts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has >>>>>> this chilling warning for fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at >>>>>> the mobile market, think if that is how you want your internet >>>>>> and your devices to work in the future, because that©­s where >>>>>> things are leading.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> Video blockers >>>>>> >>>>>> Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic >>>>>> blocking measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there©­s >>>>>> one area in which ISPs are gagging to rip up what©­s left of the >>>>>> cherished concept of net neutrality, it©­s video. >>>>>> >>>>>> Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the >>>>>> largest single category of internet traffic, according to >>>>>> Cisco©­s Visual Networking Index. It©­s the chief reason why the >>>>>> amount of data used by the average internet connection has shot >>>>>> up by 31% over the past year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for >>>>>> ISPs and broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter >>>>>> traffic management policies to make sure networks don©­t collapse >>>>>> under the weight of video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, >>>>>> broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay content delivery >>>>>> networks (CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds every year to >>>>>> distribute their video across the network and closer to the >>>>>> consumer; this helps avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of >>>>>> thousands of people attempt to stream The Apprentice at the same >>>>>> time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video >>>>>> broadcasters to pay them °© instead of the CDNs °© for guaranteed >>>>>> bandwidth. So if, for example, the BBC wants to guarantee that >>>>>> TalkTalk customers can watch uninterrupted HD streams from >>>>>> iPlayer, it had better be willing to pay for the privilege. A >>>>>> senior executive at a major broadcaster told PC Pro that his >>>>>> company has already been approached by two leading ISPs looking >>>>>> to cut such a deal. >>>>>> >>>>>> Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the ©¯fast lane©<; >>>>>> those who don©­t will be left to fight their way through the >>>>>> regular internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a >>>>>> video, perhaps even one you©­ve paid for, may no longer depend on >>>>>> the raw speed of your connection or the amount of network >>>>>> congestion, but whether the broadcaster has paid your ISP for a >>>>>> prioritised stream. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >>>>>> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of >>>>>> service above best efforts,©< admitted BT©­s Simon Milner at a >>>>>> recent Westminster eForum. ©¯That is the kind of thing that we©­d >>>>>> have to explain in our traffic management policies, and indeed >>>>>> we©­d do so, and then if somebody decided, OEwell, actually I >>>>>> don©­t want to have that kind of service©­, they would be free to >>>>>> go elsewhere.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >>>>>> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of >>>>>> service above best efforts >>>>>> >>>>>> It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk >>>>>> would be willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in >>>>>> favour of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big enough >>>>>> cheque, TalkTalk©­s Andrew Heaney replied: ©¯We©­d do a deal, and >>>>>> we©­d look at YouTube and we©­d look at BBC and we should have >>>>>> freedom to sign whatever deal works.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> That©­s the country©­s two biggest ISPs °© with more than eight >>>>>> million broadband households between them °© openly admitting >>>>>> they©­d either cut off or effectively cripple video streams from >>>>>> an internet >>>>>> broadcaster if it wasn©­t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >>>>>> >>>>>> Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. >>>>>> ©¯The founding principle of the internet is that everyone °© from >>>>>> individuals to global companies °© has equal access,©< wrote the >>>>>> BBC©­s director of future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in >>>>>> a recent blog post on net neutrality. ©¯Since the beginning, the >>>>>> internet has been OEneutral©­, and everyone has been treated the >>>>>> same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes allow broadband >>>>>> providers to effectively pick and choose what you see first and >>>>>> fastest.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out >>>>>> certain sites or services. ©¯We strongly believe that traffic >>>>>> throttling shouldn©­t be conducted on the basis of content >>>>>> provider; throttling access to content from a particular company >>>>>> or institution,©< the broadcaster said in a recent submission to >>>>>> regulator Ofcom©­s consultation on net neutrality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a broadcaster and one of >>>>>> the country©­s leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally >>>>>> benefit from shutting out rival broadcasters °© raised no such >>>>>> objection in its submission to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can and >>>>>> should be relied upon to provide the necessary consumer >>>>>> safeguards,©< Sky argued. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially run from a small >>>>>> office above a pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 >>>>>> billion takeover °© have got off the ground if its three founders >>>>>> had been forced to pay ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos >>>>>> could be watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >>>>>> >>>>>> Walled-garden web >>>>>> >>>>>> It isn©­t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially >>>>>> be blocked by ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself >>>>>> barred if one of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with an >>>>>> ISP, returning the web to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach >>>>>> of the late 1990s. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This isn©­t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely >>>>>> popular sites being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by >>>>>> the Government. ©¯I sign up to the two-year contract [with an >>>>>> ISP] and after 18 months my daughter comes and knocks on the >>>>>> lounge door and says OEfather, I can©­t access Facebook any >>>>>> more©­,©< hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of international ICT >>>>>> policy at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. ©¯I >>>>>> say OEWhy?©­. She says OEIt©­s quite obvious, I have gone to the >>>>>> site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, >>>>>> don©­t take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn©­t pay them the >>>>>> money, but YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube©­: Minister, is >>>>>> that acceptable? That is the sort of question we face.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> Where©­s the regulator? >>>>>> >>>>>> So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say ©¯yes©<, >>>>>> think about the prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast >>>>>> lane and leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? >>>>>> It ran a consultation on net neutrality earlier this year, with >>>>>> spiky contributions from ISPs and broadcasters alike, but it >>>>>> appears to be coming down on the side of the broadband providers. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net >>>>>> neutrality] that we see the real economic merits to the idea of >>>>>> allowing a two-sided market to emerge,©< said Alex Blowers, >>>>>> international director at Ofcom. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to >>>>>> us that the consumer expectation will be a service that©­s of a >>>>>> reasonably consistent quality, that allows you to actually sit >>>>>> down at the beginning of a film and watch it to the end without >>>>>> constant problems of jitter or the picture hanging,©< he said. >>>>>> Taking that argument to its logical conclusion means that >>>>>> broadcasters who refuse to pay the ISPs©­ bounty will be subject >>>>>> to stuttering quality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. ©¯We are >>>>>> concerned that Ofcom isn©­t currently taking a firm stance in >>>>>> relation to throttling,©< ITV said in its submission to the >>>>>> regulator. The BBC also said it has ©¯concerns about the >>>>>> increasing potential incentives for discriminatory behaviour by >>>>>> network operators, which risks undermining the internet©­s >>>>>> character, and ultimately resulting in consumer harm©<. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ofcom©­s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as ©¯there >>>>>> is very little evidence©< that ©¯the big beasts of the content >>>>>> application and services world are coming together and doing >>>>>> deals with big beasts of the network and ISP world©<. >>>>>> >>>>>> The regulator also places great faith in the power of >>>>>> competition: the theory that broadband subscribers would simply >>>>>> jump ship to another ISP if their provider started doing beastly >>>>>> things °© for example, cutting off services such as the iPlayer. >>>>>> It©­s a theory echoed by the ISPs themselves. ©¯If we started >>>>>> blocking access to certain news sites, you could be sure within >>>>>> about 23 minutes it would be up on a blog and we©­d be chastised >>>>>> for it, quite rightly too,©< said TalkTalk©­s Heaney. >>>>>> >>>>>> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute >>>>>> the content, services and applications they want >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where broadband >>>>>> subscriptions are routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, >>>>>> telephone or mobile services °© hopping from one ISP to another >>>>>> is rarely simple. Not to mention the 18-month or two-year >>>>>> contracts broadband customers are frequently chained to. As the >>>>>> BBC pointed out in its submission to the regulator, ©¯Ofcom©­s >>>>>> 2009 research showed that a quarter of households found it >>>>>> difficult to switch broadband and bundled services©<, with the >>>>>> ©¯perceived hassle of the switching process©< and ©¯the threat of >>>>>> additional charges©< dissuading potential switchers. >>>>>> >>>>>> ©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that©­s >>>>>> that,©< argued the Open Rights Group©­s Jim Killock. ©¯So you >>>>>> make your choice and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the >>>>>> internet is you make your choice, you don©­t like it, you change >>>>>> your mind.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open >>>>>> internet may lie with the EU (although even its determination is >>>>>> wavering). The EU©­s 2009 framework requires national regulators >>>>>> such as Ofcom to promote ©¯the ability of end users to access and >>>>>> distribute information or run applications and services of their >>>>>> choice©< and that ISPs are transparent about any traffic management. >>>>>> >>>>>> It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners >>>>>> in the ©¯fast lane©< and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the >>>>>> power to set ©¯minimum quality of service requirements©< °© >>>>>> forcing ISPs to reserve a set amount of bandwidth so that their >>>>>> traffic management doesn©­t hobble those sites that can©­t afford >>>>>> to pay. >>>>>> >>>>>> It©­s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, >>>>>> but not by the ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn©­t have to use this new >>>>>> power handed down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. >>>>>> ©¯There doesn©­t yet seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a >>>>>> public intervention that would effectively create a new industry >>>>>> structure around this idea of a guaranteed OEbest efforts©­ >>>>>> internet underpinned by legislation,©< said Ofcom©­s Blowers. >>>>>> >>>>>> It©­s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©­s >>>>>> approach creates large risks for the open internet,©< said >>>>>> Killock. ©¯Its attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are >>>>>> weak, by relying on transparency and competition alone, and it©­s >>>>>> unfortunate it hasn©­t addressed the idea of a minimum service >>>>>> guarantee.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn©­t be permitted to >>>>>> block legal websites or services that conflict with their >>>>>> commercial interests. ©¯First and foremost, users should be able >>>>>> to access and distribute the content, services and applications >>>>>> they want,©< said European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes >>>>>> earlier this year. >>>>>> ©¯Discrimination against undesired competitors °© for instance, >>>>>> those providing voice-over the internet services °© shouldn©­t be >>>>>> allowed.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet, Ofcom doesn©­t even regard this as a major issue. ©¯When >>>>>> VoIP services were first launched in the UK, most [mobile] >>>>>> network operators were against permitting VoIP,©< Blowers said. >>>>>> ©¯We now know that you can find packages from a number of >>>>>> suppliers that do permit VoIP services. >>>>>> So I©­m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of >>>>>> gaming behaviour around blocking services will be a real problem.©< >>>>>> >>>>>> If the EU doesn©­t drag the UK©­s relaxed regulator into line >>>>>> with the rest of the world, it will be British internet users who >>>>>> have the real problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Author: Barry Collins >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Read more: >>>>>> The >>>>>> end of the net as we know it | Broadband | Features | PC Pro >>>>>> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> To 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 > > -- 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 andersj at elon.edu Sun Jan 23 07:38:04 2011 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:38:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Perhaps Sir Tim or at least the leadership of the Web Foundation would be interested in assisting in the leadership on this in Nairobi. Long Live the Web: A Call for Continued Open Standards and Neutrality The Web is critical not merely to the digital revolution but to our continued prosperity‹and even our liberty. Like democracy itself, it needs defending By Tim Berners-Lee http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web Monday, November 22, 2010 The World Wide Web went live, on my physical desktop in Geneva, Switzerland , in December 1990. It consisted of one Web site and one browser , which happened to be on the same computer . The simple setup demonstrated a profound concept: that any person could share information with anyone else, anywhere. In this spirit, the Web spread quickly from the grassroots up. Today, at its 20th anniversary, the Web is thoroughly integrated into our daily lives. We take it for granted, expecting it to ³be there² at any instant, like electricity. The Web evolved into a powerful, ubiquitous tool because it was built on egalitarian principles and because thousands of individuals, universities and companies have worked, both independently and together as part of the World Wide Web Consortium , to expand its capabilities based on those principles. The Web as we know it , however, is being threatened in different ways. Some of its most successful inhabitants have begun to chip away at its principles. Large social-networking sites are walling off information posted by their users from the rest of the Web. Wireless Internet providers are being tempted to slow traffic to sites with which they have not made deals. Governments‹totalitarian and democratic alike‹are monitoring people¹s online habits, endangering important human rights. If we, the Web¹s users, allow these and other trends to proceed unchecked, the Web could be broken into fragmented islands. We could lose the freedom to connect with whichever Web sites we want. The ill effects could extend to smartphones and pads, which are also portals to the extensive information that the Web provides. Why should you care? Because the Web is yours. It is a public resource on which you, your business, your community and your government depend. The Web is also vital to democracy, a communications channel that makes possible a continuous worldwide conversation. The Web is now more critical to free speech than any other medium. It brings principles established in the U.S. Constitution , the British Magna Carta and other important documents into the network age: freedom from being snooped on, filtered, censored and disconnected. Yet people seem to think the Web is some sort of piece of nature, and if it starts to wither, well, that¹s just one of those unfortunate things we can¹t help. Not so. We create the Web, by designing computer protocols and software; this process is completely under our control. We choose what properties we want it to have and not have. It is by no means finished (and it¹s certainly not dead). If we want to track what government is doing, see what companies are doing, understand the true state of the planet, find a cure for Alzheimer¹s disease, not to mention easily share our photos with our friends, we the public, the scientific community and the press must make sure the Web¹s principles remain intact‹not just to preserve what we have gained but to benefit from the great advances that are still to come. Universality Is the Foundation Several principles are key to assuring that the Web becomes ever more valuable. The primary design principle underlying the Web¹s usefulness and growth is universality. When you make a link, you can link to anything. That means people must be able to put anything on the Web, no matter what computer they have, software they use or human language they speak and regardless of whether they have a wired or wireless Internet connection. The Web should be usable by people with disabilities . It must work with any form of information, be it a document or a point of data, and information of any quality‹from a silly tweet to a scholarly paper. And it should be accessible from any kind of hardware that can connect to the Internet: stationary or mobile, small screen or large. These characteristics can seem obvious, self-maintaining or just unimportant, but they are why the next blockbuster Web site or the new homepage for your kid¹s local soccer team will just appear on the Web without any difficulty. Universality is a big demand, for any system. Decentralization is another important design feature. You do not have to get approval from any central authority to add a page or make a link. All you have to do is use three simple, standard protocols: write a page in the HTML (hypertext markup language) format, name it with the URI naming convention, and serve it up on the Internet using HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol). Decentralization has made widespread innovation possible and will continue to do so in the future. The URI is the key to universality. (I originally called the naming scheme URI, for universal resource identifier; it has come to be known as URL, for uniform resource locator.) The URI allows you to follow any link, regardless of the content it leads to or who publishes that content. Links turn the Web¹s content into something of greater value: an interconnected information space. Several threats to the Web¹s universality have arisen recently. Cable television companies that sell Internet connectivity are considering whether to limit their Internet users to downloading only the company¹s mix of entertainment. Social-networking sites present a different kind of problem. Facebook, LinkedIn, Friendster and others typically provide value by capturing information as you enter it: your birthday, your e-mail address, your likes, and links indicating who is friends with whom and who is in which photograph. The sites assemble these bits of data into brilliant databases and reuse the information to provide value-added service‹but only within their sites. Once you enter your data into one of these services, you cannot easily use them on another site. Each site is a silo, walled off from the others. Yes, your site¹s pages are on the Web, but your data are not. You can access a Web page about a list of people you have created in one site, but you cannot send that list, or items from it, to another site. The isolation occurs because each piece of information does not have a URI. Connections among data exist only within a site. So the more you enter, the more you become locked in. Your social-networking site becomes a central platform‹a closed silo of content, and one that does not give you full control over your information in it. The more this kind of architecture gains widespread use, the more the Web becomes fragmented, and the less we enjoy a single, universal information space. A related danger is that one social-networking site‹or one search engine or one browser‹gets so big that it becomes a monopoly, which tends to limit innovation. As has been the case since the Web began, continued grassroots innovation may be the best check and balance against any one company or government that tries to undermine universality. GnuSocial and Diaspora are projects on the Web that allow anyone to create their own social network from their own server, connecting to anyone on any other site. The Status.net project, which runs sites such as identi.ca , allows you to operate your own Twitter -like network without the Twitter-like centralization. Open Standards Drive Innovation Allowing any site to link to any other site is necessary but not sufficient for a robust Web. The basic Web technologies that individuals and companies need to develop powerful services must be available for free, with no royalties. Amazon.com, for example, grew into a huge online bookstore, then music store, then store for all kinds of goods because it had open, free access to the technical standards on which the Web operates. Amazon, like any other Web user, could use HTML, URI and HTTP without asking anyone¹s permission and without having to pay. It could also use improvements to those standards developed by the World Wide Web Consortium , allowing customers to fill out a virtual order form, pay online, rate the goods they had purchased, and so on. By ³open standards² I mean standards that can have any committed expert involved in the design, that have been widely reviewed as acceptable, that are available for free on the Web, and that are royalty-free (no need to pay) for developers and users. Open, royalty-free standards that are easy to use create the diverse richness of Web sites, from the big names such as Amazon , Craigslist and Wikipedia to obscure blogs written by adult hobbyists and to homegrown videos posted by teenagers. Openness also means you can build your own Web site or company without anyone¹s approval. When the Web began, I did not have to obtain permission or pay royalties to use the Internet¹s own open standards, such as the well-known transmission control protocol (TCP ) and Internet protocol (IP ). Similarly, the Web Consortium¹s royalty-free patent policy says that the companies, universities and individuals who contribute to the development of a standard must agree they will not charge royalties to anyone who may use the standard. Open, royalty-free standards do not mean that a company or individual cannot devise a blog or photo-sharing program and charge you to use it. They can. And you might want to pay for it if you think it is ³better² than others. The point is that open standards allow for many options, free and not. Indeed, many companies spend money to develop extraordinary applications precisely because they are confident the applications will work for anyone, regardless of the computer hardware, operating system or Internet service provider (ISP ) they are using‹all made possible by the Web¹s open standards. The same confidence encourages scientists to spend thousands of hours devising incredible databases that can share information about proteins, say, in hopes of curing disease. The confidence encourages governments such as those of the U.S. and the U.K. to put more and more data online so citizens can inspect them, making government increasingly transparent. Open standards also foster serendipitous creation: someone may use them in ways no one imagined. We discover that on the Web every day. In contrast, not using open standards creates closed worlds. Apple¹s iTunes system, for example, identifies songs and videos using URIs that are open. But instead of ³http:² the addresses begin with ³itunes:,² which is proprietary. You can access an ³itunes:² link only using Apple¹s proprietary iTunes program. You can¹t make a link to any information in the iTunes world‹a song or information about a band. You can¹t send that link to someone else to see. You are no longer on the Web. The iTunes world is centralized and walled off. You are trapped in a single store, rather than being on the open marketplace. For all the store¹s wonderful features, its evolution is limited to what one company thinks up. Other companies are also creating closed worlds. The tendency for magazines, for example, to produce smartphone ³apps² rather than Web apps is disturbing, because that material is off the Web. You can¹t bookmark it or e-mail a link to a page within it. You can¹t tweet it. It is better to build a Web app that will also run on smartphone browsers, and the techniques for doing so are getting better all the time. Some people may think that closed worlds are just fine. The worlds are easy to use and may seem to give those people what they want. But as we saw in the 1990s with the America Online dial-up information system that gave you a restricted subset of the Web, these closed, ³walled gardens,² no matter how pleasing, can never compete in diversity, richness and innovation with the mad, throbbing Web market outside their gates. If a walled garden has too tight a hold on a market, however, it can delay that outside growth. Keep the Web separate from the Internet Keeping the web universal and keeping its standards open help people invent new services. But a third principle‹the separation of layers‹partitions the design of the Web from that of the Internet. This separation is fundamental. The Web is an application that runs on the Internet , which is an electronic network that transmits packets of information among millions of computers according to a few open protocols. An analogy is that the Web is like a household appliance that runs on the electricity network. A refrigerator or printer can function as long as it uses a few standard protocols‹in the U.S., things like operating at 120 volts and 60 hertz. Similarly, any application‹among them the Web, e-mail or instant messaging‹can run on the Internet as long as it uses a few standard Internet protocols, such as TCP and IP. Manufacturers can improve refrigerators and printers without altering how electricity functions, and utility companies can improve the electrical network without altering how appliances function. The two layers of technology work together but can advance independently. The same is true for the Web and the Internet. The separation of layers is crucial for innovation. In 1990 the Web rolled out over the Internet without any changes to the Internet itself, as have all improvements since. And in that time, Internet connections have sped up from 300 bits per second to 300 million bits per second (Mbps) without the Web having to be redesigned to take advantage of the upgrades. Electronic Human Rights Although Internet and web designs are separate, a Web user is also an Internet user and therefore relies on an Internet that is free from interference. In the early Web days it was too technically difficult for a company or country to manipulate the Internet to interfere with an individual Web user. Technology for interference has become more powerful, however. In 2007 BitTorrent, a company whose ³peer-to-peer² network protocol allows people to share music, video and other files directly over the Internet, complained to the Federal Communications Commission that the ISP giant Comcast was blocking or slowing traffic to subscribers who were using the BitTorrent application. The FCC told Comcast to stop the practice, but in April 2010 a federal court ruled the FCC could not require Comcast to do so. A good ISP will often manage traffic so that when bandwidth is short, less crucial traffic is dropped, in a transparent way, so users are aware of it. An important line exists between that action and using the same power to discriminate. This distinction highlights the principle of net neutrality. Net neutrality maintains that if I have paid for an Internet connection at a certain quality, say, 300 Mbps, and you have paid for that quality, then our communications should take place at that quality. Protecting this concept would prevent a big ISP from sending you video from a media company it may own at 300 Mbps but sending video from a competing media company at a slower rate. That amounts to commercial discrimination. Other complications could arise. What if your ISP made it easier for you to connect to a particular online shoe store and harder to reach others? That would be powerful control. What if the ISP made it difficult for you to go to Web sites about certain political parties, or religions, or sites about evolution? Unfortunately, in August, Google and Verizon for some reason suggested that net neutrality should not apply to mobile phone­based connections. Many people in rural areas from Utah to Uganda have access to the Internet only via mobile phones; exempting wireless from net neutrality would leave these users open to discrimination of service. It is also bizarre to imagine that my fundamental right to access the information source of my choice should apply when I am on my WiFi-connected computer at home but not when I use my cell phone. A neutral communications medium is the basis of a fair, competitive market economy, of democracy, and of science. Debate has risen again in the past year about whether government legislation is needed to protect net neutrality. It is. Although the Internet and Web generally thrive on lack of regulation, some basic values have to be legally preserved. No Snooping Other threats to the web result from meddling with the Internet, including snooping . In 2008 one company, Phorm, devised a way for an ISP to peek inside the packets of information it was sending. The ISP could determine every URI that any customer was browsing. The ISP could then create a profile of the sites the user went to in order to produce targeted advertising. Accessing the information within an Internet packet is equivalent to wiretapping a phone or opening postal mail. The URIs that people use reveal a good deal about them. A company that bought URI profiles of job applicants could use them to discriminate in hiring people with certain political views, for example. Life insurance companies could discriminate against people who have looked up cardiac symptoms on the Web. Predators could use the profiles to stalk individuals. We would all use the Web very differently if we knew that our clicks can be monitored and the data shared with third parties. Free speech should be protected, too. The Web should be like a white sheet of paper: ready to be written on, with no control over what is written. Earlier this year Google accused the Chinese government of hacking into its databases to retrieve the e-mails of dissidents. The alleged break-ins occurred after Google resisted the government¹s demand that the company censor certain documents on its Chinese-language search engine. Totalitarian governments aren¹t the only ones violating the network rights of their citizens. In France a law created in 2009, named Hadopi , allowed a new agency by the same name to disconnect a household from the Internet for a year if someone in the household was alleged by a media company to have ripped off music or video. After much opposition, in October the Constitutional Council of France required a judge to review a case before access was revoked, but if approved, the household could be disconnected without due process. In the U.K., the Digital Economy Act , hastily passed in April, allows the government to order an ISP to terminate the Internet connection of anyone who appears on a list of individuals suspected of copyright infringement. In September the U.S. Senate introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act , which would allow the government to create a blacklist of Web sites ‹hosted on or off U.S. soil‹that are accused of infringement and to pressure or require all ISPs to block access to those sites. In these cases, no due process of law protects people before they are disconnected or their sites are blocked. Given the many ways the Web is crucial to our lives and our work, disconnection is a form of deprivation of liberty. Looking back to the Magna Carta, we should perhaps now affirm: ³No person or organization shall be deprived of the ability to connect to others without due process of law and the presumption of innocence.² When your network rights are violated, public outcry is crucial. Citizens worldwide objected to China¹s demands on Google, so much so that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. government supported Google¹s defiance and that Internet freedom‹and with it, Web freedom‹should become a formal plank in American foreign policy . In October, Finland made broadband access, at 1 Mbps, a legal right for all its citizens. Linking to the Future As long as the web¹s basic principles are upheld, its ongoing evolution is not in the hands of any one person or organization‹neither mine nor anyone else¹s. If we can preserve the principles, the Web promises some fantastic future capabilities. For example, the latest version of HTML, called HTML5 , is not just a markup language but a computing platform that will make Web apps even more powerful than they are now. The proliferation of smartphones will make the Web even more central to our lives. Wireless access will be a particular boon to developing countries, where many people do not have connectivity by wire or cable but do have it wirelessly. Much more needs to be done, of course, including accessibility for people with disabilities and devising pages that work well on all screens , from huge 3-D displays that cover a wall to wristwatch-size windows. A great example of future promise, which leverages the strengths of all the principles, is linked data . Today¹s Web is quite effective at helping people publish and discover documents, but our computer programs cannot read or manipulate the actual data within those documents. As this problem is solved, the Web will become much more useful, because data about nearly every aspect of our lives are being created at an astonishing rate. Locked within all these data is knowledge about how to cure diseases, foster business value and govern our world more effectively. Scientists are actually at the forefront of some of the largest efforts to put linked data on the Web. Researchers, for example, are realizing that in many cases no single lab or online data repository is sufficient to discover new drugs. The information necessary to understand the complex interactions between diseases, biological processes in the human body, and the vast array of chemical agents is spread across the world in a myriad of databases, spreadsheets and documents. One success relates to drug discovery to combat Alzheimer¹s disease . A number of corporate and government research labs dropped their usual refusal to open their data and created the Alzheimer¹s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. They posted a massive amount of patient information and brain scans as linked data, which they have dipped into many times to advance their research. In a demonstration I witnessed, a scientist asked the question, ³What proteins are involved in signal transduction and are related to pyramidal neurons?² When put into Google, the question got 233,000 hits‹and not one single answer. Put into the linked databases world, however, it returned a small number of specific proteins that have those properties. The investment and finance sectors can benefit from linked data, too. Profit is generated, in large part, from finding patterns in an increasingly diverse set of information sources. Data are all over our personal lives as well. When you go onto your social-networking site and indicate that a newcomer is your friend, that establishes a relationship. And that relationship is data. Linked data raise certain issues that we will have to confront. For example, new data-integration capabilities could pose privacy challenges that are hardly addressed by today¹s privacy laws. We should examine legal, cultural and technical options that will preserve privacy without stifling beneficial data-sharing capabilities. Now is an exciting time. Web developers, companies, governments and citizens should work together openly and cooperatively, as we have done thus far, to preserve the Web¹s fundamental principles, as well as those of the Internet, ensuring that the technological protocols and social conventions we set up respect basic human values. The goal of the Web is to serve humanity. We build it now so that those who come to it later will be able to create things that we cannot ourselves imagine. On 1/23/11 1:34 AM, "parminder" wrote: > Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. > > I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to *not* do > something about this issue. So many times a discussion on NN on this list has > run into this wall - it is a very complex issues  with many sides to it'. So > ??? I dont think this is a good enough reason for abdication. One often hears > excuses like, with voice and video domination the internet today NN is a > meaningless concept. Not so at all. We can have specific provisions whereby > specific applications can have different treatments while being > content-provider neutral, this latter being the key issue. Norway's NN > guidelines have oftne been mentioned in discussions here earlier. These > guidelines allow space to manage voice and vedio applications related issues. > IS there any reason why Norway's guidelines cannot be used globally, and why > should IGC be forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon enough there is > not a basic global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway like countries may > not be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness of the Internet and its > basic architectural principles. > > What I am arguing for is that we should not only propose NN as a plenary topic > and absolutely put our foot down that it must be accepted as a plenary topic, > or else we find the whole exercise meaningless and may not even want to > participate.... I mean the kind of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder > > The end of the net as we know it > Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 > > ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them first. Barry > Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality > > You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and press Play on > the latest episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, plinky-plonky theme > tune droning out of your laptop¹s speakers, you¹re left staring at the > whirring, circular icon as the video buffers and buffers and buffers... > > That¹s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre broadband > connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just moments > ago. There¹s nothing wrong with your connection; it must be iPlayer. So you > head to Twitter to find out if anyone else is having problems streaming > Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on your screen leaves you looking > more startled than Bill Bailey. ³This service isn¹t supported on your > broadband service. Click here to visit our social-networking partner, > Facebook.² >> >> >> Net neutrality? We don¹t have it today > > The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat. Britain¹s > leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier internet, where websites > and services that are willing to pay are thrust into the ³fast lane², while > those that don¹t are left fighting for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked > outright. They¹re not so much ripping up the cherished notion of net > neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and lighting the match. The only > question is: can they get away with it? > > No such thing as net neutrality > > It¹s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality ­ ISPs treating > different types of internet traffic or content equally ­ is already a busted > flush. ³Net neutrality? We don¹t have it today,² argues Andrew Heaney, > executive director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk, Britain¹s second > biggest ISP. > > ³We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all levels, with huge > levels of widespread discrimination of traffic types. [Some consumers] buy > high speed, some buy low speed; some buy a lot of capacity, some buy less; > some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped. > ³So the suggestion that ­ Œoh dear, it is terrible, we might move to a > two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let¹s get real, we have a very > multifaceted and multitiered internet today,² Heaney said. > > Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be ³unthinkable² to return to an > internet where every packet of data was given equal weight. ³Yes, the internet > of 30 years ago was one in which all data, all the bits and the packets were > treated in the same way as they passed through the network,² said Simon > Milner, BT¹s director of group industry policy. ³That was an internet that > wasn¹t about the internet that we have today: it wasn¹t about speech, it > wasn¹t about video, and it certainly wasn¹t about television. > > ³Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that applications would > grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some tools were needed to > make this network work more effectively, and that¹s why traffic management > techniques and guaranteed quality of service were developed in the 1990s, and > then deep-packet inspection came along roughly ten years ago,² he added. > ³These techniques and equipment are essential for the development of the > internet we see today.² > > It¹s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more expensive) ISPs > such as Zen Internet don¹t employ any traffic shaping across their network, > and Zen has won the PC Pro Best Broadband ISP award > for the past seven years. > > Even today¹s traffic management methods can cause huge problems for certain > websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a common victim of ISPs¹ > traffic management policies, often being deprioritised to a snail¹s pace > during peak hours. While the intended target may be the bandwidth hogs using > BitTorrent clients to download illicit copies of the latest movie releases, > legitimate applications can also fall victim to such blunderbuss filtering. > > ³Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,² said Jean-Jacques Sahel, > director of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP service Skype. ³They go > from the lovely peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that were referred to > in the Digital Economy Act, all the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer > [which used to run on P2P software] or Skype. So what does that mean? If I > manage my traffic from a technical perspective, knowing that Skype actually > doesn¹t eat up much bandwidth at all, why should it be deprioritised because > it¹s peer-to-peer?² >> >> >> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more vividly >> than on the mobile internet > > Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more vividly > than on the mobile internet. Websites and services blocked at the whim of the > network, video so compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and > varying charges for different types of data are already commonplace. > > Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful of losing > phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching the BBC iPlayer over a > 3G connection; and almost all networks outlaw tethering a mobile phone to a > laptop or tablet on standard ³unlimited data² contracts. > > Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has this chilling > warning for fixed-line broadband users: ³Look at the mobile market, think if > that is how you want your internet and your devices to work in the future, > because that¹s where things are leading.² > > Video blockers > > Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic blocking > measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there¹s one area in which ISPs > are gagging to rip up what¹s left of the cherished concept of net neutrality, > it¹s video. > > Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the largest single > category of internet traffic, according to Cisco¹s Visual Networking Index. > It¹s the chief reason why the amount of data used by the average internet > connection has shot up by 31% over the past year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB > a month. > > > it/159070> > > Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for ISPs and > broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter traffic management > policies to make sure networks don¹t collapse under the weight of > video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters such as the BBC and > Channel 4 pay content delivery networks (CDNs) such as Akamai millions of > pounds every year to distribute their video across the network and closer to > the consumer; this helps avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands of > people attempt to stream The Apprentice at the same time. > > Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video broadcasters to pay > them ­ instead of the CDNs ­ for guaranteed bandwidth. So if, for example, the > BBC wants to guarantee that TalkTalk customers can watch uninterrupted HD > streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing to pay for the privilege. A > senior executive at a major broadcaster told PC Pro that his company has > already been approached by two leading ISPs looking to cut such a deal. > > Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the ³fast lane²; those who don¹t > will be left to fight their way through the regular internet traffic jams. > Whether or not you can watch a video, perhaps even one you¹ve paid for, may no > longer depend on the raw speed of your connection or the amount of network > congestion, but whether the broadcaster has paid your ISP for a prioritised > stream. > > ³We absolutely could see situations in which some content or application > providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service above best efforts,² > admitted BT¹s Simon Milner at a recent Westminster eForum. ³That is the kind > of thing that we¹d have to explain in our traffic management policies, and > indeed we¹d do so, and then if somebody decided, Œwell, actually I don¹t want > to have that kind of service¹, they would be free to go elsewhere.² >> >> >> We absolutely could see situations in which some content or application >> providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service above best efforts > > It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk would be > willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour of YouTube if > the latter was prepared to sign a big enough cheque, TalkTalk¹s Andrew Heaney > replied: ³We¹d do a deal, and we¹d look at YouTube and we¹d look at BBC and we > should have freedom to sign whatever deal works.² > > That¹s the country¹s two biggest ISPs ­ with more than eight million broadband > households between them ­ openly admitting they¹d either cut off or > effectively cripple video streams from an internet > broadcaster if it wasn¹t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. > > Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. ³The founding > principle of the internet is that everyone ­ from individuals to global > companies ­ has equal access,² wrote the BBC¹s director of future media and > technology, Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net neutrality. ³Since the > beginning, the internet has been Œneutral¹, and everyone has been treated the > same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes allow broadband providers to > effectively pick and choose what you see first and fastest.² > > ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out certain sites > or services. ³We strongly believe that traffic throttling shouldn¹t be > conducted on the basis of content provider; throttling access to content from > a particular company or institution,² the broadcaster said in a recent > submission to regulator Ofcom¹s consultation on net neutrality. > > Sky, on the other hand ­ which is both a broadcaster and one of the country¹s > leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit from shutting out > rival broadcasters ­ raised no such objection in its submission to Ofcom. > ³Competition can and should be relied upon to provide the necessary consumer > safeguards,² Sky argued. > > Can it? Would YouTube ­ which was initially run from a small office above a > pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion takeover ­ have got > off the ground if its three founders had been forced to pay ISPs across the > globe to ensure its videos could be watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. > > Walled-garden web > > It isn¹t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially be blocked by > ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself barred if one of its rivals > has signed an exclusive deal with an ISP, returning the web to the kind of AOL > walled-garden approach of the late 1990s. > > > it/159073> > > This isn¹t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely popular sites > being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by the Government. ³I sign up > to the two-year contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months my daughter comes > and knocks on the lounge door and says Œfather, I can¹t access Facebook any > more¹,² hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of international ICT policy at the > Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. ³I say ŒWhy?¹. She says ŒIt¹s > quite obvious, I have gone to the site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, > Virgin, Sky, whatever, don¹t take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn¹t pay > them the money, but YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube¹: Minister, is that > acceptable? That is the sort of question we face.² > > Where¹s the regulator? > > So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say ³yes², think about the > prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and leaving the rest to > scrap over the remaining bandwidth? It ran a consultation on net neutrality > earlier this year, with spiky contributions from ISPs and broadcasters alike, > but it appears to be coming down on the side of the broadband providers. > > ³I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net neutrality] > that we see the real economic merits to the idea of allowing a two-sided > market to emerge,² said Alex Blowers, international director at Ofcom. > > ³Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to us that the > consumer expectation will be a service that¹s of a reasonably consistent > quality, that allows you to actually sit down at the beginning of a film and > watch it to the end without constant problems of jitter or the picture > hanging,² he said. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion means that > broadcasters who refuse to pay the ISPs¹ bounty will be subject to stuttering > quality. > > Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. ³We are concerned that > Ofcom isn¹t currently taking a firm stance in relation to throttling,² ITV > said in its submission to the regulator. The BBC also said it has ³concerns > about the increasing potential incentives for discriminatory behaviour by > network operators, which risks undermining the internet¹s character, and > ultimately resulting in consumer harm². > > Ofcom¹s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as ³there is very little > evidence² that ³the big beasts of the content application and services world > are coming together and doing deals with big beasts of the network and ISP > world². > > The regulator also places great faith in the power of competition: the theory > that broadband subscribers would simply jump ship to another ISP if their > provider started doing beastly things ­ for example, cutting off services such > as the iPlayer. It¹s a theory echoed by the ISPs themselves. ³If we started > blocking access to certain news sites, you could be sure within about 23 > minutes it would be up on a blog and we¹d be chastised for it, quite rightly > too,² said TalkTalk¹s Heaney. >> >> >> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute the >> content, services and applications they want > > Yet, in the age of bundled packages ­ where broadband subscriptions are > routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, telephone or mobile services ­ > hopping from one ISP to another is rarely simple. Not to mention the 18-month > or two-year contracts broadband customers are frequently chained to. As the > BBC pointed out in its submission to the regulator, ³Ofcom¹s 2009 research > showed that a quarter of households found it difficult to switch broadband and > bundled services², with the ³perceived hassle of the switching process² and > ³the threat of additional charges² dissuading potential switchers. > > ³Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that¹s that,² argued the > Open Rights Group¹s Jim Killock. ³So you make your choice and you lump it, > whereas the whole point of the internet is you make your choice, you don¹t > like it, you change your mind.² > > The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open internet may > lie with the EU (although even its determination is wavering). The EU¹s 2009 > framework requires national regulators such as Ofcom to promote ³the ability > of end users to access and distribute information or run applications and > services of their choice² and that ISPs are transparent about any traffic > management. > > It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners in the ³fast > lane² and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to set ³minimum > quality of service requirements² ­ forcing ISPs to reserve a set amount of > bandwidth so that their traffic management doesn¹t hobble those sites that > can¹t afford to pay. > > It¹s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, but not by the > ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn¹t have to use this new power handed down by > Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. ³There doesn¹t yet seem to us to be an > overwhelming case for a public intervention that would effectively create a > new industry structure around this idea of a guaranteed Œbest efforts¹ > internet underpinned by legislation,² said Ofcom¹s Blowers. > > It¹s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. ³Ofcom¹s approach > creates large risks for the open internet,² said Killock. ³Its attempts to > manage and mitigate the risks are weak, by relying on transparency and > competition alone, and it¹s unfortunate it hasn¹t addressed the idea of a > minimum service guarantee.² > > At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn¹t be permitted to block legal > websites or services that conflict with their commercial interests. ³First and > foremost, users should be able to access and distribute the content, services > and applications they want,² said European Commission vice president Neelie > Kroes earlier this year. > ³Discrimination against undesired competitors ­ for instance, those providing > voice-over the internet services ­ shouldn¹t be allowed.² > > Yet, Ofcom doesn¹t even regard this as a major issue. ³When VoIP services were > first launched in the UK, most [mobile] network operators were against > permitting VoIP,² Blowers said. ³We now know that you can find packages from a > number of suppliers that do permit VoIP services. > So I¹m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of gaming behaviour > around blocking services will be a real problem.² > > If the EU doesn¹t drag the UK¹s relaxed regulator into line with the rest of > the world, it will be British internet users who have the real problem. > > Author: Barry Collins > > > Read more: The end of the net as we know it | Broadband | Features | PC Pro > #ixzz1BpvJk95Y> > http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print# > ixzz1BpvJk95Y -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of Imagining the Internet www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8272 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5729 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jan 23 08:40:29 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:40:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 20:24:50 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >"If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes >sense to try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the >inbound edge (and leave the publisher to offset that by the income >generation in his own business plan), rather than handing out an >indefinite "free lunch". > >One of the panelists in the recent A2K GA argued that there is no >technical reason to treat cable and wireless differently. I'm a very great supporter of the concept of @technogy neutrality@ in regulation: do as much as you can to ignore the transport, when discussing the content. One example would be that in a hypothetical regime where Internet content was entirely unregulated, a TV company could claim that it could transmit 'anything' if the feed between the studio and the transmitter happened to be over the Internet. >In fact, the traffic that circulates in regular "wired" connection is >partly transmitted in a wireless manner already. Which is very like my example above. Yes, there may well be 'Microwave links' in an otherwise wired network, and it's true to say that many GSM mobile networks have a feed to their cell-site delivered by microwave. But the [high] cost of that microwave link is shared amongst many users, and very few will be direct recipients of microwave Internet connectivity. And despite that microwave link to the outside world, a GSM base station (looking towards the handsets) still has a very real limit to the amount of bandwidth at its disposal, because of the way that radio frequency spectrum is allocated. >From what I have seen on previous NN debates in IGF, the industry tends >to focus on technical design The design of GSM base cellsites is a fascinating topic, not just sharing the bandwidth but also parameters such as 'how far away' a handset can be from the base station (this is a speed-of-light, not a transmitter power, issue) and how fast a handset can be travelling to stay locked in (some High Speed Trains will exceed this). But as Scotty used to say "Ye cannae change the laws of physics!" and that's where you find the bandwidth limits on GSM/3G 'local loops'. Of course, 3.5G and 4G have higher capacities, but they aren't keeping up with the proliferation in streaming video content. And wifi is also a "wireless network", one which trades off distance against bandwidth, and if you are in an environment where you can use only wifi (and not GSM) then you'll get better value for money. But I'm assuming that when people complain about NN and "mobile", they mean GSM. >while CS tends to focus on rights and no real dialogue comes out of the >session. It would be very good to invite people to the debate that >could question the premises used by the industry. That would help to >"force" a dialogue and to bridge the technical and the rights approach Delighted to take part, I'm very familiar with both sides of this particular coin. -- 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 Sun Jan 23 08:45:00 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:45:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4D3A8824.5040900@itforchange.net> <4D3AA246.2080207@itforchange.net> <4D3AD5F5.90707@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C6 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 22:04:30 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Lee W McKnight writes >Akamai has created a digital operating environment for the Web. Our global platform of thousands of specially-equipped servers helps the >Internet withstand the crush of daily requests for rich, dynamic, and interactive content, transactions, and applications. When delivering on >these requests, Akamai detects and avoids Internet problem spots and vulnerabilities, to ensure Websites perform optimally, media and software >download flawlessly, and applications perform reliably." The function that Akamai is performing is getting the content as close to the user as possible, thus avoiding bottlenecks (and cost) in the core of the Internet. You still need the local loop to deliver the content, even content sitting just the cloudy side of that local loop. My proposition that it's local loop congestion/cost which is driving the mobile-NN agenda is unchanged by the use of Akamai (and similar) in the core. -- 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 Sun Jan 23 09:09:04 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:09:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> References: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4D3BCC0F.5020303 at itforchange.net>, at 12:04:55 on Sun, 23 Jan 2011, parminder writes >Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today. > >I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to *not* do >something about this issue. So many times a discussion on NN on this >list has run into this wall - it is a very complex issues  with many >sides to it'. So ??? Yes, by all means discuss it. There are indeed many sides to it. The article you quote below is really about the delivery of high volume content over ADSL in the UK. (Yes, we have to understand what the technological issue is.) Most UK households are sufficiently close to a Telephone Exchange (or Central Office in USA-speak) that they can get a reliable connection at around 2-8 megabits/second, with no sharing with other subscribers involved. The bottleneck in this form of network architecture is the domestic connectivity between the several thousand telephone exchanges and the wider Internet. I say "domestic" because most of the content the writer describes is available in, and from, the UK only. There's not much cross-border traffic of that kind. And it's that bottleneck which Akamai type solutions are addressing, and also that bottleneck where a lot of the money goes. So it's like we discussed yesterday - quite simply a volume issue. And at a price of about a dollar a gigabyte (perhaps an hour of HD television) for the sort of content he's describing. Users need to decide whether to spend thirty dollars a month on a buying a capped 30-hours-worth, or pay-as-they-go. In the mean time, virtually all their other consumption is down in the noise level (people who don't watch streaming video easily cope with monthly caps of as low as a Gigabyte). >The end of the net as we know it >Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34 >ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them first. >Barry Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality >You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and press >Play on the latest episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, >plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your laptop’s speakers, you’re >left staring at the whirring, circular icon as the video buffers and >buffers and buffers... >That’s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre broadband >connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just >moments ago. There’s nothing wrong with your connection; it must be >iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out if anyone else is having >problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on your >screen leaves you looking more startled than Bill Bailey. “This service >isn’t supported on your broadband service. Click here to visit our >social-networking partner, Facebook.” > Net neutrality? We don’t have it today >The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat. Britain’s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier internet, where >websites and services that are willing to pay are thrust into the “fast >lane”, while those that don’t are left fighting for scraps of bandwidth >or even blocked outright. They’re not so much ripping up the cherished >notion of net neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and lighting >the match. The only question is: can they get away with it? >No such thing as net neutrality >It’s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality – ISPs >treating different types of internet traffic or content equally – is >already a busted flush. “Net neutrality? We don’t have it today,” >argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation at >TalkTalk, Britain’s second biggest ISP. >“We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all levels, >with huge levels of widespread discrimination of traffic types. [Some >consumers] buy high speed, some buy low speed; some buy a lot of >capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped. >“So the suggestion that – ‘oh dear, it is terrible, we might move to a >two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let’s get real, we have a >very multifaceted and multitiered internet today,” Heaney said. >Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be “unthinkable” to return to an >internet where every packet of data was given equal weight. “Yes, the >internet of 30 years ago was one in which all data, all the bits and >the packets were treated in the same way as they passed through the >network,” said Simon Milner, BT’s director of group industry policy. “That was an internet that wasn’t about the internet that we have today: >it wasn’t about speech, it wasn’t about video, and it certainly wasn’t >about television. >“Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that applications >would grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some tools >were needed to make this network work more effectively, and that’s why >traffic management techniques and guaranteed quality of service were >developed in the 1990s, and then deep-packet inspection came along >roughly ten years ago,” he added. “These techniques and equipment are >essential for the development of the internet we see today.” >It’s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more expensive) >ISPs such as Zen Internet don’t employ any traffic shaping across their >network, and Zen has won the PC Pro Best Broadband ISP award for the >past seven years. >Even today’s traffic management methods can cause huge problems for >certain websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a common >victim of ISPs’ traffic management policies, often being deprioritised >to a snail’s pace during peak hours. While the intended target may be >the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients to download illicit copies >of the latest movie releases, legitimate applications can also fall >victim to such blunderbuss filtering. >“Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,” said Jean-Jacques >Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP service >Skype. “They go from the lovely peer-to-peer file-sharing applications >that were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, all the way to things >such as the BBC iPlayer [which used to run on P2P software] or Skype. >So what does that mean? If I manage my traffic from a technical >perspective, knowing that Skype actually doesn’t eat up much bandwidth >at all, why should it be deprioritised because it’s peer-to-peer?” > Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt > more vividly than on the mobile internet >Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more >vividly than on the mobile internet. Websites and services blocked at >the whim of the network, video so compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda >propaganda tape, and varying charges for different types of data are >already commonplace. >Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful of >losing phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching the BBC >iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all networks outlaw tethering >a mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on standard “unlimited data” >contracts. >Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has this >chilling warning for fixed-line broadband users: “Look at the mobile >market, think if that is how you want your internet and your devices to >work in the future, because that’s where things are leading.” >Video blockers >Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic >blocking measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there’s one >area in which ISPs are gagging to rip up what’s left of the cherished >concept of net neutrality, it’s video. >Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the largest >single category of internet traffic, according to Cisco’s Visual >Networking Index. It’s the chief reason why the amount of data used by >the average internet connection has shot up by 31% over the past year, >to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month. >Internet TV >Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for ISPs and >broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter traffic >management policies to make sure networks don’t collapse under the >weight of video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters >such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay content delivery networks (CDNs) such >as Akamai millions of pounds every year to distribute their video >across the network and closer to the consumer; this helps avoid >bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands of people attempt to >stream The Apprentice at the same time. >Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video broadcasters >to pay them – instead of the CDNs – for guaranteed bandwidth. So if, >for example, the BBC wants to guarantee that TalkTalk customers can >watch uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing >to pay for the privilege. A senior executive at a major broadcaster >told PC Pro that his company has already been approached by two leading >ISPs looking to cut such a deal. >Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the “fast lane”; those who >don’t will be left to fight their way through the regular internet >traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a video, perhaps even one >you’ve paid for, may no longer depend on the raw speed of your >connection or the amount of network congestion, but whether the >broadcaster has paid your ISP for a prioritised stream. >“We absolutely could see situations in which some content or >application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service >above best efforts,” admitted BT’s Simon Milner at a recent Westminster >eForum. “That is the kind of thing that we’d have to explain in our >traffic management policies, and indeed we’d do so, and then if >somebody decided, ‘well, actually I don’t want to have that kind of >service’, they would be free to go elsewhere.” > We absolutely could see situations in which some content or > application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service > above best efforts >It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk would >be willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour of >YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big enough cheque, >TalkTalk’s Andrew Heaney replied: “We’d do a deal, and we’d look at >YouTube and we’d look at BBC and we should have freedom to sign >whatever deal works.” >That’s the country’s two biggest ISPs – with more than eight million >broadband households between them – openly admitting they’d either cut >off or effectively cripple video streams from an internet >broadcaster if it wasn’t willing to hand over a wedge of cash. >Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. “The >founding principle of the internet is that everyone – from individuals >to global companies – has equal access,” wrote the BBC’s director of >future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net >neutrality. “Since the beginning, the internet has been ‘neutral’, and >everyone has been treated the same. But the emergence of fast and slow >lanes allow broadband providers to effectively pick and choose what you >see first and fastest.” >ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out certain >sites or services. “We strongly believe that traffic throttling shouldn’t be conducted on the basis of content provider; throttling access to >content from a particular company or institution,” the broadcaster said >in a recent submission to regulator Ofcom’s consultation on net >neutrality. >Sky, on the other hand – which is both a broadcaster and one of the >country’s leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit from >shutting out rival broadcasters – raised no such objection in its >submission to Ofcom. “Competition can and should be relied upon to >provide the necessary consumer safeguards,” Sky argued. >Can it? Would YouTube – which was initially run from a small office >above a pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion >takeover – have got off the ground if its three founders had been >forced to pay ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos could be >watched smoothly? It seems unlikely. >Walled-garden web >It isn’t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially be >blocked by ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself barred if >one of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with an ISP, returning >the web to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of the late 1990s. >Stop sign >This isn’t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely popular >sites being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by the Government. “I sign up to the two-year contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months >my daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door and says ‘father, I can’t access Facebook any more’,” hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of >international ICT policy at the Department for Business, Innovation and >Skills. “I say ‘Why?’. She says ‘It’s quite obvious, I have gone to the >site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, don’t >take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn’t pay them the money, but >YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube’: Minister, is that acceptable? >That is the sort of question we face.” >Where’s the regulator? >So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say “yes”, think about >the prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and leaving >the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? It ran a consultation >on net neutrality earlier this year, with spiky contributions from ISPs >and broadcasters alike, but it appears to be coming down on the side of >the broadband providers. >“I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net >neutrality] that we see the real economic merits to the idea of >allowing a two-sided market to emerge,” said Alex Blowers, >international director at Ofcom. >“Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to us that >the consumer expectation will be a service that’s of a reasonably >consistent quality, that allows you to actually sit down at the >beginning of a film and watch it to the end without constant problems >of jitter or the picture hanging,” he said. Taking that argument to its >logical conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse to pay the ISPs’ >bounty will be subject to stuttering quality. >Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. “We are concerned >that Ofcom isn’t currently taking a firm stance in relation to >throttling,” ITV said in its submission to the regulator. The BBC also >said it has “concerns about the increasing potential incentives for >discriminatory behaviour by network operators, which risks undermining >the internet’s character, and ultimately resulting in consumer harm”. >Ofcom’s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as “there is very >little evidence” that “the big beasts of the content application and >services world are coming together and doing deals with big beasts of >the network and ISP world”. >The regulator also places great faith in the power of competition: the >theory that broadband subscribers would simply jump ship to another ISP >if their provider started doing beastly things – for example, cutting >off services such as the iPlayer. It’s a theory echoed by the ISPs >themselves. “If we started blocking access to certain news sites, you >could be sure within about 23 minutes it would be up on a blog and we’d >be chastised for it, quite rightly too,” said TalkTalk’s Heaney. > First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute > the content, services and applications they want >Yet, in the age of bundled packages – where broadband subscriptions are >routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, telephone or mobile >services – hopping from one ISP to another is rarely simple. Not to >mention the 18-month or two-year contracts broadband customers are >frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed out in its submission to the >regulator, “Ofcom’s 2009 research showed that a quarter of households >found it difficult to switch broadband and bundled services”, with the “perceived hassle of the switching process” and “the threat of >additional charges” dissuading potential switchers. >“Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that’s that,” >argued the Open Rights Group’s Jim Killock. “So you make your choice >and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the internet is you make >your choice, you don’t like it, you change your mind.” >The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open internet >may lie with the EU (although even its determination is wavering). The >EU’s 2009 framework requires national regulators such as Ofcom to >promote “the ability of end users to access and distribute information >or run applications and services of their choice” and that ISPs are >transparent about any traffic management. >It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners in the “fast lane” and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to set >“minimum quality of service requirements” – forcing ISPs to reserve a set >amount of bandwidth so that their traffic management doesn’t hobble >those sites that can’t afford to pay. >It’s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, but not >by the ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn’t have to use this new power handed >down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. “There doesn’t yet seem >to us to be an overwhelming case for a public intervention that would >effectively create a new industry structure around this idea of a >guaranteed ‘best efforts’ internet underpinned by legislation,” said >Ofcom’s Blowers. >It’s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. “Ofcom’s approach >creates large risks for the open internet,” said Killock. “Its attempts >to manage and mitigate the risks are weak, by relying on transparency >and competition alone, and it’s unfortunate it hasn’t addressed the >idea of a minimum service guarantee.” >At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn’t be permitted to block >legal websites or services that conflict with their commercial >interests. “First and foremost, users should be able to access and >distribute the content, services and applications they want,” said >European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes earlier this year. >“Discrimination against undesired competitors – for instance, those >providing voice-over the internet services – shouldn’t be allowed.” >Yet, Ofcom doesn’t even regard this as a major issue. “When VoIP >services were first launched in the UK, most [mobile] network operators >were against permitting VoIP,” Blowers said. “We now know that you can >find packages from a number of suppliers that do permit VoIP services. >So I’m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of gaming >behaviour around blocking services will be a real problem.” >If the EU doesn’t drag the UK’s relaxed regulator into line with the >rest of the world, it will be British internet users who have the real >problem. >Author: Barry Collins >Read more: The end of the net as we know it | Broadband | Features | PC >Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y >-- >PK??? > >[ A MIME image / jpeg part was included here. ] > > >[ A MIME image / jpeg part was included 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 > -- 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 Sun Jan 23 09:12:05 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:12:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> <49717920-12A6-4C31-84C5-5EC9F0DF8BB0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message , at 16:42:18 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Fouad Bajwa remarked: >Still, a separate list doesn't make sense............it takes a lot >for many to follow just this one from the developing part of the >world.........I like the interpretation for small lists and >productivity but it doesn't answer the need for openness and >accessibility. I wasn't arguing in favour of a closed group... just pointing out that newly-formed open groups almost always fail (it's not an IGC thing, it happens in all walks of life). >On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> In message , >> at 15:27:25 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes >>> >>> Still, there was no need for a separate mailing list IMHO. >> >> There's a "Law of social networking" (of which the IGC lists are an example, >> and social networking has existed for at least 20 years before acquiring >> that sexy name) which says that if you spin off a separate discussion group >> it almost always dies. That's just a fact of life. Look at the [lack of] >> activity on the other three spun-off groups, for example. >> >> It requires a big commitment to make it work, which is one reason why small >> *closed* lists are the most successful - the people who want to discuss >> their business in private are demonstrating that commitment (to keeping >> their discussion closed). >> -- >> Roland Perry -- 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 Sun Jan 23 10:31:49 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:31:49 +0900 Subject: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues Message-ID: Parminder, Wondered if you had any comment on this email. I've just read the IBSA statement again and find it anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for. Just wondering what parts you support, specifically. And particularly if you supported paragraph 8 of the statement. Thanks, Adam >Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:51:28 +0900 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >From: Adam Peake >Subject: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues >Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake >X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org >X-Sequence: 219 >Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >X-no-archive: yes >List-Id: >List-Archive: >List-Help: >List-Owner: >List-Post: >List-Subscribe: >List-Unsubscribe: > > >Parminder, > >Thanks for clarifying what you meant about >architecture of the Internet. As I said, the >Twitter matter you mentioned has nothing to do >with the Internet in and of itself, you keep >confusing issues of content and infrastructure. >Can't help you, it's been going on for years, so >let's just forget it. > >About the IBSA statement, I hope you and IT for >Change had no part in drafting or encouraging >paragraph 8 of the statement: > >"8. Keeping in view the urgency and importance >of establishing such a platform, the IBSA >countries reiterate the need to ensure that the >present consultations result in a clear roadmap >for operationalizing Enhanced Cooperation. In >this context, we would like to propose that an >inter-governmental working group be established >under the UN Commission on Science and >Technology for Development (CSTD), the focal >point in the UN system-wide follow-up to the >outcomes of WSIS. The Working Group should be >mandated to prepare a report on the possible >institutional design and roadmap for enhanced >cooperation in consultation with all >stakeholders, and asked to submit its report to >the UN General Assembly in 2011. The Working >Group should also take on board inputs from all >international organizations including the ITU, >and should recommend on the feasibility and >desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation >mechanism within an existing international >organization or recommend establishing a new >body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, >along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the >process." > >It would be ironic given that the IGC's >nominating committee recommended you as a member >of the *multistakeholder* working group rather >than the inter-governmental process the IBSA >statement suggested. Perhaps you could clarify, >did you support or accept para 8 of the IBSA >statement? > >I read the IBSA statement as extremely >detrimental to the Internet (broadly) and the >interests of civil society and other >non-governmental stakeholders. Given the list of >policy issues in the paragraph that precedes it, >para 6 extremely troubling. Just don't know what >there is to like about a proposal that only >favors narrow government interests. > >Adam > >>Wolfgang, >> >>I have read the IBSA statement rather >>carefully. In fact, let me humbly submit that >>IBSA statement does have important overlaps >>with IT for Change's statement and does draw >>some inspiration from it, a fact that was >>graciously acknowledged by the authors of the >>IBSA statement. These overlaps are in terms of >>call for a possible new institutional >>structure, listing of global network neutrality >>and A2K as key global IG issues and call for >>setting up a CSTD WG on this matter. >> >>Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken >>when you say "...the objective is to create an >>enhanced network where stakeholders can >>"enhance" their communication, coordination and >>collaboration both among themselves and and >>with other stakeholders. " which statement >>represents the general tenor of what you make >>out the IBSA statement to be. >> >>Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of >>options over, but it is very clear that >>'enhanced cooperation' process has not started >>yet and thus must start at the earliest. What >>you speak of above are obviously ongoing >>processes. Though, our position is not exactly >>that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote >>some passages from the IBSA statement to show >>how clearly have you mis-read it. >> >> " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to >>be discussed among UN Member States in depth >>from a public policy point of view due to the >>absence of an intergovernmental platform >>mandated to systematically discuss them and >>make decisions as appropriate. It is thus >>necessary for governments to be provided a >>formal platform under the U.N that is mandated >>to discuss these issues. Such a platform would >>also complement the Internet Governance Forum, >>a multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, >>sharing experiences and networking on Internet >>governance." >> >>" The IBSA believes that this platform once >>identified and established will allow the >>international community to accomplish the >>developmental objectives of the Tunis >>Agenda,...." >> >>Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.... >> >> "The Working Group should also take on board >>inputs from all international organizations >>including the ITU, and should recommend on the >>feasibility and desirability of placing the >>Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an >>existing international organization or >>recommend establishing a new body for dealing >>with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear >>roadmap and timeframe for the process." >> >>Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as >> >>"...to create an enhanced network where >>stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, >>coordination and collaboration both among >>themselves and and with other stakeholders. " >> >>However I am very eager to hear you argue why >>you think that this is all what they really >>meant. >> >>Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >>Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>>Parminder: >>> >>>IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries >>>(as also my own organization) did call for >>>such a possible new global institutional >>>development (a framework convention ?) in >>>their submission to the open consultations on >>>'enhanced cooperation'. >>> >>>Wolfgang: >>> >>>If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you >>>will discover that this is different from >>>previous proposals for an intergovernmental >>>body. The proposal says very carefully that >>>there is a gap or missing link in the existing >>>architecture of Internet Governance >>>organisations. The proposed intergovernmental >>>body should fill this gap not in a way to >>>substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing >>>the existing mechnisms. With other words, it >>>is about "enhancement", not about >>>"subordination" or "substitution" or >>>"oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover". >>>And this is an important difference. The >>>Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF >>>Consultations in 2009 to substitute the >>>multistakeholder dialogue by an >>>intergovernmental negotiation process to move >>>towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. >>>The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is >>>rather similar to what is considered by the >>>Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in >>>the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert Group is >>>that we recogn >>>ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" >>>of governments in Internet Governance but in a >>>way that this intergovernmental component >>>should be embedded into a multistakeholder >>>framework of commitments. The objective is not >>>to create a new hierachiy for top down policy >>>and decision making, the objective is to >>>create an enhanced network where stakeholders >>>can "enhance" their communication, >>>coordination and collaboration both among >>>themselves and and with other stakeholders. >>> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 Jan 23 11:10:19 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:10:19 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> <2FC06E48-1780-45EF-89DC-1207BFA2F8DB@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the encouragement, Lee. Please, guys, take a look at the draft below and tell me what you think. I am not really sure about the title. I would prefer to frame it in a positive way (ex: expressly talk about A2K), but my feeling is that being more specific on what we want would give more strength to the proposal. In addition, I have a feeling that A2K is sometimes wrongly perceived in IGF as too theoretical or ideological, and people try to confine this debate to fora like WIPO, despite a clear intersection with IG. On the other hand, putting two controversial topics on the same sentence (IP and human rights) might not help much... Suggestions are welcome! *Intellectual property enforcement online and its impact on development and human rights * Recently there has been a change in the international intellectual property regime. Rather than substantive law harmonization, international IP norm-setting is now promoting an enforcement agenda, an increasingly punitive response to counterfeiting and piracy now being discussed in many national and international institutions. It is an emerging matrix of new laws, regulations, technologies, and public and private initiatives designed to police the use of intellectual property, specially in the digital environment. New international standards require countries to increase the level and territorial extent of intellectual property rights. This trend has developmental impacts, as countries become less free to support open platforms for learning, innovating, sharing and producing, while being required to raise the amount spent on knowledge-based inputs. The enforcement agenda also impacts the exercise of rights online. The adoption of laws that follow the model of “graduate response” in several countries around the world reveals the trade-offs between the enforcement agenda and human rights, such as the right to receive and impart information, the right to privacy and consumer´s rights. Moreover, it puts ISPs in the position of an “Internet police”, with the role to oversight internet users. Governance of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply intertwined in the context of an information society. The debate of this theme in a multistakeholder forum, such as the IGF, would help to reach a more round understanding about the impact of this enforcement agenda on human rights, more specifically on access to knowledge, and on the ability to innovate online. On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > A quick word of encouragement for Marila to draft a fourth possible a2k > theme, can't hurt right. > > But in general I am fine with Jeremy's distillation of three workable > themes > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] > On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:02 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme > > Hi Jeremy, > > I did not suggest it as a forth theme, since you said that we generally > only put forward three topics. If you guys believe that a fourth theme > should be added, I would be happy to draft a text. If three themes seem to > be the best way to go, I would like to ask us to *really* make A2K present > in all discussions as you suggested. For that, we will need to carefully > think about the approach and the names of speakers for the main sessions, > who could link A2K with NN, transborder issues, etc. Of course, workshop > proposals would be also important to reach a more rounded understanding of > these interplays. > > Marília > > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote: > On 23/01/2011, at 6:04 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal issue, I > believe it is very important that we go beyond words and really mainstream > it on the debates. > Marilia and Ian, I'm not sure from your comments if you are both saying > that you want to see us putting forward a separate fourth theme (since I > don't see anyone suggesting that we should remove one of the existing three > themes). Could you clarify and, if that is what you are saying, perhaps > suggest some text? > > > -- > 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< > http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't print > this email unless necessary. > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 23 12:16:10 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:16:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> <49717920-12A6-4C31-84C5-5EC9F0DF8BB0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, since we have one week to present our contributions (the deadline is Jan 31) and considering that some of the topics are no piece of cake, I suggest that we start immediatly and use this list for discussions of each topic, in separate e-mail threads. On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message , > at 16:42:18 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Fouad Bajwa > remarked: > > Still, a separate list doesn't make sense............it takes a lot >> for many to follow just this one from the developing part of the >> world.........I like the interpretation for small lists and >> productivity but it doesn't answer the need for openness and >> accessibility. >> > > I wasn't arguing in favour of a closed group... just pointing out that > newly-formed open groups almost always fail (it's not an IGC thing, it > happens in all walks of life). > > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Roland Perry >> wrote: >> >>> In message >> >, >>> at 15:27:25 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Fouad Bajwa >>> writes >>> >>>> >>>> Still, there was no need for a separate mailing list IMHO. >>>> >>> >>> There's a "Law of social networking" (of which the IGC lists are an >>> example, >>> and social networking has existed for at least 20 years before acquiring >>> that sexy name) which says that if you spin off a separate discussion >>> group >>> it almost always dies. That's just a fact of life. Look at the [lack of] >>> activity on the other three spun-off groups, for example. >>> >>> It requires a big commitment to make it work, which is one reason why >>> small >>> *closed* lists are the most successful - the people who want to discuss >>> their business in private are demonstrating that commitment (to keeping >>> their discussion closed). >>> -- >>> Roland Perry >>> >> > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 23 12:29:06 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 22:59:06 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D3C6562.3010103@itforchange.net> Adam IT for Change's statement for the open consultation on enhanced cooperation is at unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043239.pdf . / / Our view is clearly and in detail presented in the statement. In the context of the para 8 of IBSA statement we asked for a CSTD WG ' on similar lines as the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements', At the time of writing this statement it was almost universally understood that the CSTD WG on IGF will be multistakeholder, and that is what the IGC, and IT for Change had also called for. My email to which you responded clearly mentions the areas where we had overlap with IBSA statement - asking for new institutional developments in global Internet policy space (which is the position of many in the IGC and formed a part of IGC statement to the open consultation on enhanced cooperation; listing issues like network neutrality and A2K as among those requiring global attention; and calling for constituting a CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation. So, no, we did not and do not support a purely inter-gov WG on this issue. Now that the matter you raised has been taken care of, I would like to hear what all you found as 'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for' in the IBSA statement. And whether you also noticed that for the first time a gov statement to the UN raised issues like NN and A2K, and in fact mentions human rights among these issues. Now, since you rightly find purely inter-gov structures anathema to CS values or whatever, do you know that CoE and OECD have Internet policy making platforms which are purely inter-gov and have other stakeholders only at an arms lenght advisory role - a structure much worse than even the recently constituted WG on IGF... Never heard you and many others so scornful of developing countries accused of exclusions in forming the WGIGF criticise these devleoped countries. On the contrary many of these people enthusiastically participate in it. Since you had insisted (rightly)that I answer your direct questions about my support or not to IBSA position, can you also please directly answer my queries. Not only other stakeholders are excluded, other country govs are excluded, though when the policy frameworks are final, these countries are invited to sign on. I saw such a scenario at the OECD ministrial in Seoul, (Brazil rightly refused to sign on. Some other developing countries regrettably did). Have you found such exclusions anathema to CS. If you have, I never heard you mention that. Do you find it anathema to CS that technical community and private sector called for discontinuation of 'IG for development' plenary session at the IGF, and you just need to wait to see what happens when a session on NN is suggested. See Janna's email forwarding what Sir Tim Berner-Lee thinks are the real IG issues. Not supporting these issues, and not doing very active work on these, is what I think is anathema to CS. When the inventor of web can clearly point out what NN is, and sees it as something which can and needs to be enforced, why do so many of us like to keep believing it may not be so. When I raise the issue of how US gov has such power vis a vis all the major digital companies which together constitute most of the Internet , you would like to dismiss it as my long standing confusion between infrastructure and content issues. The fact that such huge concentration of Internet related power in one government doesnt bother many who are so much bothered with even a framework making role passing to the UN which is certainly much more representative than the UN gov is what I - and i can speak of most in developing countries - consider anathema to civil society. So, you may consider it wrong to have a purely inter-gov WG (and I agree) but I am surprised and pained that this is all that you read of as value in the IBSA statement. This position in my view is very narrow and biased, and covering such narrow politics with statements like 'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for' is something that does no longer pass muster. So I will request your comments on all other parts of the IBSA statement as well. parminder Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, > > Wondered if you had any comment on this email. > > I've just read the IBSA statement again and find it anathema to civil > society, everything we've worked for. Just wondering what parts you > support, specifically. And particularly if you supported paragraph 8 > of the statement. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > >> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:51:28 +0900 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> From: Adam Peake >> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues >> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake >> X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> X-Sequence: 219 >> Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org >> X-no-archive: yes >> List-Id: >> List-Archive: >> List-Help: >> List-Owner: >> List-Post: >> List-Subscribe: >> >> List-Unsubscribe: >> >> >> Parminder, >> >> Thanks for clarifying what you meant about architecture of the >> Internet. As I said, the Twitter matter you mentioned has nothing to >> do with the Internet in and of itself, you keep confusing issues of >> content and infrastructure. Can't help you, it's been going on for >> years, so let's just forget it. >> >> About the IBSA statement, I hope you and IT for Change had no part in >> drafting or encouraging paragraph 8 of the statement: >> >> "8. Keeping in view the urgency and importance of establishing such a >> platform, the IBSA countries reiterate the need to ensure that the >> present consultations result in a clear roadmap for operationalizing >> Enhanced Cooperation. In this context, we would like to propose that >> an inter-governmental working group be established under the UN >> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the >> focal point in the UN system-wide follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS. >> The Working Group should be mandated to prepare a report on the >> possible institutional design and roadmap for enhanced cooperation in >> consultation with all stakeholders, and asked to submit its report to >> the UN General Assembly in 2011. The Working Group should also take >> on board inputs from all international organizations including the >> ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of >> placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing >> international organization or recommend establishing a new body for >> dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and >> timeframe for the process." >> >> It would be ironic given that the IGC's nominating committee >> recommended you as a member of the *multistakeholder* working group >> rather than the inter-governmental process the IBSA statement >> suggested. Perhaps you could clarify, did you support or accept para >> 8 of the IBSA statement? >> >> I read the IBSA statement as extremely detrimental to the Internet >> (broadly) and the interests of civil society and other >> non-governmental stakeholders. Given the list of policy issues in the >> paragraph that precedes it, para 6 extremely troubling. Just don't >> know what there is to like about a proposal that only favors narrow >> government interests. >> >> Adam >> >>> Wolfgang, >>> >>> I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me >>> humbly submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with >>> IT for Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a >>> fact that was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA >>> statement. These overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new >>> institutional structure, listing of global network neutrality and >>> A2K as key global IG issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on >>> this matter. >>> >>> Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken when you say "...the >>> objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can >>> "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both >>> among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement >>> represents the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement >>> to be. >>> >>> Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is >>> very clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet >>> and thus must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are >>> obviously ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly >>> that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote some passages from >>> the IBSA statement to show how clearly have you mis-read it. >>> >>> " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be discussed among >>> UN Member States in depth from a public policy point of view due to >>> the absence of an intergovernmental platform mandated to >>> systematically discuss them and make decisions as appropriate. It is >>> thus necessary for governments to be provided a formal platform >>> under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these issues. Such a >>> platform would also complement the Internet Governance Forum, a >>> multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, sharing experiences and >>> networking on Internet governance." >>> >>> " The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and >>> established will allow the international community to accomplish the >>> developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...." >>> >>> Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.... >>> >>> "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all >>> international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend >>> on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced >>> Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization >>> or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced >>> Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process." >>> >>> Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as >>> >>> "...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" >>> their communication, coordination and collaboration both among >>> themselves and and with other stakeholders. " >>> >>> However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is >>> all what they really meant. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> >>>> Parminder: >>>> >>>> IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own >>>> organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional >>>> development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the >>>> open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. >>>> >>>> Wolfgang: >>>> >>>> If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this >>>> is different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body. >>>> The proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing >>>> link in the existing architecture of Internet Governance >>>> organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body should fill this >>>> gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the >>>> existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about "enhancement", >>>> not about "subordination" or "substitution" or "oversight" or >>>> "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an important difference. >>>> The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to >>>> substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental >>>> negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental >>>> (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is >>>> rather similar to what is considered by the Council of Europe >>>> (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert >>>> Group is that we recogn >>>> ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in >>>> Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental >>>> component should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of >>>> commitments. The objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top >>>> down policy and decision making, the objective is to create an >>>> enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their >>>> communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves >>>> and and with other stakeholders. >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 Sun Jan 23 12:33:13 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:03:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: <4D3AC9EF.3030200@itforchange.net> <2FC06E48-1780-45EF-89DC-1207BFA2F8DB@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D3C6659.9060205@itforchange.net> Marilia I find it very well worded, and support it as a 4th topic suggestion from IGC. parminder Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Thanks for the encouragement, Lee. > > > Please, guys, take a look at the draft below and tell me what you > think. I am not really sure about the title. I would prefer to frame > it in a positive way (ex: expressly talk about A2K), but my feeling is > that being more specific on what we want would give more strength to > the proposal. In addition, I have a feeling that A2K is sometimes > wrongly perceived in IGF as too theoretical or ideological, and people > try to confine this debate to fora like WIPO, despite a clear > intersection with IG. > > > On the other hand, putting two controversial topics on the same > sentence (IP and human rights) might not help much... Suggestions are > welcome! > > > *Intellectual property enforcement online and its impact on > development and human rights > * > > > Recently there has been a change in the international intellectual > property regime. Rather than substantive law harmonization, > international IP norm-setting is now promoting an enforcement agenda, > an increasingly punitive response to counterfeiting and piracy now > being discussed in many national and international institutions. It is > an emerging matrix of new laws, regulations, technologies, and public > and private initiatives designed to police the use of intellectual > property, specially in the digital environment. > > > New international standards require countries to increase the level > and territorial extent of intellectual property rights. This trend has > developmental impacts, as countries become less free to support open > platforms for learning, innovating, sharing and producing, while being > required to raise the amount spent on knowledge-based inputs. > > > The enforcement agenda also impacts the exercise of rights online. The > adoption of laws that follow the model of “graduate response” in > several countries around the world reveals the trade-offs between the > enforcement agenda and human rights, such as the right to receive and > impart information, the right to privacy and consumer´s rights. > Moreover, it puts ISPs in the position of an “Internet police”, with > the role to oversight internet users. > > > Governance of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply > intertwined in the context of an information society. The debate of > this theme in a multistakeholder forum, such as the IGF, would help to > reach a more round understanding about the impact of this enforcement > agenda on human rights, more specifically on access to knowledge, and > on the ability to innovate online. > > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: > > Hi, > > A quick word of encouragement for Marila to draft a fourth > possible a2k theme, can't hurt right. > > But in general I am fine with Jeremy's distillation of three > workable themes > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > > [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > ] On Behalf Of Marilia > Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com ] > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:02 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme > > Hi Jeremy, > > I did not suggest it as a forth theme, since you said that we > generally only put forward three topics. If you guys believe that > a fourth theme should be added, I would be happy to draft a text. > If three themes seem to be the best way to go, I would like to ask > us to *really* make A2K present in all discussions as you > suggested. For that, we will need to carefully think about the > approach and the names of speakers for the main sessions, who > could link A2K with NN, transborder issues, etc. Of course, > workshop proposals would be also important to reach a more rounded > understanding of these interplays. > > Marília > > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >> wrote: > On 23/01/2011, at 6:04 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal > issue, I believe it is very important that we go beyond words and > really mainstream it on the debates. > Marilia and Ian, I'm not sure from your comments if you are both > saying that you want to see us putting forward a separate fourth > theme (since I don't see anyone suggesting that we should remove > one of the existing three themes). Could you clarify and, if that > is what you are saying, perhaps suggest some text? > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join > consumer groups from around the world > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter > most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > Twitter #CICongress > > Read our email confidentiality > notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- 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 Sun Jan 23 13:31:32 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:31:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Sir Tim would make a great headliner for Nairobi, and his call for W3C's open standards certainly resonate. W3C has been brilliant at staying out of political cross-fires even when touching on issues of major economic impact. Though at least to me there's always been a touch of irony in an 'open' standards organization built on pricey memberships for multinationals predominantly. Individuals need not apply, since there is no individual membership category. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Janna Anderson [andersj at elon.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] net neutrality Perhaps Sir Tim or at least the leadership of the Web Foundation would be interested in assisting in the leadership on this in Nairobi. Long Live the Web: A Call for Continued Open Standards and Neutrality The Web is critical not merely to the digital revolution but to our continued prosperity—and even our liberty. Like democracy itself, it needs defending By Tim Berners-Lee http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web Monday, November 22, 2010 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 23 14:02:20 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:02:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've made one small editorial change below... ("graduated" rather than "graduate").. I also, think there should be a paragraph in there about the ways in which various parties are trying to build copyright protection directly into the tech--software, hardware and I believe into carriage as well (and the risks/implications of this... I don't have the words to write that para but I' would guess others on the list do... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:10 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme ... Intellectual property enforcement online and its impact on development and human rights Recently there has been a change in the international intellectual property regime. Rather than substantive law harmonization, international IP norm-setting is now promoting an enforcement agenda, an increasingly punitive response to counterfeiting and piracy now being discussed in many national and international institutions. It is an emerging matrix of new laws, regulations, technologies, and public and private initiatives designed to police the use of intellectual property, specially in the digital environment. New international standards require countries to increase the level and territorial extent of intellectual property rights. This trend has developmental impacts, as countries become less free to support open platforms for learning, innovating, sharing and producing, while being required to raise the amount spent on knowledge-based inputs. The enforcement agenda also impacts the exercise of rights online. The adoption of laws that follow the model of “ graudated response” in several countries around the world reveals the trade-offs between the enforcement agenda and human rights, such as the right to receive and impart information, the right to privacy and consumer´s rights. Moreover, it puts ISPs in the position of an “Internet police”, with the role to oversight internet users. Governance of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply intertwined in the context of an information society. The debate of this theme in a multistakeholder forum, such as the IGF, would help to reach a more round understanding about the impact of this enforcement agenda on human rights, more specifically on access to knowledge, and on the ability to innovate online. On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Hi, A quick word of encouragement for Marila to draft a fourth possible a2k theme, can't hurt right. But in general I am fine with Jeremy's distillation of three workable themes Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:02 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme Hi Jeremy, I did not suggest it as a forth theme, since you said that we generally only put forward three topics. If you guys believe that a fourth theme should be added, I would be happy to draft a text. If three themes seem to be the best way to go, I would like to ask us to *really* make A2K present in all discussions as you suggested. For that, we will need to carefully think about the approach and the names of speakers for the main sessions, who could link A2K with NN, transborder issues, etc. Of course, workshop proposals would be also important to reach a more rounded understanding of these interplays. Marília On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: On 23/01/2011, at 6:04 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal issue, I believe it is very important that we go beyond words and really mainstream it on the debates. Marilia and Ian, I'm not sure from your comments if you are both saying that you want to see us putting forward a separate fourth theme (since I don't see anyone suggesting that we should remove one of the existing three themes). Could you clarify and, if that is what you are saying, perhaps suggest some text? -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jan 23 14:47:24 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:47:24 +1100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Heres a go at a more fundamental rewrite ­ just to stress and bring out a few points . I¹ve also lessened the human rights emphasis in the wording ­ not because it is not important, but because I would like to see red herrings that will distract from support for this debate removed. Let me know what you think. Access to knowledge is part of the great promise of the Internet in aiding development, education and culture both within and between countries. However, new international standards require countries to increase the level and territorial extent of intellectual property rights. This trend has developmental impacts, as countries become less free to support open platforms for learning, innovating, sharing and producing, while being required to raise the amount spent on knowledge-based inputs. Rather than substantive law harmonization, international IP norm-setting is now promoting an enforcement agenda, an increasingly punitive response to counterfeiting and piracy now being discussed in many national and international institutions. Often this puts Internet Service Providers in the position of an ³Internet police², with the role to oversight internet users. Governance of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply intertwined in the context of an information society. The debate of this theme in a multistakeholder forum, such as the IGF, would help to reach a more round understanding about the impacts of this agenda on issues such as access to knowledge, and the ability to innovate online. From: Michael Gurstein Reply-To: , Michael Gurstein Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:02:20 -0800 To: , 'Marilia Maciel' Subject: RE: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme I've made one small editorial change below... ("graduated" rather than "graduate").. I also, think there should be a paragraph in there about the ways in which various parties are trying to build copyright protection directly into the tech--software, hardware and I believe into carriage as well (and the risks/implications of this... I don't have the words to write that para but I' would guess others on the list do... M > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:10 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme > > > > > ... > > Intellectual property enforcement online and its impact on development and > human rights > > > > Recently there has been a change in the international intellectual property > regime. Rather than substantive law harmonization, international IP > norm-setting is now promoting an enforcement agenda, an increasingly punitive > response to counterfeiting and piracy now being discussed in many national > and international institutions. It is an emerging matrix of new laws, > regulations, technologies, and public and private initiatives designed to > police the use of intellectual property, specially in the digital > environment. > > > > New international standards require countries to increase the level and > territorial extent of intellectual property rights. This trend has > developmental impacts, as countries become less free to support open platforms > for learning, innovating, sharing and producing, while being required to raise > the amount spent on knowledge-based inputs. > > > > The enforcement agenda also impacts the exercise of rights online. The > adoption of laws that follow the model of ³ graudated response² in > several countries around the world reveals the trade-offs between the > enforcement agenda and human rights, such as the right to receive and impart > information, the right to privacy and consumer´s rights. Moreover, it puts > ISPs in the position of an ³Internet police², with the role to oversight > internet users. > > > > Governance of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply intertwined in > the context of an information society. The debate of this theme in a > multistakeholder forum, such as the IGF, would help to reach a more round > understanding about the impact of this enforcement agenda on human rights, > more specifically on access to knowledge, and on the ability to innovate > online. > > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> A quick word of encouragement for Marila to draft a fourth possible a2k >> theme, can't hurt right. >> >> But in general I am fine with Jeremy's distillation of three workable >> themes >> >> Lee >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] >> On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:02 PM >> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme >> >> >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> I did not suggest it as a forth theme, since you said that we generally only >> put forward three topics. If you guys believe that a fourth theme should be >> added, I would be happy to draft a text. If three themes seem to be the best >> way to go, I would like to ask us to *really* make A2K present in all >> discussions as you suggested. For that, we will need to carefully think >> about the approach and the names of speakers for the main sessions, who >> could link A2K with NN, transborder issues, etc. Of course, workshop >> proposals would be also important to reach a more rounded understanding of >> these interplays. >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >> > wrote: >> On 23/01/2011, at 6:04 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal issue, I >> believe it is very important that we go beyond words and really mainstream >> it on the debates. >> Marilia and Ian, I'm not sure from your comments if you are both saying that >> you want to see us putting forward a separate fourth theme (since I don't >> see anyone suggesting that we should remove one of the existing three >> themes). Could you clarify and, if that is what you are saying, perhaps >> suggest some text? >> >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> Empowering Tomorrow¹s Consumers >> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong >> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer >> groups from around the world >> for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to >> consumers. Register now! >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress >> Twitter #CICongress >> >> Read our email confidentiality >> notice. Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Sun Jan 23 14:52:44 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:52:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> (message from Lee W McKnight on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:31:32 -0500) References: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20110123195244.BFD3515C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Lee W McKnight wrote: > Sir Tim would make a great headliner for Nairobi, and his call for > W3C's open standards certainly resonate. > > W3C has been brilliant at staying out of political cross-fires even > when touching on issues of major economic impact. > > Though at least to me there's always been a touch of irony in an > 'open' standards organization built on pricey memberships for > multinationals predominantly. Individuals need not apply, since > there is no individual membership category. Indeed. Please let's add, to the IGC Statement on the Nairobi meeting programme, an explicit reference to the need to discuss the importance of truly open standards on the internet -- and not just on the layers where IETF and W3C are active, but also at the application data layer, for example document formats. (Example in point: Microsoft's attack on the ODF standard by pushing their own format into ISO as a competing "standard".) 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 aizu at anr.org Sun Jan 23 20:24:52 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:24:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20110123195244.BFD3515C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4D3BCC0F.5020303@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090C7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20110123195244.BFD3515C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: O have not followed the debate in details (I could not read all articles and posts), I would like to see what exactly Parminder wants for the NN to be discussed in Nairobi IGF. Could you write a short para to be included in our draft statement? Or, could you make suggestions to the existing text Jeremy provided? That will, for me, make the discussion more effective. On the substantive side, I mostly agree with Adam that while arguing for the "principle" from the Civil Society is relatively easy, especially if we use the term "open" instead of, or in addition to, "neutrality", making the case exactly what we want may not be so easy including its implementation at the "global" level. I was the member of the Policy Working Group on Network Neutrality convened by Japanese MIC, and also my organization offered the English Translation of its final report (when the Ministry said they had no budget), which is found here: http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/eng/pdf/070900_1.pdf I also wrote the following article "Beyond Network Neutrality" http://www.ni.tama.ac.jp/imgdir/1250002757.pdf Parminder, are you asking for the need for new global mechanism which has real impact at the local and the national level beyond existing regime such as national regulatory framework and ITU etc in telecom? And/or are you asking for getting some sort of consensus among *all* stakeholders at IGF in Nairobi? Or at least raising the issue from the CS to get other stakeholders' attention that this is the crucial issue worth to discuss. izumi 2011/1/24 Norbert Bollow : > Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Sir Tim would make a great headliner for Nairobi, and his call for >> W3C's open standards certainly resonate. >> >> W3C has been brilliant at staying out of political cross-fires even >> when touching on issues of major economic impact. >> >> Though at least to me there's always been a touch of irony in an >> 'open' standards organization built on pricey memberships for >> multinationals predominantly.  Individuals need not apply, since >> there is no individual membership category. > > Indeed. > > Please let's add, to the IGC Statement on the Nairobi meeting > programme, an explicit reference to the need to discuss the > importance of truly open standards on the internet -- and not just > on the layers where IETF and W3C are active, but also at the > application data layer, for example document formats. (Example in > point: Microsoft's attack on the ODF standard by pushing their own > format into ISO as a competing "standard".) > > 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 > > --                         >> 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 23 21:22:10 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:22:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> <49717920-12A6-4C31-84C5-5EC9F0DF8BB0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I have just spoken to Izumi and he agreed with the approach of starting separate e-mail threads for the discussion of the main questions proposed in the draft structure of the report. I took the liberty to compile (as bullet points) the main issues raised during the consultation meeting on November 24 and on the “Summary of answers to the preliminary questionnaire”, published on December. According to the chair, these issues should be a starting point for the report. They could help us move our discussions forward. Marilia On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, since we have one week to present our contributions (the deadline > is Jan 31) and considering that some of the topics are no piece of cake, I > suggest that we start immediatly and use this list for discussions of each > topic, in separate e-mail threads. > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message , >> at 16:42:18 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Fouad Bajwa >> remarked: >> >> Still, a separate list doesn't make sense............it takes a lot >>> for many to follow just this one from the developing part of the >>> world.........I like the interpretation for small lists and >>> productivity but it doesn't answer the need for openness and >>> accessibility. >>> >> >> I wasn't arguing in favour of a closed group... just pointing out that >> newly-formed open groups almost always fail (it's not an IGC thing, it >> happens in all walks of life). >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Roland Perry >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In message >>> TkD9kOZMa2s7skj at mail.gmail.com>, >>>> at 15:27:25 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Fouad Bajwa >>>> writes >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Still, there was no need for a separate mailing list IMHO. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There's a "Law of social networking" (of which the IGC lists are an >>>> example, >>>> and social networking has existed for at least 20 years before acquiring >>>> that sexy name) which says that if you spin off a separate discussion >>>> group >>>> it almost always dies. That's just a fact of life. Look at the [lack of] >>>> activity on the other three spun-off groups, for example. >>>> >>>> It requires a big commitment to make it work, which is one reason why >>>> small >>>> *closed* lists are the most successful - the people who want to discuss >>>> their business in private are demonstrating that commitment (to keeping >>>> their discussion closed). >>>> -- >>>> Roland Perry >>>> >>> >> -- >> 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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 23 21:26:43 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:26:43 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q2-Format of IGF meetings Message-ID: Obs: question 1 is a general "setting the scene" Summary of the contributions during the consultations: - Continue and reinforce the openness of the meeting, for instance: o No accreditation o Multistakeholder participation o Participation on equal footing o Bottom-up organization (dynamic coalitions and workshops) * * - Develop a template for the proposal of workshops. It would make evaluation of the proposals easier and would allow limiting by default the number of speakers. - Stricter evaluation of the workshop proposals. Reduction of the number of panellists - Participants should be able to give feedback and evaluate the workshops they attended online - Two first days of the IGF dedicated to workshops and the two last days dedicated to main sessions, best practices fora, roundtables - Wrap-up workshops that would summarize discussions carried out in several workshops and forward an input to the main session - The IGF should focus on public policy issues and controversial issues, rather than technical details and innovations -- 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 iza at anr.org Sun Jan 23 21:27:59 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:27:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Agenda for the next CSTD WG meeting Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7EC6376A-1F2D-448A-8E5A-B6EE0D532B68@ciroap.org> <49717920-12A6-4C31-84C5-5EC9F0DF8BB0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Yes, I really appreciate that Marilia taking the lead and start a new thread dealing with the discussion on the structure of the coming report for improvement. I also thank Marilia for sharing the CSTD communication to us. I was just tied up with a very intensive workshop as an organizer from Wednesday to Saturday, and just came back home. Will try to catch up, though. izumi 2011/1/24 Marilia Maciel : > I have just spoken to Izumi and he agreed with the approach of starting > separate e-mail threads for the discussion of the main questions proposed in > the draft structure of the report. > > I took the liberty to compile (as bullet points) the main issues raised > during the consultation meeting on November 24 and on the “Summary of > answers to the preliminary questionnaire”, published on December. According > to the chair, these issues should be a starting point for the report. They > could help us move our discussions forward. > > Marilia > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: >> >> Dear all, since we have one week to present our contributions (the >> deadline is Jan 31) and considering that some of the topics are no piece of >> cake, I suggest that we start immediatly and use this list for discussions >> of each topic, in separate e-mail threads. >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Roland Perry >> wrote: >>> >>> In message ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 23 21:29:12 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:29:12 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q3-Shapping the outcomes of IGF meetings Message-ID: Summary of contributions during the consultations: - Improve reporting of the IGF, which would take into account diverging opinions, capture the range of policy options. - Reporting template used by workshops and main sessions. Efficient distribution to all relevant bodies and missions - Recommendations. They could be based: a) in the report; b) in the discussions in each session (compiled at the end of the IGF); c) on the discussion of thematic working groups (to be created) - Recommendations and suggestions fed into relevant IG mechanisms - Create a repository of Best Practices discussed at the IGF - Define ways to better capture the impact of the IGF. Annual report? -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 23 21:31:33 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:31:33 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation Message-ID: * **Working methods of the IGF, in particular improving the preparation process modalities* * * - Improvement of the website - Seek the inputs of national and regional IGFs regarding the issues to be discussed in open consultations, especially the agenda. MAG could do it? - Foster periodical meetings with the participation of the organizers of national and regional IGFs - Set aside a budget for inviting speakers to main sessions. Invitations to speak based on expertise, not on who’s already attending IGF - Identify key global policy areas that require attention early in the year. Create working groups around these areas. Share background material and discuss them in sessions throughout the year (thematic meetings). Discuss them in an in-depth way at the IGF. - Organizations that are part of the IG ecosystem could be invited to share a one-page document regarding their suggestions on specific thematic issues. This will improve the inputs that go into the IGF and this is important if the IGF is expected to serve as a clearinghouse - At least one of the open consultations should take place as an online meeting. -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 23 21:33:42 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:33:42 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q5-Financing the forum Message-ID: * **Financing the Forum (exploring further voluntary options for financing)* Summary (sorry if I missed something): - Public funds - Voluntary contributions allowed, but on a transparent manner -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 23 21:35:58 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:35:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q6-Functioning of the Secretariat Message-ID: Summary: - Election of the MAG – transparency - Strengthening of the MAG. Role on reporting, substantial discussions throughout the year - Flexible relationship with UN. Autonomy of the Secretariat -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 23 21:37:41 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:37:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q7-Outreach and cooperation with other fora Message-ID: * **Outreach to and cooperation with other organisations and fora dealing with IG issues* - Increase the influence of the IGF over decision-making bodies: Ex: Strengthen the link between the IGF and CSTD, main responsible for WSIS follow-up. CSTD should take into account inputs from the IGF when drafting its annual resolution - Accountability review of fora involved in IG (IGF as a watchdog?) -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 23 21:39:33 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:39:33 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q8- Inclusiveness and participation Message-ID: * **Inclusiveness of the IGF process and of participation at the IGF meetings (in particular with regard to stakeholders from developing countries)* - Capacity Building. Focus on institutional capacity (governments, civil society organizations, rather than on individual capacity) - Outreach strategy. Include in the IGF processes groups that have not yet been included, from civil society, small and medium sized companies, decision-makers and parliamentarians - Roadmap to identify key-players in each region that need to be inclued - Develop ways to understand the real barriers for participation - Funding to developing countries (specially to developing country policy makers?), taking into account clear criteria (for instance, age, gender and whether a particular group works with the marginalize people we want to bring to the IGF process). - Open opportunity to apply for funding. Transparency and timely decisions regarding the funding - Remote attendance o In all IGF meetings, MAG meetings and open consultations webcast, recording and captioning should be available, as well as options for remote participation o Remote participation should be formally recognized as an integral part of the IGF. Resources to put in place remote participation should be provided o Tools and techniques should be used to enhance remote participation, giving participants the opportunity to effectively influence agenda-setting and IGF debates. Remote participation in IGF process as a whole o The participation of remote speakers should be encouraged -- 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 Sun Jan 23 22:11:28 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:11:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] hi From Sierra Leone In-Reply-To: <938714.40950.qm@web114720.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <4D330A81.3020005@nupef.org.br> <006901cbb6a1$60d039c0$2270ad40$@uol.com.br> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E66C9@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <4D382F0E.5060705@gmail.com> <938714.40950.qm@web114720.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Samuel, Welcome to our group! If I may, could you tell us how you get to know this Civil Socety Internet Governance Caucus? Well, just curios. Izumi Aizu Co-coordinator of this Caucus 2011/1/20 samuel kamara : > Hi ALL, >   I am very happy to be among this group,i am from Sierra Leone West > Africa,we currently don't have e-governance setup but we will be getting it > soon.I am please to be having all your experience so i would implement that > in my country. >  Thanks, > Samuel Benjamin Kamara > Sierra Leone > > ________________________________ > From: Khaled KOUBAA > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 12:48:14 PM > Subject: [governance] From Free Tunisia > > All, > For those who don't know Tunisia : Tunisia is a Small country, great nation. > First Arab country that abolished slavery in 1848. First Arab country to > establish a constitution in 1861. First Arab country to abolish polygamy in > 1956. First Arab country to legalize abortion in 1973. Tunisia is the first > Arab country to kick out its dictator and this without the help of any > foreign nation! > Today Tunisia has reached a critical and important point in its history > after succeeding in its revolution. President Ben Ali has left the country, > and government has collapsed leaving the country in an unpredictable > situation. > A new “Coalition Government” has been announced bringing old dissidents and > Human Rights activists in team with a main focus of preparing a democratic > transition. > Friday January 14th 2011, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLT2PEmnDI ) I > have been inside the huge protestants in front of the ministry of Interior > and I witnessed brave people asking clearly their dictator to leave. > Since then Tunisian retrieved their freedom lost many years and began > interesting politics. > Young people went on the street asking for more n and more social change > without being politically coached. > I have witnessed, and have been part, of the strength of the "real" Tunisian > Internet community to use Internet and Web 2.0 ( Blogs, Video, Facebook, > Twitter, … ) to support the revolution and everyday’s riots showing to the > world what’s happening due to a lack of official local media coverage. > My life has been different during these days : my house is in a hot spot; > near El Aouina Army Casern and just between the Airport and the US Embassy. > So I took my wife to her father house, and I stayed alone during 5 days. > Everything was different each day; night riots with fire shooting between > protestants and police during the first 2 days , near helicopter > surveillance between army and snipers belonging to Ben Ali Presidential > militia during the last 3days. > I have never felt the importance of the security before that. It was the > same feeling that had the Tunisian people which led them to go out and > organize “Population committees” in each city to protect each city from Ben > Ali militia. > Tunisian Internet community is free today and will show to the world what we > are capable to accomplish. > > Vive Internet and thank you Vint and Internet pioneers to gave us this > wonderful tool that helped our revolution. > > From the free Tunisia > > Khaled Koubaa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Sun Jan 23 22:13:31 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:43:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D3CEE5B.5010707@itforchange.net> Michael Gurstein wrote: > I've made one small editorial change below... ("graduated" rather than > "graduate").. > > I also, think there should be a paragraph in there about the ways in > which various parties are trying to build copyright protection > directly into the tech--software, hardware and I believe into carriage > as well (and the risks/implications of this... Yes, very important to add. The latest on this is Intel putting such controls in the chip itself.... parminder > I don't have the words to write that para but I' would guess others on > the list do... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] *On Behalf Of *Marilia > Maciel > *Sent:* Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:10 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting > programme > > ... > > *Intellectual property enforcement online and its impact on > development and human rights > * > > > Recently there has been a change in the international intellectual > property regime. Rather than substantive law harmonization, > international IP norm-setting is now promoting an enforcement > agenda, an increasingly punitive response to counterfeiting and > piracy now being discussed in many national and international > institutions. It is an emerging matrix of new laws, regulations, > technologies, and public and private initiatives designed to > police the use of intellectual property, specially in the digital > environment. > > > New international standards require countries to increase the > level and territorial extent of intellectual property rights. This > trend has developmental impacts, as countries become less free to > support open platforms for learning, innovating, sharing and > producing, while being required to raise the amount spent on > knowledge-based inputs. > > > The enforcement agenda also impacts the exercise of rights online. > The adoption of laws that follow the model of “ graudated > response” in several countries around the world reveals the > trade-offs between the enforcement agenda and human rights, such > as the right to receive and impart information, the right to > privacy and consumer´s rights. Moreover, it puts ISPs in the > position of an “Internet police”, with the role to oversight > internet users. > > > Governance of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply > intertwined in the context of an information society. The debate > of this theme in a multistakeholder forum, such as the IGF, would > help to reach a more round understanding about the impact of this > enforcement agenda on human rights, more specifically on access to > knowledge, and on the ability to innovate online. > > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: > > Hi, > > A quick word of encouragement for Marila to draft a fourth > possible a2k theme, can't hurt right. > > But in general I am fine with Jeremy's distillation of three > workable themes > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > > [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > ] On Behalf Of > Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com > ] > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:02 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting > programme > > Hi Jeremy, > > I did not suggest it as a forth theme, since you said that we > generally only put forward three topics. If you guys believe > that a fourth theme should be added, I would be happy to draft > a text. If three themes seem to be the best way to go, I would > like to ask us to *really* make A2K present in all discussions > as you suggested. For that, we will need to carefully think > about the approach and the names of speakers for the main > sessions, who could link A2K with NN, transborder issues, etc. > Of course, workshop proposals would be also important to reach > a more rounded understanding of these interplays. > > Marília > > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > >> wrote: > On 23/01/2011, at 6:04 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal > issue, I believe it is very important that we go beyond words > and really mainstream it on the debates. > Marilia and Ian, I'm not sure from your comments if you are > both saying that you want to see us putting forward a separate > fourth theme (since I don't see anyone suggesting that we > should remove one of the existing three themes). Could you > clarify and, if that is what you are saying, perhaps suggest > some text? > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join > consumer groups from around the world > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that > matter most to consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > Twitter #CICongress > > Read our email confidentiality > notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- 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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Sun Jan 23 22:38:33 2011 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:38:33 -0600 Subject: [governance] Invitation to the 2011 Philippine IPv6 Conference and Trainings Message-ID: Dear all, Hope everyone is having or had a great weekend. I would like to invite those interested to listen to the live broadcast of the 2011 Philippine IPv6 Conference and Trainings to be held starting January 24th to the 27th (which is going on right now at Makati Shangri-la Hotel Manila). Time difference for instance is: *09:30:00 p.m. Sunday January 23, 2011* in *US/Central * is *11:30:00 a.m. Monday January 24, 2011* in *Asia/Manila * Organizers of this event are ISOC PH chapter, Internet Society, APNIC and ASTI (Advanced Science and Technology Institute of the Philippine Department of Science & Technology). The broadcast link is below: http://www.pregi.net/broadcaster/ The event programme can also be found below: http://ipv6.isoc.ph/programme Thank you! Regards, Charity Gamboa-Embley -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jan 24 00:30:04 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:30:04 +0100 Subject: AW: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues References: <4D3C6562.3010103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07709@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder you are confusing issues. A government is a government and an intergovernmental organisation is an intergovernmental organisation with its own statues, rules, procedures, membership, budget etc. From a legal point of you it is the same with the UN, UNESCO, ITU, WTO, WIPO and also regional organisations like OECD and CoE. These organisation of a constoution and they adopt legally binding instruments (cnventions) or give non-binding receommednations (in form of resolutions and declarations). For the CoE for instance members have to ratify the European Human Rights Convention as a legally binding document. Ther CoE was established in 1950. Europe was the battlefield of WW II and the new European govenrments wanted to do everything to avoid another war. And human rights was in their center. The European Humn Right Convention was inspired by the Un Declaration (1948). But the CoE was able to translate the non-binding declaration into a legally binding document within two years. It needed to UN another 16 years to finanlize the the UN convenants and it is non obligatory for a UN memberstate to ratify the two UN human rights conventions. The ssytem of intergovernmental organisaitons i an achievement in hisotry and it is part of the efforts to globalize democracy. A large number of these organisations have subsidary groups like UN with the ECOSOC and its various Commissions and Committees, including the UNCSTD. They have to follow their rules and this is okay. Another question is, if it comes to the development of policies, in our case on Internet Governance policies. It should be in the self-interest of governments to enhance their knowledge and collaboration if they invite non-governmental actors and experts into their PDPs. The OECD is and will remain an intergovernmental body, but it decided that if it comes to the Internet (it is only one issue among a lot of others within the OECD) that it makes sense to have some advise from non-govenrmental stakeholders. And in the Ministerial Conference in Seoul 2008 they discovered that advise from Civil Society is needed and they created the CISIAC, When the CoE Ministerial Conference in Rejkjavik (May 2009) discussed the Internet, they realized that they would need the advice from an expert group and the expert group should include non-govermental experts. In fact in the small expert group (five members) there is only one governmental representative (although two others worked quite a long time for a government). If the UNCSTD decides to develop a policy how to improve the IGF it was a big mistake that in the first meeting they excluded non-governmental representatives. And if the UNCSTD will decide to develop a policy how to deal with "enhanced cooperation" it would be stupid to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from such a discussion process. The other open question - raised by the IBSA proposal - is, whether there is indeed a gap and we need a new intergovernmental component in the global Internet Governance mechanism . And please rememeber, "enhanced cooperation" was the buzzword for "ICANN overisght". In the WGG there were four models how to deal with this issue (ranging from a new UN Internet Organisation/UNIO (proposed by South Africa), an Intergovernmental Council (proposed by the EU), the status quo (with the US/ICANN MoU) and a Status Quo minus (without the US/ICANN MoU). The Intergovernmental Council idea failed because the governments which supported this idea could not say what is the level of principle (where governments have a special responsibility for the development of public policies) and how far the day to day operations will go (where the private sector should have the lead). >From an academic point of view, to re-open this discussion after five years makes sense, because some of the questions are still on the table.However the environment has changed (including the substitution of the MoU, first by the JPA and now by the AoC). The IBSA countries have to ask themselves - and to explain to the public -where the "missing link" is and what such a new proposed body have to do and how this will become integrated into the broader global mechanism of Internet Governance and how to avoid duplication anbd overlapping with activities of other intergovernmental bodies. One variable in this calculation will be certainly the GAC. To be frank, I do not see any issue a new organisation can do better than the GAC. Lets wait and see how the interaction between GAC and the ICANN Board will further evolve. It makes a good sense to look deeper into the "GAC Operating Principles" and the practices of interaction among the GAC and the ICANN Board. I would be afraid to waste time and resources to enter into an endless battle to create a new intergovernmental Internet body which would probably duplicate a lot of activties which are discussed also in other intergovernmental bodies like UNESCO, WIPO, ITU, WTO, UNCITRAL etc. However to have a (multistakeholder) working group which looks deeper into this issue makes always sense. Best wishes Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: So 23.01.2011 18:29 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Betreff: Re: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues Adam IT for Change's statement for the open consultation on enhanced cooperation is at unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043239.pdf .. Our view is clearly and in detail presented in the statement. In the context of the para 8 of IBSA statement we asked for a CSTD WG ' on similar lines as the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements', At the time of writing this statement it was almost universally understood that the CSTD WG on IGF will be multistakeholder, and that is what the IGC, and IT for Change had also called for. My email to which you responded clearly mentions the areas where we had overlap with IBSA statement - asking for new institutional developments in global Internet policy space (which is the position of many in the IGC and formed a part of IGC statement to the open consultation on enhanced cooperation; listing issues like network neutrality and A2K as among those requiring global attention; and calling for constituting a CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation. So, no, we did not and do not support a purely inter-gov WG on this issue. Now that the matter you raised has been taken care of, I would like to hear what all you found as 'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for' in the IBSA statement. And whether you also noticed that for the first time a gov statement to the UN raised issues like NN and A2K, and in fact mentions human rights among these issues. Now, since you rightly find purely inter-gov structures anathema to CS values or whatever, do you know that CoE and OECD have Internet policy making platforms which are purely inter-gov and have other stakeholders only at an arms lenght advisory role - a structure much worse than even the recently constituted WG on IGF... Never heard you and many others so scornful of developing countries accused of exclusions in forming the WGIGF criticise these devleoped countries. On the contrary many of these people enthusiastically participate in it. Since you had insisted (rightly)that I answer your direct questions about my support or not to IBSA position, can you also please directly answer my queries. Not only other stakeholders are excluded, other country govs are excluded, though when the policy frameworks are final, these countries are invited to sign on. I saw such a scenario at the OECD ministrial in Seoul, (Brazil rightly refused to sign on. Some other developing countries regrettably did). Have you found such exclusions anathema to CS. If you have, I never heard you mention that. Do you find it anathema to CS that technical community and private sector called for discontinuation of 'IG for development' plenary session at the IGF, and you just need to wait to see what happens when a session on NN is suggested. See Janna's email forwarding what Sir Tim Berner-Lee thinks are the real IG issues. Not supporting these issues, and not doing very active work on these, is what I think is anathema to CS. When the inventor of web can clearly point out what NN is, and sees it as something which can and needs to be enforced, why do so many of us like to keep believing it may not be so. When I raise the issue of how US gov has such power vis a vis all the major digital companies which together constitute most of the Internet , you would like to dismiss it as my long standing confusion between infrastructure and content issues. The fact that such huge concentration of Internet related power in one government doesnt bother many who are so much bothered with even a framework making role passing to the UN which is certainly much more representative than the UN gov is what I - and i can speak of most in developing countries - consider anathema to civil society. So, you may consider it wrong to have a purely inter-gov WG (and I agree) but I am surprised and pained that this is all that you read of as value in the IBSA statement. This position in my view is very narrow and biased, and covering such narrow politics with statements like 'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for' is something that does no longer pass muster. So I will request your comments on all other parts of the IBSA statement as well. parminder Adam Peake wrote: Parminder, Wondered if you had any comment on this email. I've just read the IBSA statement again and find it anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for. Just wondering what parts you support, specifically. And particularly if you supported paragraph 8 of the statement. Thanks, Adam Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:51:28 +0900 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org From: Adam Peake Subject: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org X-Sequence: 219 Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org X-no-archive: yes List-Id: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Parminder, Thanks for clarifying what you meant about architecture of the Internet. As I said, the Twitter matter you mentioned has nothing to do with the Internet in and of itself, you keep confusing issues of content and infrastructure. Can't help you, it's been going on for years, so let's just forget it. About the IBSA statement, I hope you and IT for Change had no part in drafting or encouraging paragraph 8 of the statement: "8. Keeping in view the urgency and importance of establishing such a platform, the IBSA countries reiterate the need to ensure that the present consultations result in a clear roadmap for operationalizing Enhanced Cooperation. In this context, we would like to propose that an inter-governmental working group be established under the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the focal point in the UN system-wide follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS. The Working Group should be mandated to prepare a report on the possible institutional design and roadmap for enhanced cooperation in consultation with all stakeholders, and asked to submit its report to the UN General Assembly in 2011. The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process." It would be ironic given that the IGC's nominating committee recommended you as a member of the *multistakeholder* working group rather than the inter-governmental process the IBSA statement suggested. Perhaps you could clarify, did you support or accept para 8 of the IBSA statement? I read the IBSA statement as extremely detrimental to the Internet (broadly) and the interests of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders. Given the list of policy issues in the paragraph that precedes it, para 6 extremely troubling. Just don't know what there is to like about a proposal that only favors narrow government interests. Adam Wolfgang, I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me humbly submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with IT for Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a fact that was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA statement. These overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new institutional structure, listing of global network neutrality and A2K as key global IG issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on this matter. Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken when you say "...the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement represents the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement to be. Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is very clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet and thus must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are obviously ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote some passages from the IBSA statement to show how clearly have you mis-read it. " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be discussed among UN Member States in depth from a public policy point of view due to the absence of an intergovernmental platform mandated to systematically discuss them and make decisions as appropriate. It is thus necessary for governments to be provided a formal platform under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these issues. Such a platform would also complement the Internet Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, sharing experiences and networking on Internet governance." " The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and established will allow the international community to accomplish the developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...." Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.... "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process." Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as "...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is all what they really meant. Parminder Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Parminder: IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. Wolfgang: If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this is different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body. The proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing link in the existing architecture of Internet Governance organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body should fill this gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an important difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is rather similar to what is considered by the Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert Group is that we recogn ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental component should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of commitments. The objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision making, the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jan 24 03:13:35 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:13:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q2-Format of IGF meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 00:26:43 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >-          Two first days of the IGF dedicated to workshops and the two >last days dedicated to main sessions, best practices fora, roundtable This seems to be a major structural change. Does the "UN Framework" within which the meetings take place (and Markus has explained several times why the main sessions are the length they are etc) allow for two days without any main sessions? Although presumably there *has* to be an Opening/Welcome Ceremony on the first day, whatever else is decided. -- 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 Jan 24 03:16:43 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:16:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a5vpWCrVTPNFARg@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 00:31:33 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >-          At least one of the open consultations should take place as >an online meeting I think you can add to the series of Open Consultations [planning sessions] with an additional online meeting, or enhance the remote participation at the current series of meetings. I don't think you could replace one of the physical meetings - for all the planning to get done on time, you need the current number. -- 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 Jan 24 03:50:33 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:50:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q8- Inclusiveness and participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 00:39:33 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >-          Outreach strategy. Include in the IGF processes groups that >have not yet been included, from  civil society, small and medium sized >companies, decision-makers and parliamentarians A common feature of all these is that they would normally take advantage of the economy of scale of working through some other body such as a trade association or civil society caucus. And what's that body for Parliamentarians, I hear people asking - well that's their Government minister and his officials. -- 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Jan 24 07:16:05 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:16:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q8- Inclusiveness and participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, Overall, these are interesting proposals. To this, to make an impact in the African context, it would be desirable to involve the African Union, ECA and the regional and subregional organizations to positively influence policy makers (government, parliament .....) Baudouin 2011/1/24 Marilia Maciel > * **Inclusiveness of the IGF process and of participation at the IGF > meetings (in particular with regard to stakeholders from developing > countries)* > > > - Capacity Building. Focus on institutional capacity > (governments, civil society organizations, rather than on individual > capacity) > > - Outreach strategy. Include in the IGF processes groups that > have not yet been included, from civil society, small and medium sized > companies, decision-makers and parliamentarians > > - Roadmap to identify key-players in each region that need to be > inclued > > - Develop ways to understand the real barriers for participation > > > > - Funding to developing countries (specially to developing > country policy makers?), taking into account clear criteria (for instance, > age, gender and whether a particular group works with the marginalize people > we want to bring to the IGF process). > > - Open opportunity to apply for funding. Transparency and timely > decisions regarding the funding > > > > - Remote attendance > > o In all IGF meetings, MAG meetings and open consultations webcast, > recording and captioning should be available, as well as options for remote > participation > > o Remote participation should be formally recognized as an integral part > of the IGF. Resources to put in place remote participation should be > provided > > o Tools and techniques should be used to enhance remote participation, > giving participants the opportunity to effectively influence agenda-setting > and IGF debates. Remote participation in IGF process as a whole > > o The participation of remote speakers should be encouraged > > > -- > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jan 24 08:43:08 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:43:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation In-Reply-To: <8a5vpWCrVTPNFARg@internetpolicyagency.com> References: ,<8a5vpWCrVTPNFARg@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090CB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Once any group has gotten acquainted/comfortable with each other, online meetings work fine as a substitute. Having one planning meeting entirely online seems quite feasible imho and is of course more eco-friendly. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:16 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation In message , at 00:31:33 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >- At least one of the open consultations should take place as >an online meeting I think you can add to the series of Open Consultations [planning sessions] with an additional online meeting, or enhance the remote participation at the current series of meetings. I don't think you could replace one of the physical meetings - for all the planning to get done on time, you need the current number. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 24 09:00:48 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:30:48 +0530 Subject: AW: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07709@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4D3C6562.3010103@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07709@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D3D8610.1060901@itforchange.net> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Parminder > > you are confusing issues. Prof Kleinwachter, It will be good if you realize that I am not your student, and state your case more humbly and less patronisingly. (I am already contending with another email from Adam 2 days back on this list which reduces my analysis of the problem with US state apparatus being able to control the global behaviour of global digital corporates like Twitter in wikileaks case to my long standing confusion between infrastructure and content issues, which confusion he described as being beyond help.) The belief that all those who do not subscribe to your world view are confused comes from a blinkered vision, in this case of believing that you got everything about IG right, and everything about civil society right, and the burden is now upon you to teach everyone else about it. Now that we are on the subject of 'confusion' I am emboldened to say that I so often find your responses very confused and quite beside the point under discussion. I can say that about your email yesterday in response to my email that pointed out that your characterisation of IBSA statement as supporting a ISOC kind of view of what was enhanced cooperation was completely off mark. And I can say the same about your email below which simply doesnt address the main point of my email to which it is a response - which is about growing global imbalance in Internet policy matters, and ways to correct the imbalance, which in my understanding should be a key objective of global civil society concerned with IG. Instead of answering my clear questions like why dont you make the make MSism demands of CoE and OECD IG policy making structures as you do of the UN, you are describing many things at length which I have no issues with, and mostly already know of. In any case I have many errors in your email to point out and a few specific issues to respond to. However I wont take up that discussion now because we need to focus on our inputs to the WGIGF which need to be submitted in less than a week. I will be back after the 1st.... thanks, and best regards, parminder > A government is a government and an intergovernmental organisation is an intergovernmental organisation with its own statues, rules, procedures, membership, budget etc. From a legal point of you it is the same with the UN, UNESCO, ITU, WTO, WIPO and also regional organisations like OECD and CoE. These organisation of a constoution and they adopt legally binding instruments (cnventions) or give non-binding receommednations (in form of resolutions and declarations). For the CoE for instance members have to ratify the European Human Rights Convention as a legally binding document. Ther CoE was established in 1950. Europe was the battlefield of WW II and the new European govenrments wanted to do everything to avoid another war. And human rights was in their center. The European Humn Right Convention was inspired by the Un Declaration (1948). But the CoE was able to translate the non-binding declaration into a legally binding document within two years. It needed to > > UN another 16 years to finanlize the the UN convenants and it is non obligatory for a UN memberstate to ratify the two UN human rights conventions. The ssytem of intergovernmental organisaitons i an achievement in hisotry and it is part of the efforts to globalize democracy. > > A large number of these organisations have subsidary groups like UN with the ECOSOC and its various Commissions and Committees, including the UNCSTD. They have to follow their rules and this is okay. > > Another question is, if it comes to the development of policies, in our case on Internet Governance policies. It should be in the self-interest of governments to enhance their knowledge and collaboration if they invite non-governmental actors and experts into their PDPs. The OECD is and will remain an intergovernmental body, but it decided that if it comes to the Internet (it is only one issue among a lot of others within the OECD) that it makes sense to have some advise from non-govenrmental stakeholders. And in the Ministerial Conference in Seoul 2008 they discovered that advise from Civil Society is needed and they created the CISIAC, When the CoE Ministerial Conference in Rejkjavik (May 2009) discussed the Internet, they realized that they would need the advice from an expert group and the expert group should include non-govermental experts. In fact in the small expert group (five members) there is only one governmental representative (although two others worked quite a > > long time for a government). > > If the UNCSTD decides to develop a policy how to improve the IGF it was a big mistake that in the first meeting they excluded non-governmental representatives. And if the UNCSTD will decide to develop a policy how to deal with "enhanced cooperation" it would be stupid to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from such a discussion process. > > The other open question - raised by the IBSA proposal - is, whether there is indeed a gap and we need a new intergovernmental component in the global Internet Governance mechanism . And please rememeber, "enhanced cooperation" was the buzzword for "ICANN overisght". In the WGG there were four models how to deal with this issue (ranging from a new UN Internet Organisation/UNIO (proposed by South Africa), an Intergovernmental Council (proposed by the EU), the status quo (with the US/ICANN MoU) and a Status Quo minus (without the US/ICANN MoU). The Intergovernmental Council idea failed because the governments which supported this idea could not say what is the level of principle (where governments have a special responsibility for the development of public policies) and how far the day to day operations will go (where the private sector should have the lead). > > >From an academic point of view, to re-open this discussion after five years makes sense, because some of the questions are still on the table.However the environment has changed (including the substitution of the MoU, first by the JPA and now by the AoC). The IBSA countries have to ask themselves - and to explain to the public -where the "missing link" is and what such a new proposed body have to do and how this will become integrated into the broader global mechanism of Internet Governance and how to avoid duplication anbd overlapping with activities of other intergovernmental bodies. > > One variable in this calculation will be certainly the GAC. To be frank, I do not see any issue a new organisation can do better than the GAC. Lets wait and see how the interaction between GAC and the ICANN Board will further evolve. It makes a good sense to look deeper into the "GAC Operating Principles" and the practices of interaction among the GAC and the ICANN Board. > > I would be afraid to waste time and resources to enter into an endless battle to create a new intergovernmental Internet body which would probably duplicate a lot of activties which are discussed also in other intergovernmental bodies like UNESCO, WIPO, ITU, WTO, UNCITRAL etc. However to have a (multistakeholder) working group which looks deeper into this issue makes always sense. > > Best wishes > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: So 23.01.2011 18:29 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Betreff: Re: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues > > > Adam > > IT for Change's statement for the open consultation on enhanced cooperation is at unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043239.pdf .. > > Our view is clearly and in detail presented in the statement. In the context of the para 8 of IBSA statement we asked for a CSTD WG ' on similar lines as the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements', At the time of writing this statement it was almost universally understood that the CSTD WG on IGF will be multistakeholder, and that is what the IGC, and IT for Change had also called for. > > My email to which you responded clearly mentions the areas where we had overlap with IBSA statement - asking for new institutional developments in global Internet policy space (which is the position of many in the IGC and formed a part of IGC statement to the open consultation on enhanced cooperation; listing issues like network neutrality and A2K as among those requiring global attention; and calling for constituting a CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation. > > So, no, we did not and do not support a purely inter-gov WG on this issue. > > Now that the matter you raised has been taken care of, I would like to hear what all you found as 'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for' in the IBSA statement. And whether you also noticed that for the first time a gov statement to the UN raised issues like NN and A2K, and in fact mentions human rights among these issues. > > Now, since you rightly find purely inter-gov structures anathema to CS values or whatever, do you know that CoE and OECD have Internet policy making platforms which are purely inter-gov and have other stakeholders only at an arms lenght advisory role - a structure much worse than even the recently constituted WG on IGF... Never heard you and many others so scornful of developing countries accused of exclusions in forming the WGIGF criticise these devleoped countries. On the contrary many of these people enthusiastically participate in it. > > Since you had insisted (rightly)that I answer your direct questions about my support or not to IBSA position, can you also please directly answer my queries. > > Not only other stakeholders are excluded, other country govs are excluded, though when the policy frameworks are final, these countries are invited to sign on. I saw such a scenario at the OECD ministrial in Seoul, (Brazil rightly refused to sign on. Some other developing countries regrettably did). Have you found such exclusions anathema to CS. If you have, I never heard you mention that. > > Do you find it anathema to CS that technical community and private sector called for discontinuation of 'IG for development' plenary session at the IGF, and you just need to wait to see what happens when a session on NN is suggested. > > See Janna's email forwarding what Sir Tim Berner-Lee thinks are the real IG issues. Not supporting these issues, and not doing very active work on these, is what I think is anathema to CS. When the inventor of web can clearly point out what NN is, and sees it as something which can and needs to be enforced, why do so many of us like to keep believing it may not be so. > > When I raise the issue of how US gov has such power vis a vis all the major digital companies which together constitute most of the Internet , you would like to dismiss it as my long standing confusion between infrastructure and content issues. The fact that such huge concentration of Internet related power in one government doesnt bother many who are so much bothered with even a framework making role passing to the UN which is certainly much more representative than the UN gov is what I - and i can speak of most in developing countries - consider anathema to civil society. > > So, you may consider it wrong to have a purely inter-gov WG (and I agree) but I am surprised and pained that this is all that you read of as value in the IBSA statement. This position in my view is very narrow and biased, and covering such narrow politics with statements like 'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for' is something that does no longer pass muster. So I will request your comments on all other parts of the IBSA statement as well. > > parminder > > > > Adam Peake wrote: > > Parminder, > > Wondered if you had any comment on this email. > > I've just read the IBSA statement again and find it anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for. Just wondering what parts you support, specifically. And particularly if you supported paragraph 8 of the statement. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:51:28 +0900 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > From: Adam Peake > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake > X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org > X-Sequence: 219 > Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > X-no-archive: yes > List-Id: > List-Archive: > List-Help: > List-Owner: > List-Post: > List-Subscribe: > List-Unsubscribe: > > Parminder, > > Thanks for clarifying what you meant about architecture of the Internet. As I said, the Twitter matter you mentioned has nothing to do with the Internet in and of itself, you keep confusing issues of content and infrastructure. Can't help you, it's been going on for years, so let's just forget it. > > About the IBSA statement, I hope you and IT for Change had no part in drafting or encouraging paragraph 8 of the statement: > > "8. Keeping in view the urgency and importance of establishing such a platform, the IBSA countries reiterate the need to ensure that the present consultations result in a clear roadmap for operationalizing Enhanced Cooperation. In this context, we would like to propose that an inter-governmental working group be established under the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the focal point in the UN system-wide follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS. The Working Group should be mandated to prepare a report on the possible institutional design and roadmap for enhanced cooperation in consultation with all stakeholders, and asked to submit its report to the UN General Assembly in 2011. The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization or recommend establi > > shing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process." > > It would be ironic given that the IGC's nominating committee recommended you as a member of the *multistakeholder* working group rather than the inter-governmental process the IBSA statement suggested. Perhaps you could clarify, did you support or accept para 8 of the IBSA statement? > > I read the IBSA statement as extremely detrimental to the Internet (broadly) and the interests of civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders. Given the list of policy issues in the paragraph that precedes it, para 6 extremely troubling. Just don't know what there is to like about a proposal that only favors narrow government interests. > > Adam > > > > Wolfgang, > > I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me humbly submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with IT for Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a fact that was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA statement. These overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new institutional structure, listing of global network neutrality and A2K as key global IG issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on this matter. > > Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken when you say "...the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement represents the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement to be. > > Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is very clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet and thus must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are obviously ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote some passages from the IBSA statement to show how clearly have you mis-read it. > > " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be discussed among UN Member States in depth from a public policy point of view due to the absence of an intergovernmental platform mandated to systematically discuss them and make decisions as appropriate. It is thus necessary for governments to be provided a formal platform under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these issues. Such a platform would also complement the Internet Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, sharing experiences and networking on Internet governance." > > " The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and established will allow the international community to accomplish the developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...." > > Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.... > > "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process." > > Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as > > "...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " > > However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is all what they really meant. > > Parminder > > > > > > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > > Parminder: > > IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. > > Wolfgang: > > If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this is different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body. The proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing link in the existing architecture of Internet Governance organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body should fill this gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an important difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is rather similar to what is considered by the Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert Group is that we rec > > ogn > ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental component should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of commitments. The objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision making, the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Jan 24 11:21:38 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:21:38 -0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IP ENFORCEMENT ROUNDUP - JANUARY 24, 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For those interested in intellectual property, I recommend this weekly newsletter and the website www.infojustice.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Palmedo Date: Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:16 PM Subject: IP ENFORCEMENT ROUNDUP - JANUARY 24, 2011 To: IP-ENFORCEMENT at roster.wcl.american.edu *IP ENFORCEMENT ROUNDUP – JANUARY 24, 2011* * * *European academics circulate sign-on statement of opinion on ACTA* * * A group of prominent European academics coordinated by Rita Matulionyte and Axel Metzger from the Leibniz University in Hanover has released an opinion on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The opinion shows how ACTA clashes both with EU policy and with the enforcement provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. The drafting committee invites European and national institutions to carefully consider the opinion before ratifying the Agreement or withholding consent. The document is open for signaturesuntil February 7, 2011. Click here for more. ** * * *Publishers cut off researchers’ free access to medical journals in poor countries * Large publishers are starting to pull out of the Health InterNetwork for Access to Research Initiative (HINARI), a system for providing free journals to low income countries established by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2001. Earlier this month, researchers in Bangladesh received notice that they would no longer receive access to journals published by Elsevier, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, and Springer through the program. WHO has since revealed that 28 other Least Developed Countries will lose access to free journals through the HINARI. Click here for more. * * *Brazilian Ministry of Culture removes Creative Commons licenses from its website* Since 2003, the Brazilian Ministry of Culture website’s content has been posted under a Creative Commons license, but the Ministry has removed the Creative Commons logo from its website. The removal occurred shortly after the publication of an open letter asking for the continuation of copyright reforms that were adopted or were under discussion during the government of Lula, and which would have expanded limitations and exceptions to copyright. Therefore, the removal has been interpreted by the Brazilian civil society as a sign of the inflexibility of Minister Ana de Hollanda, who opposes the reforms. Click here for more. * * *U.S. state legislators call for halt of trade restrictions on pharmaceutical pricing* On Friday, an organization of state legislators passed a resolutioncalling on the U.S. to halt the use of trade agreements to enact international disciplines on pharmaceutical pricing programs. The resolution specifically targets the ongoing negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a plurilateral trade agreement among eight nations. To date, no negotiating text has been publicly released. But the branded drug lobby has requested the inclusion of a chapter in the agreement that would require countries to “appropriately recognize the value of patented medicines” when determining reimbursement levels for medicines purchased in the public health sector. Click here for more. * * *Notes from the State of the Net Conference*** On January 18, the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Congressional Internet Caucus held the Seventh Annual State of the Net Conference to discuss current issues and upcoming legislation in 2011. The Director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement described Operation In Our Sites, which targeted infringing sites, and Members of Congress discussed strengthening domestic and international IP protection, and a panel discussed the feasibility and wisdom of enforcement measures in COICA. Many of the keynote speeches are available online. Click here for more. * * *UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health enters Kenyan legal challenge to anticounterfeiting bill* The East African Standard has reported that Anand Grover, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover will “intervene as an interested party to support the constitutional principles of access to essential medicines" in a court case against the Kenyan Anti-Counterfeiting bill. Health advocates have warned that the bill contains loose definitions of “counterfeit” that will allow patent owning firms to block legitimate generic medicines. Click here for more. * * *Upcoming events and submission deadlines*** On February 2-3, the Sixth Global Congress Combating Piracywill take place in Paris, co-hosted by WIPO and INPI, in partnership with Interpol, the World Customs Organization, BASCAP, and the International Trade Mark Association. February 15 is the deadline for submitting comments to the US Trade Representative for the 2011 Special 301 Report, and for submitting comments on ACTA. The WTO TRIPS Council will meet on March 1-2. Thiru Balasubamaniam from KEI has posted key dates for upcoming WHO, WIPO and WTO meetings on intellectual property . WIPO has also published a list of its Conferences, Meetings and Seminarsto be held in the first half of 2011. For future reference, PIJIP is creating an ongoing list of upcoming events and submission deadlines which will be available here . *Contributors: Mike Palmedo, Sean Flynn, Marilia Maciel. * Mike Palmedo Assistant Director Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property American University Washington College of Law 4801 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20016 T - 202-2274-4442 | F - 202-274-4495 mpalmedo at wcl.american.edu -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 24 11:34:53 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:34:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] The Inside Story of How Facebook Responded toTunisian Hacks. Message-ID: <38E81F331BBF438982D001ACE705CF2B@userPC> This has a lot of significance in a lot of different directions: global Internet governance, rights and practices in an Internet environment, Facebook as Internet environment, etc.etc. M ------------------------------------------------ The Inside Story of How Facebook Responded to Tunisian Hacks. It was on Christmas Day that Facebook's Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan first noticed strange things going on in Tunisia. Reports started to trickle in that political-protest pages were being hacked. "We were getting anecdotal reports saying, 'It looks like someone logged into my account and deleted it,'" Sullivan said. For Tunisians, it was another run-in with Ammar, the nickname they've given to the authorities that censor the country's Internet. They'd come to expect it. http://tinyurl.com/62mvmgd ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Jan 24 13:19:35 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:19:35 +0500 Subject: AW: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues In-Reply-To: <4D3D8610.1060901@itforchange.net> References: <4D3C6562.3010103@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07709@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D3D8610.1060901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: This video may also be a point to consider as both theme suggestions for the IGF as well as with regards to cross-border information sharing: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/the-argument-in-favor-of-defending-wikileaks-right-to-exist/43874 The core values and principles topic has somehow gotten lost in our renewed IGF discussions after the mandate renewal. -- Foo On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, parminder wrote: > > > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > Parminder > > you are confusing issues. > > Prof Kleinwachter, > > It will be good if you realize that I am not your student, and state your > case more humbly and less patronisingly. (I am already contending with > another email from Adam 2 days back on this list which reduces my analysis > of the problem with US state apparatus being able to control the global > behaviour of global digital corporates like Twitter in wikileaks case to my > long standing confusion between infrastructure and content issues, which > confusion he described as being beyond help.) > > The belief that all those who do not subscribe to your world view are > confused comes from a blinkered vision, in this case of believing that you > got everything about IG right, and everything about civil society right, > and  the burden is now upon you to teach everyone else about it. > > Now that we are on the subject of 'confusion' I am emboldened to say that I > so often find your responses very confused and quite  beside the point under > discussion. I can say that about your email yesterday in response to my > email that pointed out that your characterisation of IBSA statement as > supporting a ISOC kind of view of what was enhanced cooperation was > completely off mark. And I can say the same about your email below which > simply doesnt address the main point of my email to which it is a response - > which is about growing global imbalance in Internet policy matters, and ways > to correct the imbalance, which in my understanding should be a key > objective of global civil society concerned with IG. Instead of answering my > clear questions like why dont you make the make MSism demands of CoE and > OECD IG policy making structures as you do of the UN, you are describing > many things at length which I have no issues with, and mostly already know > of. > > In any case I have many errors in your email to point out and a few specific > issues to respond to. However I wont take up that discussion now because we > need to focus on our inputs to the WGIGF which need to be submitted in less > than a week. I will be back after the 1st.... thanks, and best regards, > parminder > > A government is a government and an intergovernmental organisation is an > intergovernmental organisation with its own statues, rules, procedures, > membership, budget etc. From a legal point of you it is the same with the > UN, UNESCO, ITU, WTO, WIPO and also regional organisations like OECD and > CoE. These organisation of a constoution and they adopt legally binding > instruments (cnventions) or give non-binding receommednations (in form of > resolutions and declarations). For the CoE for instance members have to > ratify the European Human Rights Convention as a legally binding document. > Ther CoE was established in 1950. Europe was the battlefield of WW II and > the new European govenrments wanted to do everything to avoid another war. > And human rights was in their center. The European Humn Right Convention was > inspired by the Un Declaration (1948). But the CoE was able to translate the > non-binding declaration into a legally binding document within two years. It > needed to > > > UN another 16 years to finanlize the the UN convenants and it is non > obligatory for a UN memberstate to ratify the two UN human rights > conventions. The ssytem of intergovernmental organisaitons i an achievement > in hisotry and it is part of the efforts to globalize democracy. > > A large number of these organisations have subsidary groups like UN with the > ECOSOC and its various Commissions and Committees, including the UNCSTD. > They have to follow their rules and this is okay. > > Another question is, if it comes to the development of policies, in our case > on Internet Governance policies. It should be in the self-interest of > governments to enhance their knowledge and collaboration if they invite > non-governmental actors and experts into their PDPs. The OECD is and will > remain an intergovernmental body, but it decided that if it comes to the > Internet (it is only one issue among a lot of others within the OECD) that > it makes sense to have some advise from non-govenrmental stakeholders. And > in the Ministerial Conference in Seoul 2008 they discovered that advise from > Civil Society is needed and they created the CISIAC, When the CoE > Ministerial Conference in Rejkjavik (May 2009) discussed the Internet, they > realized that they would need the advice from an expert group and the expert > group should include non-govermental experts. In fact in the small expert > group (five members) there is only one governmental representative (although > two others worked quite a > > > long time for a government). > > If the UNCSTD decides to develop a policy how to improve the IGF it was a > big mistake that in the first meeting they excluded non-governmental > representatives. And if the UNCSTD will decide to develop a policy how to > deal with "enhanced cooperation" it would be stupid to exclude > non-governmental stakeholders from such a discussion process. > > The other open question - raised by the IBSA proposal - is, whether there is > indeed a gap and we need a new intergovernmental component in the global > Internet Governance mechanism . And please rememeber, "enhanced cooperation" > was the buzzword for "ICANN overisght". In the WGG there were four models > how to deal with this issue (ranging from a new UN Internet > Organisation/UNIO (proposed by South Africa), an Intergovernmental Council > (proposed by the EU), the status quo (with the US/ICANN MoU) and a Status > Quo minus (without the US/ICANN MoU). The Intergovernmental Council idea > failed because the governments which supported this idea could not say what > is the level of principle (where governments have a special responsibility > for the development of public policies) and how far the day to day > operations will go (where the private sector should have the lead). > > >From an academic point of view, to re-open this discussion after five years > makes sense, because some of the questions are still on the table.However > the environment has changed (including the substitution of the MoU, first by > the JPA and now by the AoC). The IBSA countries have to ask themselves - and > to explain to the public -where the "missing link" is and what such a new > proposed body have to do and how this will become integrated into the > broader global mechanism of Internet Governance and how to avoid duplication > anbd overlapping with activities of other intergovernmental bodies. > > One variable in this calculation will be certainly the GAC. To be frank, I > do not see any issue a new organisation can do better than the GAC. Lets > wait and see how the interaction between GAC and the ICANN Board will > further evolve. It makes a good sense to look deeper into the "GAC Operating > Principles" and the practices of interaction among the GAC and the ICANN > Board. > > I would be afraid to waste time and resources to enter into an endless > battle to create a new intergovernmental Internet body which would probably > duplicate a lot of activties which are discussed also in other > intergovernmental bodies like UNESCO, WIPO, ITU, WTO, UNCITRAL etc. However > to have a (multistakeholder) working group which looks deeper into this > issue makes always sense. > > Best wishes > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: So 23.01.2011 18:29 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Betreff: Re: Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues > > > Adam > > IT for Change's statement for the open consultation on enhanced cooperation > is at unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043239.pdf .. > > Our view is clearly and in detail presented in the statement. In the context > of the para 8 of IBSA statement we asked for a CSTD WG ' on similar lines as > the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements', At the time of writing this > statement it was almost universally understood that the CSTD WG on IGF will > be multistakeholder, and that is what the IGC, and IT for Change had also > called for. > > My email to which you responded clearly mentions the areas where we had > overlap with IBSA statement - asking for new institutional developments in > global Internet policy space (which is the position of many in the IGC and > formed a part of IGC statement to the open consultation on enhanced > cooperation; listing issues like network neutrality and A2K as among those > requiring global attention; and calling for constituting a CSTD WG on > enhanced cooperation. > > So, no, we did not and do not support a purely inter-gov WG on this issue. > > Now that the matter you raised has been taken care of, I would like to hear > what all you found as 'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked > for' in the IBSA statement. And whether you also noticed that for the first > time a gov statement to the UN raised issues like NN and A2K, and in fact > mentions human rights among these issues. > > Now, since you rightly find purely inter-gov structures anathema to CS > values or whatever, do you know that CoE and OECD have Internet policy > making platforms which are purely inter-gov and have other stakeholders only > at an arms lenght advisory role - a structure much worse than even the > recently constituted WG on IGF... Never heard you and many others so > scornful of developing countries accused of exclusions in forming the WGIGF > criticise these devleoped countries. On the contrary many of these people > enthusiastically participate in it. > > Since you had insisted (rightly)that I answer your direct questions about my > support or not to IBSA position, can you also please directly answer my > queries. > > Not only other stakeholders are excluded, other country govs are excluded, > though when the policy frameworks are final, these countries are invited to > sign on. I saw such a scenario at the OECD ministrial in Seoul, (Brazil > rightly refused to sign on. Some other developing countries regrettably > did). Have you found such exclusions anathema to CS. If you have, I never > heard you mention that. > > Do you find it anathema to CS that technical community and private sector > called for discontinuation of 'IG for development' plenary session at the > IGF, and you just need to wait to see what happens when a session on NN is > suggested. > > See Janna's email forwarding what Sir Tim Berner-Lee thinks are the real IG > issues. Not supporting these issues, and not doing very active work on > these, is what I think is anathema to CS. When the inventor of web can > clearly point out what NN is, and sees it as something which can and needs > to be enforced, why do so many of us like to keep believing it may not be > so. > > When I raise the issue of how US gov has such power vis a vis all the major > digital companies which together constitute most of the Internet , you would > like to dismiss it as my long standing confusion between infrastructure and > content issues. The fact that such huge concentration of Internet related > power in one government doesnt bother many who are so much bothered with > even a framework making role passing to the UN which is certainly much more > representative than the UN gov is what I - and i can speak of most in > developing countries - consider anathema to civil society. > > So, you may consider it wrong to have a purely inter-gov WG (and I agree) > but I am surprised and pained that this is all that you read of as value in > the IBSA statement. This position in my view is very narrow and biased, and > covering such narrow politics with statements like 'anathema to civil > society, everything we've worked for' is something that does no longer pass > muster. So I will request your comments on all other parts of the IBSA > statement as well. > > parminder > > > > Adam Peake wrote: > > Parminder, > > Wondered if you had any comment on this email. > > I've just read the IBSA statement again and find it anathema to civil > society, everything we've worked for. Just wondering what parts you > support, specifically. And particularly if you supported paragraph 8 of the > statement. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:51:28 +0900 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > From: Adam Peake > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake > > X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org > X-Sequence: 219 > Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > X-no-archive: yes > List-Id: > List-Archive: > > List-Help: > > List-Owner: > > List-Post: > > List-Subscribe: > > > List-Unsubscribe: > > > > Parminder, > > Thanks for clarifying what you meant about architecture of the Internet. > As I said, the Twitter matter you mentioned has nothing to do with the > Internet in and of itself, you keep confusing issues of content and > infrastructure. Can't help you, it's been going on for years, so let's just > forget it. > > About the IBSA statement, I hope you and IT for Change had no part in > drafting or encouraging paragraph 8 of the statement: > > "8. Keeping in view the urgency and importance of establishing such a > platform, the IBSA countries reiterate the need to ensure that the present > consultations result in a clear roadmap for operationalizing Enhanced > Cooperation. In this context, we would like to propose that an > inter-governmental working group be established under the UN Commission on > Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the focal point in the UN > system-wide follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS. The Working Group should be > mandated to prepare a report on the possible institutional design and > roadmap for enhanced cooperation in consultation with all stakeholders, and > asked to submit its report to the UN General Assembly in 2011. The Working > Group should also take on board inputs from all international organizations > including the ITU, and should recommend on the feasibility and desirability > of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing > international organization or recommend establi > > > shing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear > roadmap and timeframe for the process." > > It would be ironic given that the IGC's nominating committee recommended > you as a member of the *multistakeholder* working group rather than the > inter-governmental process the IBSA statement suggested. Perhaps you could > clarify, did you support or accept para 8 of the IBSA statement? > > I read the IBSA statement as extremely detrimental to the Internet > (broadly) and the interests of civil society and other non-governmental > stakeholders. Given the list of policy issues in the paragraph that precedes > it, para 6 extremely troubling. Just don't know what there is to like about > a proposal that only favors narrow government interests. > > Adam > > > > Wolfgang, > > I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me humbly > submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with IT for Change's > statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a fact that was graciously > acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA statement. These overlaps are in > terms of call for a possible new institutional structure, listing of global > network neutrality and A2K as key global IG issues and call for setting up a > CSTD WG on this matter. > > Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken when you say "...the > objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" > their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves > and and with other stakeholders. " which statement represents the general > tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement to be. > > Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is very > clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet and thus must > start at the earliest. What you speak of above are obviously ongoing > processes. Though, our position is not exactly that of IBSA in the below > regard, I must quote some passages from the IBSA statement to show how > clearly have you mis-read it. > > " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be discussed among UN > Member States in depth from a public policy point of view due to the absence > of an intergovernmental platform mandated to systematically discuss them and > make decisions as appropriate. It is thus necessary for governments to be > provided a formal platform under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these > issues. Such a platform would also complement the Internet Governance Forum, > a multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, sharing experiences and > networking on Internet governance." > > " The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and established > will allow the international community to accomplish the developmental > objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...." > > Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.... > > "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all > international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend on the > feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation mechanism > within an existing international organization or recommend establishing a > new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap > and timeframe for the process." > > Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as > > "...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their > communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and > with other stakeholders. " > > However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is all > what they really meant. > > Parminder > > > > > > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > > Parminder: > > IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own > organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional > development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the open > consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. > > Wolfgang: > > If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this is > different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body. The > proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing link in the > existing architecture of Internet Governance organisations. The proposed > intergovernmental body should fill this gap not in a way to substitute > exising mechanisms but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, > it is about "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or > "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an important > difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 > to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental > negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. > The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is rather similar to what is > considered by the Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross > Border Internet Expert Group is that we rec > > > ogn > ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in > Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental component > should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of commitments. The > objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision > making, the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders > can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among > themselves and and with other stakeholders. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Jan 24 13:38:10 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:38:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD Q5-Financing the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does anyone know if this list of donnors is updated? http://intgovforum.org/cms/funding Is there any more relevant source about it? I have never actually participated on reflections regarding the funding of the IGF, I am trying to understand what are the issues and the scope of changes that can be introduced to improve the current voluntary trust fund. Any comments are very welcome On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > * **Financing the Forum (exploring further voluntary options for > financing)* > > Summary (sorry if I missed something): > > - Public funds > > - Voluntary contributions allowed, but on a transparent manner > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jan 24 13:51:19 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:51:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IP ENFORCEMENT ROUNDUP - JANUARY 24, 2011 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Mariela. Have you heard of M-CAM or Dr David Martin. He holds one of the largest, if not the largest repository on patents (inherent knowledge) some call it traditional knowledge and he works closely with developing countries. It may be of interest, to visit his website. http://www.m-cam.com/home Thanks for the link that you sent. They also do Vendor Verification checks etc. An example of the work he has done in the Pacific to help developing countries, in this instance, Samoa visit: http://www.samoaobserver.ws/index.php?view=article&id=2066%3Awho-really-owns&option=com_content&Itemid=50 Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > For those interested in intellectual property, I recommend this weekly > newsletter and the website www.infojustice.org > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michael Palmedo > Date: Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:16 PM > Subject: IP ENFORCEMENT ROUNDUP - JANUARY 24, 2011 > To: IP-ENFORCEMENT at roster.wcl.american.edu > > > *IP ENFORCEMENT ROUNDUP – JANUARY 24, 2011* > > * * > > *European academics circulate sign-on statement of opinion on ACTA* > > * * > > A group of prominent European academics coordinated by Rita Matulionyte > and Axel Metzger from the Leibniz University in Hanover has released an > opinion on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The opinion > shows how ACTA clashes both with EU policy and with the enforcement > provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. The drafting committee invites European > and national institutions to carefully consider the opinion before ratifying > the Agreement or withholding consent. The document is open for signaturesuntil February 7, 2011. Click > here for more. ** > > * * > > *Publishers cut off researchers’ free access to medical journals in poor > countries * > > > > Large publishers are starting to pull out of the Health InterNetwork for > Access to Research Initiative (HINARI), a system for providing free journals > to low income countries established by the World Health Organization (WHO) > in 2001. Earlier this month, researchers in Bangladesh received notice that > they would no longer receive access to journals published by Elsevier, > Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, and Springer through the program. WHO has > since revealed that 28 other Least Developed Countries will lose access to > free journals through the HINARI. Click here for more. > > * * > > *Brazilian Ministry of Culture removes Creative Commons licenses from its > website* > > > > Since 2003, the Brazilian Ministry of Culture website’s content has been > posted under a Creative Commons license, but the Ministry has removed the > Creative Commons logo from its website. The removal occurred shortly after > the publication of an open letter asking for the continuation of copyright > reforms that were adopted or were under discussion during the government of > Lula, and which would have expanded limitations and exceptions to > copyright. Therefore, the removal has been interpreted by the Brazilian > civil society as a sign of the inflexibility of Minister Ana de Hollanda, > who opposes the reforms. Click here for more. > > * * > > *U.S. state legislators call for halt of trade restrictions on > pharmaceutical pricing* > > > > On Friday, an organization of state legislators passed a resolutioncalling on the U.S. to halt the use of trade agreements to enact > international disciplines on pharmaceutical pricing programs. The resolution > specifically targets the ongoing negotiation of the Trans-Pacific > Partnership (TPP), a plurilateral trade agreement among eight nations. To > date, no negotiating text has been publicly released. But the branded drug > lobby has requested the inclusion of a chapter in the agreement that would > require countries to “appropriately recognize the value of patented > medicines” when determining reimbursement levels for medicines purchased in > the public health sector. Click here for more. > > * * > > *Notes from the State of the Net Conference*** > > > > On January 18, the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Congressional Internet > Caucus held the Seventh Annual State of the Net Conference to discuss > current issues and upcoming legislation in 2011. The Director of > Immigrations and Customs Enforcement described Operation In Our Sites, which > targeted infringing sites, and Members of Congress discussed strengthening > domestic and international IP protection, and a panel discussed the > feasibility and wisdom of enforcement measures in COICA. Many of the > keynote speeches are available online. Click here for more. > > * * > > *UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health enters Kenyan legal > challenge to anticounterfeiting bill* > > > > The East African Standard has reported that Anand Grover, the Special > Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover will “intervene as an > interested party to support the constitutional principles of access to > essential medicines" in a court case against the Kenyan Anti-Counterfeiting > bill. Health advocates have warned that the bill contains loose definitions > of “counterfeit” that will allow patent owning firms to block legitimate > generic medicines. Click here for more. > > * * > > *Upcoming events and submission deadlines*** > > > > On February 2-3, the Sixth Global Congress Combating Piracywill take place in Paris, co-hosted by WIPO and INPI, in partnership with > Interpol, the World Customs Organization, BASCAP, and the International > Trade Mark Association. February 15 is the deadline for submitting comments > to the US Trade Representative for the 2011 Special 301 Report, and for > submitting comments on ACTA. The WTO TRIPS Council will meet on March 1-2. > Thiru Balasubamaniam from KEI has posted key dates for upcoming WHO, WIPO > and WTO meetings on intellectual property . > WIPO has also published a list of its Conferences, Meetings and Seminarsto be held in the first half of 2011. For future reference, PIJIP is > creating an ongoing list of upcoming events and submission deadlines which > will be available here > . > > > > *Contributors: Mike Palmedo, Sean Flynn, Marilia Maciel. > > * > > > > > > > > Mike Palmedo > > Assistant Director > > Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property > > American University Washington College of Law > > 4801 Massachusetts Ave., NW > > Washington, DC 20016 > > T - 202-2274-4442 | F - 202-274-4495 > > mpalmedo at wcl.american.edu > > > > > > -- > 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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Mon Jan 24 16:19:01 2011 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:19:01 -0600 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q8- Inclusiveness and participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Regarding this particular point on - *Capacity Building. Focus on institutional capacity (governments, civil society organizations, rather than on individual capacity*): Generally-speaking, this would be a good strategy since IMHO institutional capacity building aims toward a long term level. If governments can plan effectively, they can provide mechanisms for long-term partnerships or networking within their regions. For instance, I am aware that in the Philippines, CICT (Commission on Information and Communications Technology) have "collaborated" with ASTI (Advances Science and Technology Institute of the Phil.Department of Science and Technology), ISOC PH, and PREGINET (National Research Education Network of the Philippines) *Pilipinas (is the Filipino word for "Philippines")*. During last year's IGF 2010, there was a regional IGF talk simultaneously during the IGF that PREGINET streamed. There were supporting elements during the IGF so even in the next events all related to IG issues, there is already a mechanism of a long term networking. Regards, Charity On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > * **Inclusiveness of the IGF process and of participation at the IGF > meetings (in particular with regard to stakeholders from developing > countries)* > > > - Capacity Building. Focus on institutional capacity > (governments, civil society organizations, rather than on individual > capacity) > > - Outreach strategy. Include in the IGF processes groups that > have not yet been included, from civil society, small and medium sized > companies, decision-makers and parliamentarians > > - Roadmap to identify key-players in each region that need to be > inclued > > - Develop ways to understand the real barriers for participation > > > > - Funding to developing countries (specially to developing > country policy makers?), taking into account clear criteria (for instance, > age, gender and whether a particular group works with the marginalize people > we want to bring to the IGF process). > > - Open opportunity to apply for funding. Transparency and timely > decisions regarding the funding > > > > - Remote attendance > > o In all IGF meetings, MAG meetings and open consultations webcast, > recording and captioning should be available, as well as options for remote > participation > > o Remote participation should be formally recognized as an integral part > of the IGF. Resources to put in place remote participation should be > provided > > o Tools and techniques should be used to enhance remote participation, > giving participants the opportunity to effectively influence agenda-setting > and IGF debates. Remote participation in IGF process as a whole > > o The participation of remote speakers should be encouraged > > > -- > 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Jan 24 16:47:48 2011 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:47:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q2-Format of IGF meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D3DF384.7030200@wzb.eu> We could consider reducing the number of main sessions altogether. I am not sure it would be a good idea to squeeze them into two days. jeanette On 24.01.2011 09:13, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 00:26:43 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel > writes >> - Two first days of the IGF dedicated to workshops and the >> two last days dedicated to main sessions, best practices fora, roundtable > > This seems to be a major structural change. Does the "UN Framework" > within which the meetings take place (and Markus has explained several > times why the main sessions are the length they are etc) allow for two > days without any main sessions? Although presumably there *has* to be an > Opening/Welcome Ceremony on the first day, whatever else is decided. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 24 16:56:58 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:56:58 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q8- Inclusiveness and participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, This link has a list of organisations within the Pacific that deal with ICT: http://www.forumsec.org.fj/pages.cfm/economic-governance/ict-2/ and having said that the list is not an exhaustive list but they contribute in one way or another to the ICT strategy within the Pacific. It does not include Civil Society except for one. Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Hi all, > > Regarding this particular point on - *Capacity Building. Focus on > institutional capacity (governments, civil society organizations, rather > than on individual capacity*): > > Generally-speaking, this would be a good strategy since IMHO institutional > capacity building aims toward a long term level. If governments can plan > effectively, they can provide mechanisms for long-term partnerships or > networking within their regions. For instance, I am aware that in the > Philippines, CICT (Commission on Information and Communications Technology) > have "collaborated" with ASTI (Advances Science and Technology Institute of > the Phil.Department of Science and Technology), ISOC PH, and PREGINET > (National Research Education Network of the Philippines) *Pilipinas (is > the Filipino word for "Philippines")*. During last year's IGF 2010, there > was a regional IGF talk simultaneously during the IGF that PREGINET > streamed. There were supporting elements during the IGF so even in the next > events all related to IG issues, there is already a mechanism of a long term > networking. > > Regards, > Charity > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> * **Inclusiveness of the IGF process and of participation at the IGF >> meetings (in particular with regard to stakeholders from developing >> countries)* >> >> >> - Capacity Building. Focus on institutional capacity >> (governments, civil society organizations, rather than on individual >> capacity) >> >> - Outreach strategy. Include in the IGF processes groups that >> have not yet been included, from civil society, small and medium sized >> companies, decision-makers and parliamentarians >> >> - Roadmap to identify key-players in each region that need to be >> inclued >> >> - Develop ways to understand the real barriers for participation >> >> >> >> - Funding to developing countries (specially to developing >> country policy makers?), taking into account clear criteria (for instance, >> age, gender and whether a particular group works with the marginalize people >> we want to bring to the IGF process). >> >> - Open opportunity to apply for funding. Transparency and timely >> decisions regarding the funding >> >> >> >> - Remote attendance >> >> o In all IGF meetings, MAG meetings and open consultations webcast, >> recording and captioning should be available, as well as options for remote >> participation >> >> o Remote participation should be formally recognized as an integral >> part of the IGF. Resources to put in place remote participation should be >> provided >> >> o Tools and techniques should be used to enhance remote participation, >> giving participants the opportunity to effectively influence agenda-setting >> and IGF debates. Remote participation in IGF process as a whole >> >> o The participation of remote speakers should be encouraged >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charityg at diplomacy.edu Mon Jan 24 17:55:34 2011 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:55:34 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD Q5-Financing the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marilia, here are my thoughts on the funding issue: [1] Does IGF follow a certain funding model? I see a lot of government donors from the list so I am assuming only that the funding is for policy innovation. If funding is relied on governments there is a strong determination to prove that whatever program there is should really work (impact and cost). So I take it that there is a need to define and implement a funding model. [2] What is the funding needed for? To be more specific on what it is needed for might narrow down a list of organizations to approach. Most of these organizations have probably laid out their plans for philanthropy so we're looking at a few research work needed to check out these organizations. The institution I work for here in Texas gets most of our funding from federal grants and private donors. We get a lump of our state funding from a title grant that hands out the funds to priority institutions - think of it as an "improvement" grant that includes professional development and partnerships in learning communities. Bottom line is, we have grant writers who write, research and report because most grants are competitive. Here in Texas, educational insitutions use a Texas-design transformation or turnaround model for implementation. Anyhow, these are just my thoughts on the matter. I'm not sure how the UN does it, but it would be helpful if clarified. Thanks. Regards, Charity Gamboa-Embley On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Does anyone know if this list of donnors is updated? > http://intgovforum.org/cms/funding > Is there any more relevant source about it? > > I have never actually participated on reflections regarding the funding of > the IGF, I am trying to understand what are the issues and the scope of > changes that can be introduced to improve the current voluntary trust fund. > Any comments are very welcome > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> * **Financing the Forum (exploring further voluntary options for >> financing)* >> >> Summary (sorry if I missed something): >> >> - Public funds >> >> - Voluntary contributions allowed, but on a transparent manner >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 24 17:59:26 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:59:26 +1200 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Net Neutrality Decision] In-Reply-To: <4D303EDB.7090806@itforchange.net> References: <4D303EDB.7090806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All, According to Ian Scales a journalist with Telecom TV, Verizon has taken FCC to Court to challenge their decision. I am eagerly watching the FCC website for outcomes, and I cannot authenticate if this information is correct, however, because it has been reported, came out on the 21st but been busy lately with a few things that I did not send it through: http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=47171&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 # If I am cross-posting, I regret the incovenience, apologies. I am following all the exchanges of emails though lately. :) Warm Regards, Sala On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 1:17 AM, parminder wrote: > This is the news item about the network neutrality decision of Federal > Communications Commission of the US that I referred to in my previous email. > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality > Decision Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:45:38 +1200 From: Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro Reply-To: > governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > To: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Check out the Headlines within the FCC website on Net Neutrality > > http://www.fcc.gov/ > > > http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/us-regulators-approve-net-neutrality-20101222-194n6.html > > -- > Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro > P.O.Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji Islands > > Cell: +679 9982851 > Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj > > "Wisdom is far better than riches." > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Mon Jan 24 18:39:00 2011 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0600 Subject: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with A2K as the fourth agenda. As what Thomas Friedman announced that the "*the world is flat*" (Brief History of the 21st Century) - it has also presented us with the idea that "*with new opportunities, new challenges, new partners, but also new dangers…economic competition in a flat world would be more equal and more intense*.." Regards, Charity On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Heres a go at a more fundamental rewrite – just to stress and bring out a > few points . I’ve also lessened the human rights emphasis in the wording – > not because it is not important, but because I would like to see red > herrings that will distract from support for this debate removed. Let me > know what you think. > > > > Access to knowledge is part of the great promise of the Internet in aiding > development, education and culture both within and between countries. > > However, new international standards require countries to increase the > level and territorial extent of intellectual property rights. This trend > has developmental impacts, as countries become less free to support open > platforms for learning, innovating, sharing and producing, while being > required to raise the amount spent on knowledge-based inputs. > > Rather than substantive law harmonization, international IP norm-setting is > now promoting an enforcement agenda, an increasingly punitive response to > counterfeiting and piracy now being discussed in many national and > international institutions. Often this puts Internet Service Providers in > the position of an “Internet police”, with the role to oversight internet > users. > > Governance of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply intertwined > in the context of an information society. The debate of this theme in a > multistakeholder forum, such as the IGF, would help to reach a more round > understanding about the impacts of this agenda on issues such as access to > knowledge, and the ability to innovate online. > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *Michael Gurstein > *Reply-To: *, Michael Gurstein < > gurstein at gmail.com> > *Date: *Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:02:20 -0800 > *To: *, 'Marilia Maciel' < > mariliamaciel at gmail.com> > *Subject: *RE: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme > > I've made one small editorial change below... ("graduated" rather than > "graduate").. > > I also, think there should be a paragraph in there about the ways in which > various parties are trying to build copyright protection directly into the > tech--software, hardware and I believe into carriage as well (and the > risks/implications of this... I don't have the words to write that para but > I' would guess others on the list do... > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [ > mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] > *On Behalf Of *Marilia Maciel > *Sent:* Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:10 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme > > > > > ... > > *Intellectual property enforcement online and its impact on development > and human rights > * > > > Recently there has been a change in the international intellectual > property regime. Rather than substantive law harmonization, international > IP norm-setting is now promoting an enforcement agenda, an increasingly > punitive response to counterfeiting and piracy now being discussed in many > national and international institutions. It is an emerging matrix of new > laws, regulations, technologies, and public and private initiatives > designed to police the use of intellectual property, specially in the > digital environment. > > > > New international standards require countries to increase the level and > territorial extent of intellectual property rights. This trend has > developmental impacts, as countries become less free to support open > platforms for learning, innovating, sharing and producing, while being > required to raise the amount spent on knowledge-based inputs. > > > > The enforcement agenda also impacts the exercise of rights online. The > adoption of laws that follow the model of “ graudated response” in > several countries around the world reveals the trade-offs between the > enforcement agenda and human rights, such as the right to receive and > impart information, the right to privacy and consumer´s rights. Moreover, > it puts ISPs in the position of an “Internet police”, with the role to > oversight internet users. > > > > Governance of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply intertwined > in the context of an information society. The debate of this theme in a > multistakeholder forum, such as the IGF, would help to reach a more round > understanding about the impact of this enforcement agenda on human rights, > more specifically on access to knowledge, and on the ability to innovate > online. > > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: > > > Hi, > > A quick word of encouragement for Marila to draft a fourth possible a2k > theme, can't hurt right. > > But in general I am fine with Jeremy's distillation of three workable > themes > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [ > governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [ > mariliamaciel at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:02 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement on Nairobi meeting programme > > > Hi Jeremy, > > I did not suggest it as a forth theme, since you said that we generally > only put forward three topics. If you guys believe that a fourth theme > should be added, I would be happy to draft a text. If three themes seem to > be the best way to go, I would like to ask us to *really* make A2K present > in all discussions as you suggested. For that, we will need to carefully > think about the approach and the names of speakers for the main sessions, > who could link A2K with NN, transborder issues, etc. Of course, workshop > proposals would be also important to reach a more rounded understanding of > these interplays. > > Marília > > > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jeremy Malcolm < > jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote: > On 23/01/2011, at 6:04 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a transversal issue, I > believe it is very important that we go beyond words and really mainstream > it on the debates. > Marilia and Ian, I'm not sure from your comments if you are both saying > that you want to see us putting forward a separate fourth theme (since I > don't see anyone suggesting that we should remove one of the existing three > themes). Could you clarify and, if that is what you are saying, perhaps > suggest some text? > > > -- > 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< > http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't print > this email unless necessary. > > > > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 24 18:46:15 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:46:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q8- Inclusiveness and participation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think having ideas, information, opinion, analyses, definitions of issues flowing from the centre out to the regional, country, local levels will be relatively easy. The challenge and where the attention should be put IMHO is on how to ensure that there is a useful, content rich, informed flow the other way. And that this flow has a meaningful impact, that is from the local, regional, country levels to the central "IG"/"IGF" focal points. The regional event I had an opportunity to attend (n Hong Kong) was extremely rich in content and so on (although perhaps being a bit limited in geographical coverage). There was a lot of very useful activity in including in identifying and defining issues of relevance from an IG perspective but I gather that the results from this were not as completely effective as they might have been in flowing from that event into the IGF itself. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Charity Gamboa Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 1:19 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Q8- Inclusiveness and participation Hi all, Regarding this particular point on - Capacity Building. Focus on institutional capacity (governments, civil society organizations, rather than on individual capacity): Generally-speaking, this would be a good strategy since IMHO institutional capacity building aims toward a long term level. If governments can plan effectively, they can provide mechanisms for long-term partnerships or networking within their regions. For instance, I am aware that in the Philippines, CICT (Commission on Information and Communications Technology) have "collaborated" with ASTI (Advances Science and Technology Institute of the Phil.Department of Science and Technology), ISOC PH, and PREGINET (National Research Education Network of the Philippines) Pilipinas (is the Filipino word for "Philippines"). During last year's IGF 2010, there was a regional IGF talk simultaneously during the IGF that PREGINET streamed. There were supporting elements during the IGF so even in the next events all related to IG issues, there is already a mechanism of a long term networking. Regards, Charity On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Inclusiveness of the IGF process and of participation at the IGF meetings (in particular with regard to stakeholders from developing countries) - Capacity Building. Focus on institutional capacity (governments, civil society organizations, rather than on individual capacity) - Outreach strategy. Include in the IGF processes groups that have not yet been included, from civil society, small and medium sized companies, decision-makers and parliamentarians - Roadmap to identify key-players in each region that need to be inclued - Develop ways to understand the real barriers for participation - Funding to developing countries (specially to developing country policy makers?), taking into account clear criteria (for instance, age, gender and whether a particular group works with the marginalize people we want to bring to the IGF process). - Open opportunity to apply for funding. Transparency and timely decisions regarding the funding - Remote attendance o In all IGF meetings, MAG meetings and open consultations webcast, recording and captioning should be available, as well as options for remote participation o Remote participation should be formally recognized as an integral part of the IGF. Resources to put in place remote participation should be provided o Tools and techniques should be used to enhance remote participation, giving participants the opportunity to effectively influence agenda-setting and IGF debates. Remote participation in IGF process as a whole o The participation of remote speakers should be encouraged -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Jan 24 22:03:55 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 01:03:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090CB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <8a5vpWCrVTPNFARg@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090CB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I believe we should, as much as possible, replace physical planning meetings by online meetings. Planning meetings are very important, as they decisively shape the agenda on the next IGF. Several documents that evaluate the IGF (like the note by the Secretary-general) mention that the agenda of the meeting needs to be more social and development oriented. It is easy to understand why developmental issues are not so mainstreamed, if you take a look at the participants of open consultations. There is a great majority of people from developed countries, who put forward their own legitimate concerns that may not concide with the issues faced in developing countries. The fact that all the meetings take place in Geneva and that developing country representatives have to deal with scarce resources are also obstacles. One example: last IGF, only 5% of the people who physically attended were from South America. But 25% of the remote participants were from the same region, showing that lack of resources is more significant than lack of interest when it comes to participation. Of course remote participation should continue to be improved, both in IGF and in prep meetings. We should improve the dynamics to allow remote participants to have more impact on discussions and equal chance to intervene and make their voices heard. While this is not the case, I believe that meetings that take place online are not only more eco-friendly, they are also more efficient and they foster equality among participants. The distance between the nodes is meaningless online. Other suggestions can be put forward to foster online coordination throughout the year. For instance, the website could encompass a section, in which the several stakeholders could talk among themselves. There is no real space of dialogue among stakeholders. If such a space existed, we could, let´s say, be discussing possible framings of NN for the IGF with the private sector. Now we have to wait and play our cards in the Open Consultation, with few people serving as "gatekeepers" of the dialogue. Marília On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Once any group has gotten acquainted/comfortable with each other, online > meetings work fine as a substitute. > > Having one planning meeting entirely online seems quite feasible imho and > is of course more eco-friendly. > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] > On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:16 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation > > In message > , at > 00:31:33 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel > writes > >- At least one of the open consultations should take place as > >an online meeting > > I think you can add to the series of Open Consultations [planning > sessions] with an additional online meeting, or enhance the remote > participation at the current series of meetings. I don't think you could > replace one of the physical meetings - for all the planning to get done > on time, you need the current number. > -- > 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 > > -- 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 Tue Jan 25 01:30:11 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:30:11 +0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q2-Format of IGF meetings In-Reply-To: <4D3DF384.7030200@wzb.eu> References: <4D3DF384.7030200@wzb.eu> Message-ID: The two day proposal might not be workable but the idea to reduce the duration of the main sessions in a given day could be a very useful proposal because the participation in the main sessions also falls because of interest in the workshops. -- Foo On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > We could consider reducing the number of main sessions altogether. I am not > sure it would be a good idea to squeeze them into two days. > > jeanette > > On 24.01.2011 09:13, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> In message >> , at >> 00:26:43 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel >> writes >>> >>> -          Two first days of the IGF dedicated to workshops and the >>> two last days dedicated to main sessions, best practices fora, roundtable >> >> This seems to be a major structural change. Does the "UN Framework" >> within which the meetings take place (and Markus has explained several >> times why the main sessions are the length they are etc) allow for two >> days without any main sessions? Although presumably there *has* to be an >> Opening/Welcome Ceremony on the first day, whatever else is decided. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jan 25 02:24:45 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:54:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGIGF inputs Message-ID: <4D3E7ABD.2000708@itforchange.net> Dear All Excuse me to start a new thread in addition to the separate ones based on the different questions from the *draft* structure sent out for the WGIGF report. The reason for this is that while we discuss the details, we should focus on the fact that this is a much higher level exercise for seeking possible structural reforms in the IGF, beyond the kind of things that can be done through evolutionary practices guided by the MAG. The WGIGF report will be submitted to the UN GA which is expected to take an appropriate decision on what structural improvements are needed in the IGF. A good way to begin at such foundational times is to look at the 'why' of the whole this. Why does the IGF exist and what do we want from it. Such an examination can then guide us to looking the the necessary structural changes. The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically with a 'view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself is an important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural improvements. The there is the WSIS mandate of the IGF against which we must check its present performance and look at required improvements. Added to it are the our own civil society interests of what 'change we want to see happen' and explore how IGF improvements can contribute to that basic objective. How we (my organisation and the CS networks we work with) relate to the IGF is vis a vis our concern that the Internet is one of the most potent social forces today, and at present its development may to a good extent be determined by the interests of those who are already most powerful. We therefore look at every opportunity to democratise the 'control' over the directions that Internet's development takes. In this regard not only greater participation is necessary but actual forums where the required public interest policy making can take place are needed. The main focus here is global forums, because that is the context we are in here, and in any case the Internet is inherently global, and most of the decisions that shape the Internet are global in their impact. We are not satisfied with IGF being just another global conference on IG issues, which is something any private actor could as well hold. Granted that IGF is open to anyone (who has the necessary funds) and that its agenda and structure is shaped by a multistakeholder group, which is a big plus. However, we need to judge it on its impact of real people's lives, which is mediated through its impact on global Internet related policies (we can discuss why in this context global is the primary focus). We dont judge IGF's performance too well on this count, and our efforts towards IGF improvement will be focused on this aspect on how it can have some to real global Internet policy impact. It is necessary that IGC discusses and figures out what is its real intent/ objective in seeking IGF reform, wherefrom can flow concrete proposals for reform. But lets focus more on larger structural things - things like how can IGF's policy issues related outcomes be shaped and routed to appropriate places and the what kind of funding is appropriate for the IGF. Once we have our views on these critical issues, most other things become so much easier to sort out. My fear is that if we spend too much time too early in looking at the details of what may be by comparison lesser issues, we will lose what may be the last opportunity to make structural reforms in the IGF. We may end up with an IGF with not much recognizable difference from the IGF we have today. And my judgment is that most actors in developing countries are not at all happy for the IGF to continue largely as it is today for the reasons discussed earlier. 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 Tue Jan 25 04:03:05 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:03:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q2-Format of IGF meetings In-Reply-To: References: <4D3DF384.7030200@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message , at 11:30:11 on Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Fouad Bajwa writes >> On 24.01.2011 09:13, Roland Perry wrote: >>>Marilia Maciel writes >>>> >>>> -          Two first days of the IGF dedicated to workshops and the >>>> two last days dedicated to main sessions, best practices fora, roundtable >>> >>> This seems to be a major structural change. Does the "UN Framework" >>> within which the meetings take place (and Markus has explained several >>> times why the main sessions are the length they are etc) allow for two >>> days without any main sessions? Although presumably there *has* to be an >>> Opening/Welcome Ceremony on the first day, whatever else is decided. >On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> We could consider reducing the number of main sessions altogether. I am not >> sure it would be a good idea to squeeze them into two days. >> >> jeanette >> >The two day proposal might not be workable but the idea to reduce the >duration of the main sessions in a given day could be a very useful >proposal because the participation in the main sessions also falls >because of interest in the workshops. > >-- Foo With respect, while I agree that a different structure might be better, I was asking if the protocol permits the running of a "UN meeting" without a "main session" in each [very strictly 3-hour] time slot. In other words, while the rest of us can have workshops to any timetable we like, the UN-organised aspect of the IGF has to be two 3hr Main sessions a day. But it's interesting how the focus of the IGF has changed from "main sessions with a few associated workshops", to a "workshop-driven conference with a few associated main sessions"; and if we can keep the total number of workshops under control, formalising this might be a useful exercise. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 25 04:19:19 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:19:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation In-Reply-To: References: <8a5vpWCrVTPNFARg@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090CB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6gWOXBCXWpPNFATP@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 01:03:55 on Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >I believe we should, as much as possible, replace physical planning >meetings by online meetings. While I share your frustrations about the cost of travel, online planning doesn't scale very well. My estimate (from having been involved in online debate in one form or another for over 20 years) is that it takes approximately 10 times as long to participate remotely, as it does to attend physical meetings. That's just from the attention required to multiple postings on diverse topics from a wider community (where in this case "wider" brings with it "much more conversation to be listened to, and responded to"). Frankly, I spend all day online (or "working from home" as it's called), but I don't think many other people have that much time, especially when Internet Governance isn't their job. >Planning meetings are very important, as they decisively shape the >agenda on the next IGF. Several documents that evaluate the IGF (like >the note by the Secretary-general) mention that the agenda of the >meeting needs to be more social and development oriented. It is easy to >understand why developmental issues are not so mainstreamed, if you >take a look at the participants of open consultations. There is a great >majority of people from developed countries, who put forward their own >legitimate concerns that may not concide with the issues faced in >developing countries. The fact that all the meetings take place in >Geneva and that developing country representatives have to deal with >scarce resources are also obstacles. > > >One example: last IGF, only 5% of the people who physically attended >were from South America. But 25% of the remote participants were from >the same region, showing that lack of resources is more significant >than lack of interest when it comes to participation. > > >Of course remote participation should continue to be improved, both in >IGF and in prep meetings. We should improve the dynamics to allow >remote participants to have more impact on discussions and equal chance >to intervene and make their voices heard. While this is not the case, I >believe that meetings that take place online are not only more >eco-friendly, they are also more efficient and they foster equality >among participants. The distance between the nodes is meaningless >online. > > >Other suggestions can be put forward to foster online coordination >throughout the year. For instance, the website could encompass a >section, in which the several stakeholders could talk among themselves. >There is no real space of dialogue among stakeholders. If such a space >existed, we could, let´s say, be discussing possible framings of NN for >the IGF with the private sector. Now we have to wait and play our cards >in the Open Consultation, with few people serving as "gatekeepers" of >the dialogue. > > >Marília > > > >On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Lee W McKnight >wrote: > Once any group has gotten acquainted/comfortable with each other, > online meetings work fine as a substitute. > > Having one planning meeting entirely online seems  quite feasible > imho and is of course more eco-friendly. > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [ > governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [ > roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:16 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation > > In message > , at > 00:31:33 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel < > mariliamaciel at gmail.com> > writes > >-          At least one of the open consultations should take place as > >an online meeting > > I think you can add to the series of Open Consultations [planning > sessions] with an additional online meeting, or enhance the remote > participation at the current series of meetings. I don't think you > could > replace one of the physical meetings - for all the planning to get > done > on time, you need the current number. > -- > Roland Perry -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 25 04:41:18 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:41:18 +0000 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] Net Neutrality Decision] In-Reply-To: References: <4D303EDB.7090806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 10:59:26 on Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >According to Ian Scales a journalist with Telecom TV, Verizon has taken FCC >to Court to challenge their decision. I am eagerly watching the FCC website >for outcomes, and I cannot authenticate if this information is correct, >however, because it has been reported, came out on the 21st but been busy >lately with a few things that I did not send it through: > >http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=47171&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 It seems to me that the focus is now moving onto - what content should be outside of an "all inclusive" package on a Smartphone. When the UK government held their 3G spectrum auction eleven years ago (which cost the industry the equivalent of around 30 Billion dollars), I was one of those who wrote that I did not think they could recoup that investment (let alone ongoing costs) by letting subscribers "watch movies on their handsets, on the way home from work" (which was one of the 'new and shiny' uses for 3G where ministers were slightly misqoted[1]), for no extra cost. While everyone probably agrees that Netflix and BBC iPlayer are huge bandwidth consumers on the local loop, I feel that Skype has been somewhat caught in the crossfire by introducing videoconferencing (where simple voice, let alone IM, uses much less bandwidth of course, although both activities abstract revenue from legacy telcos, which complicates the picture). [1] Their press release doesn't actually mention watching movies, only "music and pictures, and videoconferences" (the latter would be lower bandwidth and probably a pay-per-view experience): "3G has the potential to transform everyday life, opening up full scale, multi-media access to millions of people. 3G users will be able to surf the net, download e-mails, music and high quality pictures and hold video conferences all on the move." -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Jan 25 04:59:14 2011 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:59:14 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues References: <4D3AA947.8090608@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076FC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D3AC66F.80009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110125005442.05ff0a78@jefsey.com> Wolfgang, This makes sense. However, we have to remember that the stakeholder groups were not properly identified, and that makes the process difficult. - Regalian Domain and Private Sectors were well identified. The others were not, IMHO (Civil Society, International Organizations); and the "Internet community" is not an answer as it is only a part of the true Internet community as per RFCs and history.. - as a result: there is a missing technical equilibrium detrimentally impacting the political balance on the CS side that has not attempted, so far, to correct it in teaming up with lead users (those who have the capacity to adapt their digital ecosystem to their own needs) and @larges (those who try to compose with the de facto dominance) Please observe that the two other stakeholders groups (Govs and Industry) have structures dealing more or less with the three management layers (short-term operance, medium-term governance, and long-term adminance) while CS confines itself to Governance issues and, therefore, misses the operational and architectural knowledge, capacity and power that others have, leaving it to hackers (operance) and to the emerging IUsers community (adminance), which does not consider the sole Internet as a basis for the Information Society and therefore gets bored with the Internet only governance issues. In addition, please observe that we actually are in a non-military world war with two main battlefields: money (what is to be the new nature of money) and standardization (will the US industry be able to standardize the world, to the benefit of its e-commerce management, before it "disappears"). The "International organizations" stakeholder group could have included ISO, IETF, etc. Banks and SDOs are not present in the Internet Governance, officially. However, Banks are here through the financial issues (what happens if Internet advertising becomes less efficient?) and SDOs are here through technology. Eventually, this makes different unacknowledged but effective powers that some try to enroll. To some extent, so are hackers (private and military) who cannot "shut-down" the net but can certainly directly or indirectly dim it. I have for a long time prepared and worked for those who are slowly re-emerging now, i.e. the IUsers, the people who are able to build and take advantage from an Intelligent Use of the digital ecosystem (Internet being included). What I observe is that the few of them who have started joining forces are not very excited by the lack of capacity of CS to impose anything in any domain, as in what the UN or ICANN can do or credibly try in their own respective domain. IMHO, as long as we cannot impose our positions in the Network/Technology area (i.e. be technically independent in our own strata [Internet Use Interface]), we will be controlled by those who also control the two other technical spaces: the inner network (ISOC bodies and ICANN, with GAC) and the outer network (digital industries and governments). Without a CS umbrella/objective alliance to help them developing, IUsers will emerge more slowly (as is the case) and may overdo it when bluntly interoperating, should I say interupting (my fear is about the coming opposition between ICANN gTLD managers and Govs sponsored govTLDs). Anyway, this was determinedly prepared by ICANN by denying IDNgTLDs access to Fast Track. jfc At 14:54 22/01/2011, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Hi Parminder > >like all diplomatic documents you can read them in different ways. >The authors say that such an (intergovernmental) mechanism would >"complement" the IGF, not "sbstitute" the IGF. With other words, we >have a multistkaeholder mechanism and part of this - as a key >element in such a multiplayer multilayer mechanism -you have an >intergovernmental body which has a special responsibility for >development and public policy issues (like other ülayers in the >mechanism have a special responsibility for other elements of the >whoe diversified and decentrlized mechanism). > >Remember the Internet Governance definition adopted by the Head of >states of all UN members said that the stakeholder operate "in their >respective roles" and should share "principles, norms, rules, >decision making procedures". I read this that we have to deal with >two layers: Each stakeholder group has its own responsibility (and >has its own institutional mechanism). Governments have their >intergovernmental organisations like the GAC, ITU, UN and probably >something which will deal with the new Internet related challenges. >Other stakeholders have their mechanism (like the private sector has >ICANN, IETF, RIRs and probably also new bodies if this is needed). >On the upper layer the various stakeholders have to "share decision >making" by takling into account the "respective role". > >In practice this means that means that governments are certainly >better qualified in a multistakeholder mechanism to contribute to >the management of public policy issues while non-governmental >technical bodies are better qualified to deal with the technical >issues. However all stakeholder groups should have in their "inner >life" open, transparent and democratic procedures and have also >channels for participation of the other stakeholders. > >Wolfgang > >________________________________ > >Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder >Gesendet: Sa 22.01.2011 12:58 >An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >Cc: Ian Peter >Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues > > >Wolfgang, > >I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me >humbly submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with >IT for Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a >fact that was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA >statement. These overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new >institutional structure, listing of global network neutrality and >A2K as key global IG issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on this matter. > >Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken when you say "...the >objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can >"enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both >among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement >represents the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement to be. > >Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is >very clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet >and thus must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are >obviously ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly >that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote some passages from >the IBSA statement to show how clearly have you mis-read it. > > > > " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be > discussed among UN Member States in depth from a public policy > point of view due to the absence of an intergovernmental platform > mandated to systematically discuss them and make decisions as > appropriate. It is thus necessary for governments to be provided a > formal platform under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these > issues. Such a platform would also complement the Internet > Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder forum for discussing, > sharing experiences and networking on Internet governance." > > > " The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and > established will allow the international community to accomplish > the developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...." > > > >Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation.... > > > > "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from > all international organizations including the ITU, and should > recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the > Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international > organization or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with > Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for > the process." > > >Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as > >"...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" >their communication, coordination and collaboration both among >themselves and and with other stakeholders. " > >However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is >all what they really meant. > >Parminder > > > > > >Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > Parminder: > > IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own > organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional > development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the > open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. > > Wolfgang: > > If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover > that this is different from previous proposals for an > intergovernmental body. The proposal says very carefully that there > is a gap or missing link in the existing architecture of Internet > Governance organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body > should fill this gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms > but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about > "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or > "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an > important difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF > Consultations in 2009 to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue > by an intergovernmental negotiation process to move towards an > intergovernmental (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather > different. This is rather similar to what is considered by the > Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border > Internet Expert Group is that we recogn > ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of > governments in Internet Governance but in a way that this > intergovernmental component should be embedded into a > multistakeholder framework of commitments. The objective is not to > create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision making, > the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders > can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration > both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jan 25 07:59:42 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:59:42 -0200 Subject: [governance] HRW, the UN and "big governments" -- cowardice regarding HR? In-Reply-To: <376998.4103.qm@web28102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <376998.4103.qm@web28102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D3EC93E.5050404@cafonso.ca> >From BBC News Europe. Sorry for possible cross-postings. fraternal regards --c.a. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12272800 25 January 2011 Last updated at 03:19 GMT UN defends Ban Ki-moon against rights 'cowardice' claim HRW said Mr Ban placed "undue faith" in his persuasion skills The UN has defended its Secretary General Ban Ki-moon over accusations that he has failed to speak out over human rights issues. Mr Ban has been singled out for harsh criticism by Human Rights Watch in its annual report. The group said he had been "notably reluctant to put pressure on abusive governments". Mr Ban's office denied this, saying he used both quiet diplomacy and public pressure to promote human rights. But HRW says it wants its annual report to draw attention to "the failure of the expected champions of human rights" to defend those rights and stand up to abusive governments. While there is "nothing inherently wrong with dialogue and cooperation to promote human rights", the group says, there was a danger that it could become "a charade designed more to appease critics of complacency than to secure change". "Whether out of calculation or cowardice, many [UN Security] Council members promote dialogue and cooperation as a universal prescription without regard to whether a government has the political will to curtail its abusive behavior." The BBC's Barbara Plett at the UN says Mr Ban's style has been more discreet than that of his predecessor Kofi Annan. He has often often opted to work behind the scenes to pressure governments on human rights issues. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote The record shows he has achieved results through both quiet diplomacy and public pressure” End Quote Farhan Haq Spokesman for Ban Ki-moon But HRW says Mr Ban's "disinclination to speak out about serious human rights violators means he is often choosing to fight with one hand tied behind his back". It says that while Mr Ban has made strong comments on human rights when visiting, for example, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, he has failed to do so with Chinese officials. 'Infatuated' HRW also says Mr Ban appeared to have "placed undue faith in his professed ability to convince by private persuasion", citing his discussions with leaders including Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, Burma's military leader Than Shwe and Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Mr Ban's spokesman Farhan Haq defended the secretary general's record, saying he did speak publicly about human rights when he visited some of those countries named by HRW. "In each case he makes a strategic decision on the most effective to way to secure respect for HR [human rights] and accountability," said Mr Haq. "The record shows he has achieved results through both quiet diplomacy and public pressure." Mr Haq cited the freeing of a jailed gay couple in Malawi as one example where quiet diplomacy had proved successful. The EU also comes under fire in the report - HRW says it has "become particularly infatuated with the idea of dialogue and cooperation" and criticises foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton, "for repeatedly expressing a preference for 'quiet diplomacy' regardless of the circumstances". Meanwhile US President Barack Obama is accused of lacking his "famed eloquence" when defending human rights in bilateral contexts with China, India and Indonesia, and of failing to ensure other areas of US government "convey strong human rights messages consistently". ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 25 08:51:57 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:21:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [igf_members] HRW, the UN and "big governments" -- cowardice regarding HR? In-Reply-To: <4D3EC93E.5050404@cafonso.ca> References: <376998.4103.qm@web28102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D3EC93E.5050404@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4D3ED57D.9090803@itforchange.net> Thanks Carlos for reminding us of the unrelenting watchdog role of civil society, which should be its defining feature While there is "nothing inherently wrong with dialogue and cooperation to promote human rights", the group says, there was a danger that it could become "a charade designed more to appease critics of complacency than to secure change". Replace 'human rights' with 'public interest (or even better interests of marginalised people) in IG', and maybe there is a lesson there for IGC and the general IG civil society. Very germane to a discussion on IGF reform and of taking forward the process of enhanced cooperation. parminder Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >From BBC News Europe. Sorry for possible cross-postings. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12272800 > > 25 January 2011 Last updated at 03:19 GMT > > UN defends Ban Ki-moon against rights 'cowardice' claim > HRW said Mr Ban placed "undue faith" in his persuasion skills > > The UN has defended its Secretary General Ban Ki-moon over accusations > that he has failed to speak out over human rights issues. > > Mr Ban has been singled out for harsh criticism by Human Rights Watch in > its annual report. > > The group said he had been "notably reluctant to put pressure on abusive > governments". > > Mr Ban's office denied this, saying he used both quiet diplomacy and > public pressure to promote human rights. > > But HRW says it wants its annual report to draw attention to "the > failure of the expected champions of human rights" to defend those > rights and stand up to abusive governments. > > While there is "nothing inherently wrong with dialogue and cooperation > to promote human rights", the group says, there was a danger that it > could become "a charade designed more to appease critics of complacency > than to secure change". > > "Whether out of calculation or cowardice, many [UN Security] Council > members promote dialogue and cooperation as a universal prescription > without regard to whether a government has the political will to curtail > its abusive behavior." > > The BBC's Barbara Plett at the UN says Mr Ban's style has been more > discreet than that of his predecessor Kofi Annan. He has often often > opted to work behind the scenes to pressure governments on human rights > issues. > Continue reading the main story > “Start Quote > > The record shows he has achieved results through both quiet > diplomacy and public pressure” > > End Quote Farhan Haq Spokesman for Ban Ki-moon > > But HRW says Mr Ban's "disinclination to speak out about serious human > rights violators means he is often choosing to fight with one hand tied > behind his back". > > It says that while Mr Ban has made strong comments on human rights when > visiting, for example, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, he has failed to do > so with Chinese officials. > 'Infatuated' > > HRW also says Mr Ban appeared to have "placed undue faith in his > professed ability to convince by private persuasion", citing his > discussions with leaders including Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, > Burma's military leader Than Shwe and Sri Lankan President Mahinda > Rajapaksa. > > Mr Ban's spokesman Farhan Haq defended the secretary general's record, > saying he did speak publicly about human rights when he visited some of > those countries named by HRW. > > "In each case he makes a strategic decision on the most effective to way > to secure respect for HR [human rights] and accountability," said Mr Haq. > > "The record shows he has achieved results through both quiet diplomacy > and public pressure." > > Mr Haq cited the freeing of a jailed gay couple in Malawi as one example > where quiet diplomacy had proved successful. > > The EU also comes under fire in the report - HRW says it has "become > particularly infatuated with the idea of dialogue and cooperation" and > criticises foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton, "for repeatedly > expressing a preference for 'quiet diplomacy' regardless of the > circumstances". > > Meanwhile US President Barack Obama is accused of lacking his "famed > eloquence" when defending human rights in bilateral contexts with China, > India and Indonesia, and of failing to ensure other areas of US > government "convey strong human rights messages consistently". > > > _______________________________________________ > igf_members mailing list > igf_members at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org > > -- 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 Tue Jan 25 10:31:56 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:31:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation In-Reply-To: <6gWOXBCXWpPNFATP@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <8a5vpWCrVTPNFARg@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090CB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> ,<6gWOXBCXWpPNFATP@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090F5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Roland, I've also been involved in online planning for...ever : ( It all depends on how structured as Marila suggests. Scalability can be managed with various threshold participant numbers requiring different tools and methods. And let's not kid ourselves,the 'opportunity' to spend hours and hours engaged in planning an IGF...well I don't think we need worry about rock star kind of numbers trying to 'follow.' Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:19 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation In message , at 01:03:55 on Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >I believe we should, as much as possible, replace physical planning >meetings by online meetings. While I share your frustrations about the cost of travel, online planning doesn't scale very well. My estimate (from having been involved in online debate in one form or another for over 20 years) is that it takes approximately 10 times as long to participate remotely, as it does to attend physical meetings. That's just from the attention required to multiple postings on diverse topics from a wider community (where in this case "wider" brings with it "much more conversation to be listened to, and responded to"). Frankly, I spend all day online (or "working from home" as it's called), but I don't think many other people have that much time, especially when Internet Governance isn't their job. >Planning meetings are very important, as they decisively shape the >agenda on the next IGF. Several documents that evaluate the IGF (like >the note by the Secretary-general) mention that the agenda of the >meeting needs to be more social and development oriented. It is easy to >understand why developmental issues are not so mainstreamed, if you >take a look at the participants of open consultations. There is a great >majority of people from developed countries, who put forward their own >legitimate concerns that may not concide with the issues faced in >developing countries. The fact that all the meetings take place in >Geneva and that developing country representatives have to deal with >scarce resources are also obstacles. > > >One example: last IGF, only 5% of the people who physically attended >were from South America. But 25% of the remote participants were from >the same region, showing that lack of resources is more significant >than lack of interest when it comes to participation. > > >Of course remote participation should continue to be improved, both in >IGF and in prep meetings. We should improve the dynamics to allow >remote participants to have more impact on discussions and equal chance >to intervene and make their voices heard. While this is not the case, I >believe that meetings that take place online are not only more >eco-friendly, they are also more efficient and they foster equality >among participants. The distance between the nodes is meaningless >online. > > >Other suggestions can be put forward to foster online coordination >throughout the year. For instance, the website could encompass a >section, in which the several stakeholders could talk among themselves. >There is no real space of dialogue among stakeholders. If such a space >existed, we could, let´s say, be discussing possible framings of NN for >the IGF with the private sector. Now we have to wait and play our cards >in the Open Consultation, with few people serving as "gatekeepers" of >the dialogue. > > >Marília > > > >On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Lee W McKnight >wrote: > Once any group has gotten acquainted/comfortable with each other, > online meetings work fine as a substitute. > > Having one planning meeting entirely online seems quite feasible > imho and is of course more eco-friendly. > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [ > governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [ > roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:16 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation > > In message > , at > 00:31:33 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel < > mariliamaciel at gmail.com> > writes > >- At least one of the open consultations should take place as > >an online meeting > > I think you can add to the series of Open Consultations [planning > sessions] with an additional online meeting, or enhance the remote > participation at the current series of meetings. I don't think you > could > replace one of the physical meetings - for all the planning to get > done > on time, you need the current number. > -- > Roland Perry -- 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 Tue Jan 25 11:31:31 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:31:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090F5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <8a5vpWCrVTPNFARg@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090CB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <6gWOXBCXWpPNFATP@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090F5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090F5 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 10:31:56 on Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Lee W McKnight writes >It all depends on how structured as Marila suggests. > >Scalability can be managed with various threshold participant numbers requiring different tools and methods. The usual way it's done is by local meetings and subcommittees, then appointing representatives to go to a physical meeting to nail down all the final details. If the IGF manages to find a way to scale these processes into an online environment (for the topic of Internet Governance), the whole world can then use the same tools for discussing other completely unrelated topics. That would be a very empowering result. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 25 11:34:08 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:34:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD Q5-Financing the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+WTvKwBAuvPNFAwf@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 16:38:10 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel writes >Does anyone know if this list of donnors is updated? >http://intgovforum.org/cms/funding >Is there any more relevant source about it I believe they have an approximately annual "sponsors meeting", but there must surely be someone on this list who knows the process from the 'inside'. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Jan 25 11:48:58 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:48:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation In-Reply-To: References: <8a5vpWCrVTPNFARg@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090CB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <6gWOXBCXWpPNFATP@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090F5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090FB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Different communities have different 'usual' ways. But yeah cool new tools and old standbys like lists and conference calls can help 'layers' however defined, ie by geography or interest, or other, interact efficiently. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 11:31 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Q4-Working methods and preparation In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090F5 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 10:31:56 on Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Lee W McKnight writes >It all depends on how structured as Marila suggests. > >Scalability can be managed with various threshold participant numbers requiring different tools and methods. The usual way it's done is by local meetings and subcommittees, then appointing representatives to go to a physical meeting to nail down all the final details. If the IGF manages to find a way to scale these processes into an online environment (for the topic of Internet Governance), the whole world can then use the same tools for discussing other completely unrelated topics. That would be a very empowering result. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jan 25 11:54:35 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:54:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] CSTD Q5-Financing the forum In-Reply-To: <+WTvKwBAuvPNFAwf@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <+WTvKwBAuvPNFAwf@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: i would very much like to see who donates what to the igf, just out of curiousity, but some transparency would be nice as well. Rgds, mctim On 1/25/11, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 16:38:10 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Marilia Maciel > writes >>Does anyone know if this list of donnors is updated? >>http://intgovforum.org/cms/funding >>Is there any more relevant source about it > > I believe they have an approximately annual "sponsors meeting", but > there must surely be someone on this list who knows the process from the > 'inside'. > -- > 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 > > -- Sent from my mobile device Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Tue Jan 25 12:47:36 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:47:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] WGIGF inputs In-Reply-To: <4D3E7ABD.2000708@itforchange.net> References: <4D3E7ABD.2000708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, As an early supporter of these ideas, I would like to hightlight the following from Parminder's mail: The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically with a 'view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself is an important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural improvements. Those intersections between a) IGF and the broader dialogue and, b) IGF and enhanced cooperation need to be designed. The IGF will be needed as an agora, a place for discussion among all stakeholders without negotiations, in the Internet Governance ecosystem. One way to strengthen its relationships with decision taking entities in the Internet Governance Ecosystem is through its results: e.g. report, messages, etc. This is one part of the equation. The other part of the equation will be to have a way of reviewing if messages, report, etc. had been taken into account in other entities. IGF is an example of enhanced cooperation, at least in having everybody at the same level. In other settings, in spite of Westphalia, there are States more equal than others. Additionally, other entities of the IG ecosystem could take advantage of the IGF by communicating to the IGF community their results, methods of work, etc which may also be a way of observing if the WSIS IG principles are evolving in the IG ecosystem. The two processes may be complementary as the resolution says. For once, the non-negotiating nature of the IGF is not going to change. And, on the other hand, EC, as focused by the Tunis Agenda, may evolve towards more formal arrangements. Best, Miguel On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > Excuse me to start a new thread in addition to the separate ones based on > the different questions from the *draft* structure sent out for the WGIGF > report. The reason for this is that while we discuss the details, we should > focus on the fact that this is a much higher level exercise for seeking > possible structural reforms in the IGF, beyond the kind of things that can > be done through evolutionary practices guided by the MAG. The WGIGF report > will be submitted to the UN GA which is expected to take an appropriate > decision on what structural improvements are needed in the IGF. > > A good way to begin at such foundational times is to look at the 'why' of > the whole this. Why does the IGF exist and what do we want from it. Such an > examination can then guide us to looking the the necessary structural > changes. > > The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically with a > 'view to linking it to the broader > dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's > complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself is an > important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural improvements. The > there is the WSIS mandate of the IGF against which we must check its present > performance and look at required improvements. Added to it are the our own > civil society interests of what 'change we want to see happen' and explore > how IGF improvements can contribute to that basic objective. > > How we (my organisation and the CS networks we work with) relate to the IGF > is vis a vis our concern that the Internet is one of the most potent social > forces today, and at present its development may to a good extent be > determined by the interests of those who are already most powerful. We > therefore look at every opportunity to democratise the 'control' over the > directions that Internet's development takes. In this regard not only > greater participation is necessary but actual forums where the required > public interest policy making can take place are needed. The main focus here > is global forums, because that is the context we are in here, and in any > case the Internet is inherently global, and most of the decisions that shape > the Internet are global in their impact. > > We are not satisfied with IGF being just another global conference on IG > issues, which is something any private actor could as well hold. Granted > that IGF is open to anyone (who has the necessary funds) and that its agenda > and structure is shaped by a multistakeholder group, which is a big plus. > However, we need to judge it on its impact of real people's lives, which is > mediated through its impact on global Internet related policies (we can > discuss why in this context global is the primary focus). We dont judge > IGF's performance too well on this count, and our efforts towards IGF > improvement will be focused on this aspect on how it can have some to real > global Internet policy impact. > > It is necessary that IGC discusses and figures out what is its real intent/ > objective in seeking IGF reform, wherefrom can flow concrete proposals for > reform. But lets focus more on larger structural things - things like how > can IGF's policy issues related outcomes be shaped and routed to appropriate > places and the what kind of funding is appropriate for the IGF. Once we have > our views on these critical issues, most other things become so much easier > to sort out. > > My fear is that if we spend too much time too early in looking at the > details of what may be by comparison lesser issues, we will lose what may be > the last opportunity to make structural reforms in the IGF. We may end up > with an IGF with not much recognizable difference from the IGF we have > today. And my judgment is that most actors in developing countries are not > at all happy for the IGF to continue largely as it is today for the reasons > discussed earlier. > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Tue Jan 25 13:14:34 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:14:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations Message-ID: Dear all, A couple of recommendations to suggest: Regarding reporting: 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. Another recommendation: A small, pertinent and high impact recommendation from the WG on IGF improvement, although a little bit out of topic, could be: - 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. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Jan 25 13:32:04 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:32:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361090FF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> agreed ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine [miguel.alcaine at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 1:14 PM To: Marilia Maciel; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations Dear all, A couple of recommendations to suggest: Regarding reporting: 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. Another recommendation: A small, pertinent and high impact recommendation from the WG on IGF improvement, although a little bit out of topic, could be: - 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. Best, Miguel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 25 17:04:50 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:04:50 -0200 Subject: [governance] WGIGF inputs In-Reply-To: References: <4D3E7ABD.2000708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I agree very much with your approach, to try to think about the broader picture at the same time that we try to come out with concrete suggestions under the several topics in the draft. No doubt that this broad analysis will help to keep us on track, be coherent and avoid zooming our suggestions too much in a way that we get lost in details. The political and institutional scenario in which the IGF is included – MDG, WSIS, CSTD – as well as the text of the AG resolution that renews the mandate, shows that one of the fundamental concerns that underpins this Internet governance matrix in UN is promoting development. And development needs to be sustained by public policy. One of the most important shortcomings when we think about the IGF is that it did not satisfactorily fulfill the role of being a facilitator for policy development. Improving the IGF dynamics in a way that is can provide multistakeholder input for policy development should be one of main goals in our current exercise. There are many unexplored links between the IGF and other UN bodies (including the CSTD) that already have a role in policy development. And if an enhanced cooperation mechanism gets implemented, the IGF needs to be deeply linked with it as well. We need to define exactly what it means to be “complementary” to enhanced cooperation. This may be explored in question 7. One conclusion of the above is that the IGF needs to produce outcomes fit for policy development, which lead us to the discussion of question number 3. Also, the Secretariat needs to be strengthened and the role of the MAG needs to be reviewed, so it can meaningfully assist on the process of transforming the rough summary of discussions into something that can orient the development of policy, which leads us to the discussion of question 6. Marília On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear all, > > As an early supporter of these ideas, I would like to hightlight the > following from Parminder's mail: > > > The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically with a > 'view to linking it to the broader > dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's > complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself is an > important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural improvements. > > Those intersections between a) IGF and the broader dialogue and, b) IGF and > enhanced cooperation need to be designed. > > The IGF will be needed as an agora, a place for discussion among all > stakeholders without negotiations, in the Internet Governance ecosystem. One > way to strengthen its relationships with decision taking entities in the > Internet Governance Ecosystem is through its results: e.g. report, messages, > etc. This is one part of the equation. The other part of the equation will > be to have a way of reviewing if messages, report, etc. had been taken into > account in other entities. > > IGF is an example of enhanced cooperation, at least in having everybody at > the same level. In other settings, in spite of Westphalia, there are States > more equal than others. Additionally, other entities of the IG ecosystem > could take advantage of the IGF by communicating to the IGF community their > results, methods of work, etc which may also be a way of observing if the > WSIS IG principles are evolving in the IG ecosystem. > > The two processes may be complementary as the resolution says. For once, > the non-negotiating nature of the IGF is not going to change. And, on the > other hand, EC, as focused by the Tunis Agenda, may evolve towards more > formal arrangements. > > Best, > > Miguel > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, parminder wrote: > >> Dear All >> >> Excuse me to start a new thread in addition to the separate ones based on >> the different questions from the *draft* structure sent out for the WGIGF >> report. The reason for this is that while we discuss the details, we should >> focus on the fact that this is a much higher level exercise for seeking >> possible structural reforms in the IGF, beyond the kind of things that can >> be done through evolutionary practices guided by the MAG. The WGIGF report >> will be submitted to the UN GA which is expected to take an appropriate >> decision on what structural improvements are needed in the IGF. >> >> A good way to begin at such foundational times is to look at the 'why' of >> the whole this. Why does the IGF exist and what do we want from it. Such an >> examination can then guide us to looking the the necessary structural >> changes. >> >> The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically with a >> 'view to linking it to the broader >> dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's >> complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself is an >> important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural improvements. The >> there is the WSIS mandate of the IGF against which we must check its present >> performance and look at required improvements. Added to it are the our own >> civil society interests of what 'change we want to see happen' and explore >> how IGF improvements can contribute to that basic objective. >> >> How we (my organisation and the CS networks we work with) relate to the >> IGF is vis a vis our concern that the Internet is one of the most potent >> social forces today, and at present its development may to a good extent be >> determined by the interests of those who are already most powerful. We >> therefore look at every opportunity to democratise the 'control' over the >> directions that Internet's development takes. In this regard not only >> greater participation is necessary but actual forums where the required >> public interest policy making can take place are needed. The main focus here >> is global forums, because that is the context we are in here, and in any >> case the Internet is inherently global, and most of the decisions that shape >> the Internet are global in their impact. >> >> We are not satisfied with IGF being just another global conference on IG >> issues, which is something any private actor could as well hold. Granted >> that IGF is open to anyone (who has the necessary funds) and that its agenda >> and structure is shaped by a multistakeholder group, which is a big plus. >> However, we need to judge it on its impact of real people's lives, which is >> mediated through its impact on global Internet related policies (we can >> discuss why in this context global is the primary focus). We dont judge >> IGF's performance too well on this count, and our efforts towards IGF >> improvement will be focused on this aspect on how it can have some to real >> global Internet policy impact. >> >> It is necessary that IGC discusses and figures out what is its real >> intent/ objective in seeking IGF reform, wherefrom can flow concrete >> proposals for reform. But lets focus more on larger structural things - >> things like how can IGF's policy issues related outcomes be shaped and >> routed to appropriate places and the what kind of funding is appropriate for >> the IGF. Once we have our views on these critical issues, most other things >> become so much easier to sort out. >> >> My fear is that if we spend too much time too early in looking at the >> details of what may be by comparison lesser issues, we will lose what may be >> the last opportunity to make structural reforms in the IGF. We may end up >> with an IGF with not much recognizable difference from the IGF we have >> today. And my judgment is that most actors in developing countries are not >> at all happy for the IGF to continue largely as it is today for the reasons >> discussed earlier. >> >> 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 > > > -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 25 20:37:08 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:37:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi Message-ID: Without wanting to distract attention from Marilia's important threads on the CSTD, here is a revised version of the statement on themes for Nairobi. I think we can see the merits of both "open Internet" and "network neutrality", so I think the only way to satisfy everyone is to use both phrases, which I now have. I've also added the fourth theme on A2K, since there seems to be a feeling that we should do that; I used Ian's more succinct wording which is in line with the others. In case anyone thinks that we should correspondingly de-emphasise A2K in the other themes let me know - but I haven't touched them for now. This can go to a consensus call on the weekend if everyone is happy now. 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. With the explosion of Internet usage in the developing world mainly occurring on mobile networks, it is particularly important to consider how the ideal of open Internet will apply in the mobile space. Should different rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks? If so, how can communications rights and Access to Knowledge be preserved for those users, in order to avoid an ongoing information divide? In proposing this topic for the Nairobi IGF, we want to particularly ensure that it does not shy away from areas of disagreement. Only by including panelists with divergent views on this topic can the very real and practical Internet governance disputes in this area be adequately and productively aired. 2. Cross border Issues One of the oldest and thorniest issues for Internet governance concerns the cross-border effects of national laws, policies, enforcement practices, and the actions of intermediaries, on those who have had no representation in the making of those laws, policies, etc. Current examples include actions taken by governments and intermediaries against Wikileaks, and the “seizure” of domain names alleged to be connected with content piracy. The process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet policy issues could lead to new proposals that would address some of these cross-border anomalies and deficits. But at this stage of that process, there is little shared understanding of the approach that should be taken. This session will look at the philosophical underpinnings and foundations that need to emerge in a world where something like the Internet transcends boundaries and national jurisdictions. Insights produced through this session may feed into the enhanced coperation process. Once again, it will be important for discussion of this topic to involve stakeholders with diverging views, discussing concrete issues that demand eventual resolution. 3. Development agenda for Internet governance Internet governance is not a neutral activity. All Internet governance decisions have implications for development, though in some cases these implications may be less obvious than in others, and they are easily overlooked. An example is the way in which decisions about such diverse issues as new global top level domains (gTLDs), Unicode, IP enforcement, filtering and censorship, may have an adverse and sometimes unforeseen impact on Access to Knowledge in the developing world. We propose a main session theme on developing a development agenda for Internet governance, building on the similar session in Vilnius. This session will help to draw out areas of Internet governance which have significant impacts on development, and to suggest how development concerns can be mainstreamed in Internet governance institutions that have responsibility in these areas. 4. Access to knowledge Access to knowledge is part of the great promise of the Internet in aiding development, education and culture both within and between countries. However, new international standards require countries to increase the level and territorial extent of intellectual property rights. This trend has developmental impacts, as countries become less free to support open platforms for learning, innovating, sharing and producing, while being required to raise the amount spent on knowledge-based inputs. Rather than substantive law harmonization, international IP norm-setting is now promoting an enforcement agenda, an increasingly punitive response to counterfeiting and piracy now being discussed in many national and international institutions. Often this puts Internet Service Providers in the position of an “Internet police”, with the role to oversight internet users. Governance of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply intertwined in the context of an information society. The debate of this theme in a multistakeholder forum, such as the IGF, would help to reach a more round understanding about the impacts of this agenda on issues such as access to knowledge, and the ability to innovate online. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Jan 25 21:39:29 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:39:29 +0500 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While we seek consensus on finalization of this statement, I would also like to put forward the need to suggest sub-topics and certain details to these sub-topics so that they can be deliberated at the MAG meeting. The MAG requires topics to be discussed and/or debated before seeking consensus from members to be finalized. If that groundwork is available, it would add great value to this effort and achieving some significant results. -- Fouad On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Without wanting to distract attention from Marilia's important threads on > the CSTD, here is a revised version of the statement on themes for Nairobi. >  I think we can see the merits of both "open Internet"  and "network > neutrality", so I think the only way to satisfy everyone is to use both > phrases, which I now have.  I've also added the fourth theme on A2K, since > there seems to be a feeling that we should do that; I used Ian's more > succinct wording which is in line with the others.  In case anyone thinks > that we should correspondingly de-emphasise A2K in the other themes let me > know - but I haven't touched them for now. > This can go to a consensus call on the weekend if everyone is happy now. > 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. > > With the explosion of Internet usage in the developing world mainly > occurring on mobile networks, it is particularly important to consider how > the ideal of open Internet will apply in the mobile space.  Should different > rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks?  If so, how can > communications rights and Access to Knowledge be preserved for those > users, in order to avoid an ongoing information divide? > > In proposing this topic for the Nairobi IGF, we want to particularly ensure > that it does not shy away from areas of disagreement.  Only by including > panelists with divergent views on this topic can the very real and practical > Internet governance disputes in this area be adequately and productively > aired. > > 2. Cross border Issues > One of the oldest and thorniest issues for Internet governance concerns the > cross-border effects of national laws, policies, enforcement practices, and > the actions of intermediaries, on those who have had no representation in > the making of those laws, policies, etc.  Current examples include actions > taken by governments and intermediaries against Wikileaks, and the “seizure” > of domain names alleged to be connected with content piracy. > > The process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet policy issues could > lead to new proposals that would address some of these cross-border > anomalies and deficits.  But at this stage of that process, there is little > shared understanding of the approach that should be taken.  This session > will look at the philosophical underpinnings and foundations that need > to emerge in a world where something like the Internet transcends boundaries > and national jurisdictions.  Insights produced through this session may feed > into the enhanced coperation process. > > Once again, it will be important for discussion of this topic to involve > stakeholders with diverging views, discussing concrete issues that demand > eventual resolution. > > 3. Development agenda for Internet governance > Internet governance is not a neutral activity. All Internet governance > decisions have implications for development, though in some cases these > implications may be less obvious than in others, and they are easily > overlooked. > > An example is the way in which decisions about such diverse issues as new > global top level domains (gTLDs), Unicode, IP enforcement, filtering and > censorship, may have an adverse and sometimes unforeseen impact on Access to > Knowledge in the developing world. > > We propose a main session theme on developing a development agenda for > Internet governance, building on the similar session in Vilnius.  This > session will help to draw out areas of Internet governance which have > significant impacts on development, and to suggest how development concerns > can be mainstreamed in Internet governance institutions that > have responsibility in these areas. > 4. Access to knowledge > Access to knowledge is part of the great promise of the Internet in aiding > development, education and culture both within and between countries. > > However, new  international standards require countries to increase the > level and  territorial extent of intellectual property rights. This trend > has  developmental impacts, as countries become less free to support open > platforms  for learning, innovating, sharing and producing, while > being required to raise  the amount spent on knowledge-based inputs. > > Rather than substantive law harmonization, international IP norm-setting is >  now promoting an enforcement agenda, an increasingly punitive response to >  counterfeiting and piracy now being discussed in many national and >  international institutions. Often this puts  Internet Service Providers in > the position of an “Internet police”, with the role to oversight  internet > users. > > Governance  of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply intertwined > in the context  of an information society. The debate of this theme in a > multistakeholder  forum, such as the IGF, would help to reach a more round > understanding about  the impacts of this agenda on  issues such as access to > knowledge, and the ability to innovate online. > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers > CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong > Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer > groups from around the world > for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to > consumers. Register now! > http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress > Twitter #CICongress > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jan 26 01:17:25 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:17:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] WGIGF inputs In-Reply-To: <4D3E7ABD.2000708@itforchange.net> References: <4D3E7ABD.2000708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1296022645.30689.43.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 12:54 +0530, parminder wrote: > Excuse me to start a new thread in addition to the separate ones based > on the different questions from the *draft* structure sent out for the > WGIGF report. The reason for this is that while we discuss the > details, we should focus on the fact that this is a much higher level > exercise for seeking possible structural reforms in the IGF I too felt that the WGIGF was much too limiting, and revealed a not particularly visionary ambition for the IGF. I hope that you and the other CSTD delegates can make some noise about this before it becomes too late. It is very easy for agenda-setters to determine substantive outcomes by default. This happened with the IGF back in 2006. > It is necessary that IGC discusses and figures out what is its real > intent/ objective in seeking IGF reform, wherefrom can flow concrete > proposals for reform. But lets focus more on larger structural things > - things like how can IGF's policy issues related outcomes be shaped > and routed to appropriate places and the what kind of funding is > appropriate for the IGF. Once we have our views on these critical > issues, most other things become so much easier to sort out. My thoughts (coordinator hat off), which you and the other CSTD delegates can take or leave, are that the MAG needs to be split up into stakeholder councils, one of which would be purely intergovernmental. Decisions could only be made by the MAG, by rough consensus, sitting as a plenary body that includes all the stakeholder councils. However, the councils would individually have the power of veto over any decision. This structure is called consociation, and it is used to share power between stakeholder groups between which deep divides exist. That remains the case between governments and non-governmental stakeholders; we can now make no mistake about that. Whilst it may seem a corruption of the ideals of multi-stakeholderism, the simple fact is that governments will not allow give any power to a multi-stakeholder process unless they have a sandbox of their own. If there is to be such a sandbox, then let us at least make it subject to the accountability of being part of a larger multi-stakeholder framework: the new MAG. The good thing about proposing this at the same time as the enhanced cooperation discussions are going on, is that it works together with that very nicely. The role of the stakeholder councils and the new MAG need not be limited to the IGF. They can also have an independent role in Internet Governance. The IGF would just be one of the activities that they oversee. So by doing this, we get "enhanced cooperation" for free. A short and jargon-free paper explaining these thoughts further was distributed by the IGP a few years ago and is available at http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf. For a long and jargon-laden version there is always chapter 6 of my book at http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC. -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jan 26 03:11:16 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:11:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5EqOemCkc9PNFAQo@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 09:37:08 on Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm writes >With the explosion of Internet usage in the developing world mainly >occurring on mobile networks, it is particularly important to consider >how the ideal of open Internet will apply in the mobile space.  Should >different rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks? We need an understanding that a "mobile network" is one where the final connection to the user is by "mobile phone technology", because from the cellsite to the wider Internet might be entirely wires (I include optical fibre in the definition of 'wires'). Conversely, some networks where the delivery to the premises is by wire, might be connected to the Internet by satellite. In all these cases there is probably an identical "rule": You have a monthly bandwidth cap. My wired Internet at home is capped at 50GB a month, and at the other extreme my mobile phone allows "unlimited"[1] web browsing up to a 25MB a day. I'd be interested to hear from people with experience of satellite access, what their typical daily/monthly caps might be - or is it completely metered? On the other hand, these different technologies may all have other "rules" like 'No VoIP', which can easily be about protection of legacy revenue streams[2] than network capacity (it eats about 1MB a minute, perhaps; but much more for a video call). Leaving aside 'grey downloads' via Bittorrent/P2P for a moment, what other protocols have people found being "ruled-out" in their various localities? [1] A particularly inappropriate use of the term. While it may represent 1,000 emails (not really "web" access is it?) you'll soon use that up with Google Maps, let alone YouTube. [2] And other genuine public policy issues, such as the ability of the authorities to do wiretaps, and understanding how to locate a subscriber who has called the emergency rescue services. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 26 03:27:02 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:57:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGIGF inputs - Outcomes and global policy impact In-Reply-To: References: <4D3E7ABD.2000708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D3FDAD6.40800@itforchange.net> Taking Miguel's ideas forward, I think one main, the main, issue in IGF reform is in terms of its outcomes vis a vis strong impact on global Internet policies. Now, if can agree to a few basics here, that makes the ground to move forward. Can we agree that it is the public agora for global Internet policies. And in as far as an agora is useful only if there is someone - in charge of making actual policies listening and following up, the key issues are - (1) how to obtain/ frame global policy related outcomes from the IGF, (2) how to effectively communicate them to the spaces/ forums/ bodies etc that should and would make actual policies, and (3) how to 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. Theoritically all this may be quite well but if we have to be able to come up with the really needed 'correctives' to the IGF, we need to get down to practical historical details of what actually has been happening here. Like any effective agora, IGF was supposed to take up a sincere debate on issues of most pressing (and also long term) importance to the *people*, and come out with some views on these issues, to be then followed up by policy making levels. Lets try and look back as to what happened on the ground at the IGFs in this regard. I am sorry, here some key actors may not get seen in too good a light, but we should accept it rather than blaming me for 'exclusionary politics' , in the same manner that many developing country governments did not get seen in good light on the MSism issue so hotly and forcefully discussed on this list last month. To take one illustrative example. At WSIS, US's untenable unilateral political control over some critical internet resources (CIRs) was the hottest IG issue. Of course it is a legitimate issue. IGF's first job therefore should have been to openly and sincerely discuss this issue - and look at why it is untenable, what is the world's opinion on it, how ITU however may not be the right option, why any UN body may or may not have its own problems, whether a new world body with UN/ Red Cross type special host agreements should be floated, or whether the best way forward was for the US to gradually dilute its controls.......... But what did the IGF do about it. I hope everyone knows, this is recent history. There were bloody fights to even get the CIR subject on the agenda for a couple of years. and once it did come to the agenda, some key 'stakeholders' have used all their resources and craftiness to not get any sincere discussion going on this subject. (See for instance Milton's IGP blog on the insipid discussions on the subject at the Vilnius IGF). If there has at all been any movement on the front of US control of ICANN in form of FoC agreement (whose usefulness remains in great doubt) it had nothing to do with any discussions at the IGF. When in fact IGF should have been discussing all possible options, and US gov under some obligations to respond to these. Now, I dont think the ICANN question is the most imp IG issue, but the above is an illustrative example. The present structure, and excuse me to be direct about it, the role of the majority of non-gov stakeholders is somehow almost always directed towards not getting the most key public policies issues on the agenda and and having a sincere discussion from public interest point of view on it. I am ready to hear anyone here dispute this proposition with proofs. Is it then surprising that most people seriously bothered about global Internet policy issues have lost interest in the IGF. There is a Council of Europe conference coming up in April 2011 on IG, which I see focussed point blank on the most key global IG issues today. Why have we not been discussing those issues at the IGF? Who - what actors and what structures - are responsible for it? We need to be able to place our finger on this structural defect in the IGF, and try to remedy. And if CS will not discuss these most important issues openly, who will? My opinion is, it is not the developing country govs (the easily villianised) that are responsible for the failures of the IGF, the first real MS experiment in global governance, it is the 'multi-stakeholders' themselves (I think the readers can easily identify which stakeholders). So rather than looking for enemies outsides, lets see how to exorcise the ghosts within our much vaunted MS system. How to make sure that non-gov stakeholders go to the table with sincere purpose of making progress in terms of global Internet policies with the real interest of the global public, of the people of the world, in mind. Who these public interest stakeholders can be? How to ensure that the hierarchy between wider public interest (realizing which is the key objective) and narrow private interests is ensured in the IGF structure. Brazilians have an excellent MS system which we can try to use for the global platforms as well. It is as closely aligned to broader public interest as it can get I think, though of course there must be areas of improvement there as well. So while we interrogate state power and all other things, lets interrogate MSism as well. Our ultimate interest has to be global public Interest, and not narrow self-serving institutional forms, which we cling to without introspection about the realtionship of these forms to the ultimate objective. In any case , more to the subject, lets see how we can ensure that the most pressing global IG issues can be picked by the IGF every year, (making sure that all possibility of resistance to this required activity is structurally closed) and a sincere focused and outcome oriented discussion with a view to 'real change' can take place. If we can have this, outcome structuring wont be difficult. If we dont ensure this, any kind of new structures wont get any outcomes. Parminder Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear all, > > As an early supporter of these ideas, I would like to hightlight the > following from Parminder's mail: > > The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically > with a 'view to linking it to the broader > dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's > complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself is > an important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural improvements. > > Those intersections between a) IGF and the broader dialogue and, b) > IGF and enhanced cooperation need to be designed. > > The IGF will be needed as an agora, a place for discussion among all > stakeholders without negotiations, in the Internet Governance > ecosystem. One way to strengthen its relationships with decision > taking entities in the Internet Governance Ecosystem is through its > results: e.g. report, messages, etc. This is one part of the equation. > The other part of the equation will be to have a way of reviewing if > messages, report, etc. had been taken into account in other entities. > > IGF is an example of enhanced cooperation, at least in having > everybody at the same level. In other settings, in spite of > Westphalia, there are States more equal than others. Additionally, > other entities of the IG ecosystem could take advantage of the IGF by > communicating to the IGF community their results, methods of work, etc > which may also be a way of observing if the WSIS IG principles are > evolving in the IG ecosystem. > > The two processes may be complementary as the resolution says. For > once, the non-negotiating nature of the IGF is not going to change. > And, on the other hand, EC, as focused by the Tunis Agenda, may evolve > towards more formal arrangements. > > Best, > > Miguel > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Dear All > > Excuse me to start a new thread in addition to the separate ones > based on the different questions from the *draft* structure sent > out for the WGIGF report. The reason for this is that while we > discuss the details, we should focus on the fact that this is a > much higher level exercise for seeking possible structural reforms > in the IGF, beyond the kind of things that can be done through > evolutionary practices guided by the MAG. The WGIGF report will be > submitted to the UN GA which is expected to take an appropriate > decision on what structural improvements are needed in the IGF. > > A good way to begin at such foundational times is to look at the > 'why' of the whole this. Why does the IGF exist and what do we > want from it. Such an examination can then guide us to looking the > the necessary structural changes. > > The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically > with a 'view to linking it to the broader > dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's > complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself > is an important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural > improvements. The there is the WSIS mandate of the IGF against > which we must check its present performance and look at required > improvements. Added to it are the our own civil society interests > of what 'change we want to see happen' and explore how IGF > improvements can contribute to that basic objective. > > How we (my organisation and the CS networks we work with) relate > to the IGF is vis a vis our concern that the Internet is one of > the most potent social forces today, and at present its > development may to a good extent be determined by the interests of > those who are already most powerful. We therefore look at every > opportunity to democratise the 'control' over the directions that > Internet's development takes. In this regard not only greater > participation is necessary but actual forums where the required > public interest policy making can take place are needed. The main > focus here is global forums, because that is the context we are in > here, and in any case the Internet is inherently global, and most > of the decisions that shape the Internet are global in their impact. > > We are not satisfied with IGF being just another global conference > on IG issues, which is something any private actor could as well > hold. Granted that IGF is open to anyone (who has the necessary > funds) and that its agenda and structure is shaped by a > multistakeholder group, which is a big plus. However, we need to > judge it on its impact of real people's lives, which is mediated > through its impact on global Internet related policies (we can > discuss why in this context global is the primary focus). We dont > judge IGF's performance too well on this count, and our efforts > towards IGF improvement will be focused on this aspect on how it > can have some to real global Internet policy impact. > > It is necessary that IGC discusses and figures out what is its > real intent/ objective in seeking IGF reform, wherefrom can flow > concrete proposals for reform. But lets focus more on larger > structural things - things like how can IGF's policy issues > related outcomes be shaped and routed to appropriate places and > the what kind of funding is appropriate for the IGF. Once we have > our views on these critical issues, most other things become so > much easier to sort out. > > My fear is that if we spend too much time too early in looking at > the details of what may be by comparison lesser issues, we will > lose what may be the last opportunity to make structural reforms > in the IGF. We may end up with an IGF with not much recognizable > difference from the IGF we have today. And my judgment is that > most actors in developing countries are not at all happy for the > IGF to continue largely as it is today for the reasons discussed > earlier. > > 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 > > > -- 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 Jan 26 03:31:09 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:01:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear all, > > A couple of recommendations to suggest: > > Regarding reporting: > > 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. Agreed. Though it should not merely be a copy of the present kind of report that goes to the DESA. IT should be substantive, laying out the key public policy issues chosen were discussions, the outcomes, and proposed follow ups. > > Another recommendation: A small, pertinent and high impact > recommendation from the WG on IGF improvement, although a little bit > out of topic, could be: > > - 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. Sure. However, it would have been much easier if developed nations, as well as private and technical sectors, had agreed to setting up a new UN ECOSOC Commission on Information Society for WSIS follow up as was suggested at the fag end of the WSIS. Parminder > > Best, > > Miguel -- 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 Jan 26 03:35:32 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:05:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGIGF inputs In-Reply-To: References: <4D3E7ABD.2000708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D3FDCD4.2030009@itforchange.net> Hi Marilia "One of the most important shortcomings when we think about the IGF is that it did not satisfactorily fulfill the role of being a facilitator for policy development. Improving the IGF dynamics in a way that is can provide multistakeholder input for policy development should be one of main goals in our current exercise." Completely agree. And this is the main subject of the email I just sent out. Maybe just a little too much steeped in a historical analysis of what has been happening at the IGF and why. However, I think these practical details are important if we are to have any real hope of real improvements. Also, to respond to the rest of your email, I have no doubt that once our thinking is informed by the larger issues, it directly connects to responses to the specific sections under the present draft structure. Parminder Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > > > I agree very much with your approach, to try to think about the > broader picture at the same time that we try to come out with concrete > suggestions under the several topics in the draft. No doubt that this > broad analysis will help to keep us on track, be coherent and avoid > zooming our suggestions too much in a way that we get lost in details. > > > > The political and institutional scenario in which the IGF is included > – MDG, WSIS, CSTD – as well as the text of the AG resolution that > renews the mandate, shows that one of the fundamental concerns that > underpins this Internet governance matrix in UN is promoting > development. And development needs to be sustained by public policy. > > > > One of the most important shortcomings when we think about the IGF is > that it did not satisfactorily fulfill the role of being a facilitator > for policy development. Improving the IGF dynamics in a way that is > can provide multistakeholder input for policy development should be > one of main goals in our current exercise. There are many unexplored > links between the IGF and other UN bodies (including the CSTD) that > already have a role in policy development. And if an enhanced > cooperation mechanism gets implemented, the IGF needs to be deeply > linked with it as well. We need to define exactly what it means to be > “complementary” to enhanced cooperation. This may be explored in > question 7. > > > > One conclusion of the above is that the IGF needs to produce outcomes > fit for policy development, which lead us to the discussion of > question number 3. Also, the Secretariat needs to be strengthened and > the role of the MAG needs to be reviewed, so it can meaningfully > assist on the process of transforming the rough summary of discussions > into something that can orient the development of policy, which leads > us to the discussion of question 6. > > > > Marília > > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Miguel Alcaine > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > As an early supporter of these ideas, I would like to hightlight > the following from Parminder's mail: > > > The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements specifically > with a 'view to linking it to the broader > dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions IGF's > complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, which itself > is an important issue to keep in mind for proposing structural > improvements. > > Those intersections between a) IGF and the broader dialogue and, > b) IGF and enhanced cooperation need to be designed. > > The IGF will be needed as an agora, a place for discussion among > all stakeholders without negotiations, in the Internet Governance > ecosystem. One way to strengthen its relationships with decision > taking entities in the Internet Governance Ecosystem is through > its results: e.g. report, messages, etc. This is one part of the > equation. The other part of the equation will be to have a way of > reviewing if messages, report, etc. had been taken into account in > other entities. > > IGF is an example of enhanced cooperation, at least in having > everybody at the same level. In other settings, in spite of > Westphalia, there are States more equal than others. Additionally, > other entities of the IG ecosystem could take advantage of the IGF > by communicating to the IGF community their results, methods of > work, etc which may also be a way of observing if the WSIS IG > principles are evolving in the IG ecosystem. > > The two processes may be complementary as the resolution says. For > once, the non-negotiating nature of the IGF is not going to > change. And, on the other hand, EC, as focused by the Tunis > Agenda, may evolve towards more formal arrangements. > > Best, > > Miguel > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:24 AM, parminder > > wrote: > > Dear All > > Excuse me to start a new thread in addition to the separate > ones based on the different questions from the *draft* > structure sent out for the WGIGF report. The reason for this > is that while we discuss the details, we should focus on the > fact that this is a much higher level exercise for seeking > possible structural reforms in the IGF, beyond the kind of > things that can be done through evolutionary practices guided > by the MAG. The WGIGF report will be submitted to the UN GA > which is expected to take an appropriate decision on what > structural improvements are needed in the IGF. > > A good way to begin at such foundational times is to look at > the 'why' of the whole this. Why does the IGF exist and what > do we want from it. Such an examination can then guide us to > looking the the necessary structural changes. > > The UN GA resolution for instance sought improvements > specifically with a 'view to linking it to the broader > dialogue on global Internet governance', It also mentions > IGF's complementarity to the enhanced cooperation process, > which itself is an important issue to keep in mind for > proposing structural improvements. The there is the WSIS > mandate of the IGF against which we must check its present > performance and look at required improvements. Added to it are > the our own civil society interests of what 'change we want to > see happen' and explore how IGF improvements can contribute to > that basic objective. > > How we (my organisation and the CS networks we work with) > relate to the IGF is vis a vis our concern that the Internet > is one of the most potent social forces today, and at present > its development may to a good extent be determined by the > interests of those who are already most powerful. We therefore > look at every opportunity to democratise the 'control' over > the directions that Internet's development takes. In this > regard not only greater participation is necessary but actual > forums where the required public interest policy making can > take place are needed. The main focus here is global forums, > because that is the context we are in here, and in any case > the Internet is inherently global, and most of the decisions > that shape the Internet are global in their impact. > > We are not satisfied with IGF being just another global > conference on IG issues, which is something any private actor > could as well hold. Granted that IGF is open to anyone (who > has the necessary funds) and that its agenda and structure is > shaped by a multistakeholder group, which is a big plus. > However, we need to judge it on its impact of real people's > lives, which is mediated through its impact on global Internet > related policies (we can discuss why in this context global is > the primary focus). We dont judge IGF's performance too well > on this count, and our efforts towards IGF improvement will be > focused on this aspect on how it can have some to real global > Internet policy impact. > > It is necessary that IGC discusses and figures out what is its > real intent/ objective in seeking IGF reform, wherefrom can > flow concrete proposals for reform. But lets focus more on > larger structural things - things like how can IGF's policy > issues related outcomes be shaped and routed to appropriate > places and the what kind of funding is appropriate for the > IGF. Once we have our views on these critical issues, most > other things become so much easier to sort out. > > My fear is that if we spend too much time too early in looking > at the details of what may be by comparison lesser issues, we > will lose what may be the last opportunity to make structural > reforms in the IGF. We may end up with an IGF with not much > recognizable difference from the IGF we have today. And my > judgment is that most actors in developing countries are not > at all happy for the IGF to continue largely as it is today > for the reasons discussed earlier. > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jan 26 05:53:59 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:53:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4D3FDBCD.7080102 at itforchange.net>, at 14:01:09 on Wed, 26 Jan 2011, parminder writes >>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. >Agreed. Though it should not merely be a copy of the present kind of >report that goes to the DESA. IT should be substantive, laying out the >key public policy issues chosen were discussions, the outcomes, and >proposed follow ups. Outcomes? Something more substantial than "we have to discuss this again, because we ran out of time when the interpreters needed their lunch break" I presume. -- 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 Jan 26 06:28:32 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:28:32 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi with regard to "outcomes" the problem is whether the "outcome" has to be a "negotiated text" where everybody agrees, or a "non-negotiated text" in form of a summary from a recognized (and respected) source as "the chair", a "rapporteur", the "secretariat" or something else. I made the proposal already in a 2007 MAG meeting to have non-negotiated "messages" (two or three from each workshop, formulated by the chair or the rapporteur of the workshops) instead of negotiated "recommendations". And the Brazilian host considered it seriously to have instead of a (negotiated) "IGF Declaration from Rio" a document titled "IGF Messages from Rio". However, nothing worked and we got only the "Chair´s summary" and the book (the summarized proceedings) as outcome from the Rio meeting (and the subsequent IGFs). I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions. It works quite well in EURODIG. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Roland Perry Gesendet: Mi 26.01.2011 11:53 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In message <4D3FDBCD.7080102 at itforchange.net>, at 14:01:09 on Wed, 26 Jan 2011, parminder writes >>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. >Agreed. Though it should not merely be a copy of the present kind of >report that goes to the DESA. IT should be substantive, laying out the >key public policy issues chosen were discussions, the outcomes, and >proposed follow ups. Outcomes? Something more substantial than "we have to discuss this again, because we ran out of time when the interpreters needed their lunch break" I presume. -- 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 graciela at nupef.org.br Wed Jan 26 07:18:27 2011 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:18:27 -0200 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> Hi, Wolfganfg and all, > > I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions. This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in the two first days of the meeting. Their messages could be the main input for the plenary sessions; the moderators of the main sessions would have to work together with rapporteurs of the workshops in order to focus the sessions on the presentation and discussion of the messages and this would make these sessions really linked to the workshops - something that we've been highlighting as desirable for years... my 2 cents, graciela ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 07:59:37 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:29:37 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D401AB9.50407@itforchange.net> OK, as I said in the other emails, the 'outcomes' issue is the most important one, and we must take the bull by the horns. My attempt at that: The basic issue remains that there must be enough political will, and the overall control in the hands of those who can guide the group in expressing the political will of the people rather than squandering it. This will require the MAG and the MAG chair to be very very conscious of this main concern and work single-mindedly for it. There has to be a way to over come efforts at process and substance obfuscation as a way of retarding progress. I think such a focus forthe MAG is paramount. Nothing will succeed without it. Given that political will and focus, semantics is not important. We know it wont be an IGF resolution. We can call it IGF's report on 'so and so issue' or we can call it messages as in Eurodig. However, too much of 'one said this and other said that' would not work. We need to be able to close the gaps at least in some key areas, and evne if differences remain - they can, for instance, be put into 2 or ore clear models (as WGIG did about oversight models). This still gives the outside policy makers something to work on, which as I said is the real objective on which we need to keep focused. Now if we can get things like the following from Eurodig's 'Messages from Madrid' that is great *Principles of "network neutrality" and policies for an open Internet * The key principles underlying the "open Internet" or "network neutrality" evolve around: (i) no discrimination of traffic based on sender or receiver; (ii) unrestricted user choice and access and use of content, applications and services by consumers -- businesses -- citizens; (iii) appropriate, reasonable and non-discriminatory traffic management............ (read more in the 'messages from madrid' doc) There are real thing that came out of the Eurodig that got followed up, for instance, a expert group on cross border issues, that Wolfgang now leads, along with some clues on what kind of work it should take up. All such outcomes are rather fine. So we need to see why in 5 years the IGF has not even moved towards the direction of any such outcomes, when Eurodig has been able to do it in its first year. We need to see where did the present structure fail in this job, and accordingly look at areas which therefore need change/ improvements. And of course there are contextual differences. One I can see is that with Eurodig there was a clear inter-gov body the CoE which could build on Eurodig's outcomes and within a year come out with what appears to quite good detailed experts report on 'cross border issues in IG' which I understand would now receive political attention. We dont have any such global body at present, and while this makes the case for new institutional developments around the 'enhanced cooperaiton' peg (which new institution should be even more multi-stakeholder than the CoE ones), we may need at present for the IGF to spawn off its own smaller committees to give more detailed reports building on the general 'IGF report on so or so...' or is people prefer 'messages from the IGF'. All this is not only plausible, but badly and urgently required. There is no IGF improvements without addressing this issue. "The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions." (Wolfgang) No, we are not looking at such a huge diversity of messages. Developing structures or non-structures towards such a thing must be guarded against. We could as well take a twitter poll on 100 issues. We are looking at rather more substantial political convergences. We need them if we have to live together as one world, and be just and fair to all. Parminder Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Hi > > with regard to "outcomes" the problem is whether the "outcome" has to be a "negotiated text" where everybody agrees, or a "non-negotiated text" in form of a summary from a recognized (and respected) source as "the chair", a "rapporteur", the "secretariat" or something else. I made the proposal already in a 2007 MAG meeting to have non-negotiated "messages" (two or three from each workshop, formulated by the chair or the rapporteur of the workshops) instead of negotiated "recommendations". And the Brazilian host considered it seriously to have instead of a (negotiated) "IGF Declaration from Rio" a document titled "IGF Messages from Rio". However, nothing worked and we got only the "Chair´s summary" and the book (the summarized proceedings) as outcome from the Rio meeting (and the subsequent IGFs). > > I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions. > > It works quite well in EURODIG. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Roland Perry > Gesendet: Mi 26.01.2011 11:53 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations > > > > In message <4D3FDBCD.7080102 at itforchange.net>, at 14:01:09 on Wed, 26 > Jan 2011, parminder writes > >>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. > > >> Agreed. Though it should not merely be a copy of the present kind of >> report that goes to the DESA. IT should be substantive, laying out the >> key public policy issues chosen were discussions, the outcomes, and >> proposed follow ups. >> > > Outcomes? > > Something more substantial than "we have to discuss this again, because > we ran out of time when the interpreters needed their lunch break" I > presume. > -- > 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 > > > -- 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Jan 26 09:14:11 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:14:11 -0200 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D401AB9.50407@itforchange.net> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401AB9.50407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder and all, Another difference between EuroDIG and the IGF is scale. In EuroDIG we are talking about 2 days, with the maximum of 3 sessions in parallel. IGF schedule is much heavier, impossible to grasp completely and much more difficult to "summarize". An additional difference is cultural convergence. EuroDIG is a forum for Europeans. There is a common cultural background and world view that makes it easier to begin discussions based on common assumptions. In IGF we need to "culturally negotiate" our understanding of things. Quite harder. This is to say that even though summaries of discussions of the sessions (ex: people said this, other people said that) is necessary to map policy options, it might not be enough to produce something that is fit for policy-making. And usually there is no time to transform rough material into material that is fit for policy-making during wrap-up workshops or main session. These workshops and main sessions are vital to identify intersections among themes (ex: intersections between the discussion of a workshop on NN and another in A2K, for instance). But we need more time and more careful discussion to transform these summaries into something that can serve as input for policy. This is the reason why a renewed MAG, with broader mandate can make the difference. Let me reproduce part of an e-mail I sent months ago, in the context of the discussion about EC: * * *The new role of the MAG* It seems hard to understand that we disregard in our proposal the MAG, multistakeholder body that already exists. Is it a black box? Then, let’s advocate for its change, to make it transparent. Now is the right time to do it, with the CSTD WG process. If the legitimacy of the MAG is reinforced and true conditions for equal participation among stakeholders is achieved, then the role of the MAG could be changed and it could become a body whose main competence is to *propose action lines regarding policies and regulation*, based on the input received from the IGF. While the IGF would be the place to agenda-setting and issue-shaping, the group would be the place to policy design. If any stakeholder group (a group of developed countries, for instance) wants to propose a new policy, this group would need to launch the idea at the IGF (valuing this space). If it gathers support (after being put to the test of debate in the IGF), then it will reach the multistakeholder group, where policy-shaping would take place. The MAG would also be responsible to *foster coordination* with other organizations on the IG constellation, also guided by the discussions in the IGF. So MAG could also have a role in the two additional tasks Parminder mentioned: "(2) how to effectively communicate them to the spaces/ forums/ bodies etc that should and would make actual policies, and (3) how to 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". Of course, this new role of the MAG should be complemented with the establishment of links between the MAG and other bodies with actual decision-making power such as UN bodies and maybe an EC mechanism, if it exists in the future. Jeremy´s suggestion ("MAG needs to be split up into stakeholder councils") is very interesting and should be aggregated to this brainstorm. Best, Marília On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM, parminder wrote: > OK, as I said in the other emails, the 'outcomes' issue is the most > important one, and we must take the bull by the horns. My attempt at that: > > The basic issue remains that there must be enough political will, and the > overall control in the hands of those who can guide the group in expressing > the political will of the people rather than squandering it. This will > require the MAG and the MAG chair to be very very conscious of this main > concern and work single-mindedly for it. There has to be a way to over come > efforts at process and substance obfuscation as a way of retarding progress. > I think such a focus forthe MAG is paramount. Nothing will succeed without > it. > > Given that political will and focus, semantics is not important. We know it > wont be an IGF resolution. We can call it IGF's report on 'so and so issue' > or we can call it messages as in Eurodig. However, too much of 'one said > this and other said that' would not work. We need to be able to close the > gaps at least in some key areas, and evne if differences remain - they can, > for instance, be put into 2 or ore clear models (as WGIG did about oversight > models). This still gives the outside policy makers something to work on, > which as I said is the real objective on which we need to keep focused. > > Now if we can get things like the following from Eurodig's 'Messages from > Madrid' that is great > > *Principles of “network neutrality” and policies for an open Internet * > > The key principles underlying the “open Internet” or “network neutrality” > evolve around: (i) no discrimination of traffic based on sender or receiver; > (ii) unrestricted user choice and access and use of content, applications > and services by consumers – businesses – citizens; (iii) appropriate, > reasonable and non-discriminatory traffic management............ (read more > in the 'messages from madrid' doc) > > There are real thing that came out of the Eurodig that got followed up, for > instance, a expert group on cross border issues, that Wolfgang now leads, > along with some clues on what kind of work it should take up. > > All such outcomes are rather fine. So we need to see why in 5 years the IGF > has not even moved towards the direction of any such outcomes, when Eurodig > has been able to do it in its first year. We need to see where did the > present structure fail in this job, and accordingly look at areas which > therefore need change/ improvements. > > And of course there are contextual differences. One I can see is that with > Eurodig there was a clear inter-gov body the CoE which could build on > Eurodig's outcomes and within a year come out with what appears to quite > good detailed experts report on 'cross border issues in IG' which I > understand would now receive political attention. We dont have any such > global body at present, and while this makes the case for new institutional > developments around the 'enhanced cooperaiton' peg (which new institution > should be even more multi-stakeholder than the CoE ones), we may need at > present for the IGF to spawn off its own smaller committees to give more > detailed reports building on the general 'IGF report on so or so...' or is > people prefer 'messages from the IGF'. > > All this is not only plausible, but badly and urgently required. There is > no IGF improvements without addressing this issue. > > "The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions." (Wolfgang) > > > No, we are not looking at such a huge diversity of messages. Developing > structures or non-structures towards such a thing must be guarded against. > We could as well take a twitter poll on 100 issues. We are looking at rather > more substantial political convergences. We need them if we have to live > together as one world, and be just and fair to all. Parminder > > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > Hi > > with regard to "outcomes" the problem is whether the "outcome" has to be a "negotiated text" where everybody agrees, or a "non-negotiated text" in form of a summary from a recognized (and respected) source as "the chair", a "rapporteur", the "secretariat" or something else. I made the proposal already in a 2007 MAG meeting to have non-negotiated "messages" (two or three from each workshop, formulated by the chair or the rapporteur of the workshops) instead of negotiated "recommendations". And the Brazilian host considered it seriously to have instead of a (negotiated) "IGF Declaration from Rio" a document titled "IGF Messages from Rio". However, nothing worked and we got only the "Chair´s summary" and the book (the summarized proceedings) as outcome from the Rio meeting (and the subsequent IGFs). > > I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions. > > It works quite well in EURODIG. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Roland Perry > Gesendet: Mi 26.01.2011 11:53 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations > > > > In message <4D3FDBCD.7080102 at itforchange.net> <4D3FDBCD.7080102 at itforchange.net>, at 14:01:09 on Wed, 26 > Jan 2011, parminder writes > >>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. > > > > Agreed. Though it should not merely be a copy of the present kind of > report that goes to the DESA. IT should be substantive, laying out the > key public policy issues chosen were discussions, the outcomes, and > proposed follow ups. > > > Outcomes? > > Something more substantial than "we have to discuss this again, because > we ran out of time when the interpreters needed their lunch break" I > presume. > -- > 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 > > > > -- > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 09:14:44 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:14:44 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: In message <4D401113.4050606 at nupef.org.br>, at 10:18:27 on Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Graciela Selaimen writes >This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in >the two first days of the meeting. Their messages could be the main >input for the plenary sessions; the moderators of the main sessions >would have to work together with rapporteurs of the workshops in order >to focus the sessions on the presentation and discussion of the >messages and this would make these sessions really linked to the >workshops - something that we've been highlighting as desirable for years... I wonder if the moderators think they could work to that timescale? And it begs the question of who you have as "panellists" (even if they are mainly sat in the audience) if you don't have a good idea what the subject matter is going to be until Wednesday. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jan 26 09:15:54 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:15:54 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, at 12:28:32 on Wed, 26 Jan 2011, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" remarked: >I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one >group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if >you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair >reflection of all positions. The fairly new requirement to file a workshop report (in order to qualify as a possible organiser the following year) should mean that there are plenty of reports in circulation. But I have to admit I've never gone back and read any of the reports (but I did watch the Videocast of a couple of workshops that clashed with others in Vilnius). The outcomes should be accessible, and while the archive of videocasts is good, I think there needs to be more work cataloguing and presenting these reports. It's interesting that you've chosen the Workshop part of the IGF as the one with possibly the most useful outcomes. Another indication that the Main Sessions are beginning to lose their appeal with many (although I wouldn't miss them for the world). -- 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 Wed Jan 26 09:33:52 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:03:52 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401AB9.50407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D4030D0.3080304@itforchange.net> Marilia Largely agree with what you say. Two comments: Yes, there is a a lot of difference between the context of the Eurodig and the IGF. However, the issue is not just cultural, there is a large global political economy component to it as well. As for MAG's new role, IT for Change's inputs to the process ahve always maintained that for the IGF to be effective MAG has to be effective and be much more than a program committee that it is at present. The MAG is the only structurally defined aspect or part of the IGF; for most of the proposed substantive activities of the IGF, it is the MAG which will have to play a key role. Whether it is choosing the right topics, doing the necessary in depth background work, structuring the discussion at IGF in meaningful ways, taking up post IGF work to develop IGF outcomes base don the IGF discussions in any tangible shape, or , as you mention, communicating the outcomes to the relevant bodies and reviewing what happened subsequently. parminder Marilia Maciel wrote: > Parminder and all, > > > Another difference between EuroDIG and the IGF is scale. In EuroDIG we > are talking about 2 days, with the maximum of 3 sessions in parallel. > IGF schedule is much heavier, impossible to grasp completely and much > more difficult to "summarize". > > An additional difference is cultural convergence. EuroDIG is a forum > for Europeans. There is a common cultural background and world view > that makes it easier to begin discussions based on common assumptions. > In IGF we need to "culturally negotiate" our understanding of things. > Quite harder. > > This is to say that even though summaries of discussions of the > sessions (ex: people said this, other people said that) is necessary > to map policy options, it might not be enough to produce something > that is fit for policy-making. And usually there is no time to > transform rough material into material that is fit for policy-making > during wrap-up workshops or main session. These workshops and main > sessions are vital to identify intersections among themes (ex: > intersections between the discussion of a workshop on NN and another > in A2K, for instance). But we need more time and more careful > discussion to transform these summaries into something that can serve > as input for policy. This is the reason why a renewed MAG, with > broader mandate can make the difference. Let me reproduce part of an > e-mail I sent months ago, in the context of the discussion about EC: > > * > * > > *The new role of the MAG* > It seems hard to understand that we disregard in our proposal the MAG, > multistakeholder body that already exists. Is it a black box? Then, > let’s advocate for its change, to make it transparent. Now is the > right time to do it, with the CSTD WG process. > > If the legitimacy of the MAG is reinforced and true conditions for > equal participation among stakeholders is achieved, then the role of > the MAG could be changed and it could become a body whose main > competence is to _propose action lines regarding policies and > regulation_, based on the input received from the IGF. While the IGF > would be the place to agenda-setting and issue-shaping, the group > would be the place to policy design. If any stakeholder group (a group > of developed countries, for instance) wants to propose a new policy, > this group would need to launch the idea at the IGF (valuing this > space). If it gathers support (after being put to the test of debate > in the IGF), then it will reach the multistakeholder group, where > policy-shaping would take place. > > The MAG would also be responsible to _foster coordination_ with other > organizations on the IG constellation, also guided by the discussions > in the IGF. So MAG could also have a role in the two additional tasks > Parminder mentioned: > > "(2) how to effectively communicate them to the spaces/ forums/ bodies > etc that should and would make actual policies, and > (3) how to 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". > > > Of course, this new role of the MAG should be complemented with the > establishment of links between the MAG and other bodies with actual > decision-making power such as UN bodies and maybe an EC mechanism, if > it exists in the future. > > > Jeremy´s suggestion ("MAG needs to be split up into stakeholder > councils") is very interesting and should be aggregated to this > brainstorm. > > > > Best, > Marília > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM, parminder > wrote: > > OK, as I said in the other emails, the 'outcomes' issue is the > most important one, and we must take the bull by the horns. My > attempt at that: > > The basic issue remains that there must be enough political will, > and the overall control in the hands of those who can guide the > group in expressing the political will of the people rather than > squandering it. This will require the MAG and the MAG chair to be > very very conscious of this main concern and work single-mindedly > for it. There has to be a way to over come efforts at process and > substance obfuscation as a way of retarding progress. I think such > a focus forthe MAG is paramount. Nothing will succeed without it. > > Given that political will and focus, semantics is not important. > We know it wont be an IGF resolution. We can call it IGF's report > on 'so and so issue' or we can call it messages as in Eurodig. > However, too much of 'one said this and other said that' would not > work. We need to be able to close the gaps at least in some key > areas, and evne if differences remain - they can, for instance, be > put into 2 or ore clear models (as WGIG did about oversight > models). This still gives the outside policy makers something to > work on, which as I said is the real objective on which we need to > keep focused. > > Now if we can get things like the following from Eurodig's > 'Messages from Madrid' that is great > > *Principles of “network neutrality” and policies for an open > Internet * > > The key principles underlying the “open Internet” or “network > neutrality” evolve around: (i) no discrimination of traffic > based on sender or receiver; (ii) unrestricted user choice and > access and use of content, applications and services by > consumers – businesses – citizens; (iii) appropriate, > reasonable and non-discriminatory traffic > management............ (read more in the 'messages from > madrid' doc) > > There are real thing that came out of the Eurodig that got > followed up, for instance, a expert group on cross border issues, > that Wolfgang now leads, along with some clues on what kind of > work it should take up. > > All such outcomes are rather fine. So we need to see why in 5 > years the IGF has not even moved towards the direction of any such > outcomes, when Eurodig has been able to do it in its first year. > We need to see where did the present structure fail in this job, > and accordingly look at areas which therefore need change/ > improvements. > > And of course there are contextual differences. One I can see is > that with Eurodig there was a clear inter-gov body the CoE which > could build on Eurodig's outcomes and within a year come out with > what appears to quite good detailed experts report on 'cross > border issues in IG' which I understand would now receive > political attention. We dont have any such global body at present, > and while this makes the case for new institutional developments > around the 'enhanced cooperaiton' peg (which new institution > should be even more multi-stakeholder than the CoE ones), we may > need at present for the IGF to spawn off its own smaller > committees to give more detailed reports building on the general > 'IGF report on so or so...' or is people prefer 'messages from the > IGF'. > > All this is not only plausible, but badly and urgently required. > There is no IGF improvements without addressing this issue. > > "The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions." (Wolfgang) > > > No, we are not looking at such a huge diversity of messages. > Developing structures or non-structures towards such a thing must > be guarded against. We could as well take a twitter poll on 100 > issues. We are looking at rather more substantial political > convergences. We need them if we have to live together as one > world, and be just and fair to all. Parminder > > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> Hi >> >> with regard to "outcomes" the problem is whether the "outcome" has to be a "negotiated text" where everybody agrees, or a "non-negotiated text" in form of a summary from a recognized (and respected) source as "the chair", a "rapporteur", the "secretariat" or something else. I made the proposal already in a 2007 MAG meeting to have non-negotiated "messages" (two or three from each workshop, formulated by the chair or the rapporteur of the workshops) instead of negotiated "recommendations". And the Brazilian host considered it seriously to have instead of a (negotiated) "IGF Declaration from Rio" a document titled "IGF Messages from Rio". However, nothing worked and we got only the "Chair´s summary" and the book (the summarized proceedings) as outcome from the Rio meeting (and the subsequent IGFs). >> >> I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions. >> >> It works quite well in EURODIG. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Roland Perry >> Gesendet: Mi 26.01.2011 11:53 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations >> >> >> >> In message <4D3FDBCD.7080102 at itforchange.net> , at 14:01:09 on Wed, 26 >> Jan 2011, parminder writes >> >>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. >> >> >>> Agreed. Though it should not merely be a copy of the present kind of >>> report that goes to the DESA. IT should be substantive, laying out the >>> key public policy issues chosen were discussions, the outcomes, and >>> proposed follow ups. >>> >> Outcomes? >> >> Something more substantial than "we have to discuss this again, because >> we ran out of time when the interpreters needed their lunch break" I >> presume. >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> > > -- > 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 -- 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Jan 26 09:35:18 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:35:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD Q3-Shapping the outcomes of IGF meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please, everybody concerned with this question, also follow thread "CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations, as some discussions about outcomes started to take place there. Thanks On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Summary of contributions during the consultations: > > - Improve reporting of the IGF, which would take into account > diverging opinions, capture the range of policy options. > > - Reporting template used by workshops and main sessions. > Efficient distribution to all relevant bodies and missions > > - Recommendations. They could be based: a) in the report; b) in > the discussions in each session (compiled at the end of the IGF); c) on the > discussion of thematic working groups (to be created) > > - Recommendations and suggestions fed into relevant IG mechanisms > > - Create a repository of Best Practices discussed at the IGF > > - Define ways to better capture the impact of the IGF. Annual > report? > > > -- > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jan 26 10:30:22 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:30:22 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401AB9.50407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07745@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: However, too much of 'one said this and other said that' would not work. We need to be able to close the gaps at least in some key areas, and evne if differences remain - they can, for instance, be put into 2 or ore clear models (as WGIG did about oversight models). Wolfgang: This is exactly what I propose. In the WGIG there was no consensus on oversight. So we did send the message to the Summit : "one group says this (model 1), one group says this (model 2) etc." This does not solve the problem but it helps to clear the air. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 10:59:39 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:59:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Twitter and other sites (Facebook?) blocked in Egypt Message-ID: <17D34B8C2402465CA68E29BC68D4A185@userPC> So does this have anything to do with Internet Governance and where might it fit in our current discussion? M -----Original Message----- From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Horner Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:37 AM To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: [IRP] Twitter and other sites blocked in Egypt ...during ongoing protests: http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/25/twitter-blocked-egypt/# And facebook: https://www.facebook.com/elshaheeed.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Wed Jan 26 11:05:29 2011 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:05:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IRP] Twitter and other sites (Facebook?) blocked in Egypt In-Reply-To: <17D34B8C2402465CA68E29BC68D4A185@userPC> References: <17D34B8C2402465CA68E29BC68D4A185@userPC> Message-ID: Thanks for bringing this up Michael, which I feel is relevant. Indeed. Both websites are blocked. See: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/01/26/egypt-after-twitter-facebook-now-blocked/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter I'm following things closely and hope that the blocking is temporary. But you never know. Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > So does this have anything to do with Internet Governance and where might > it fit in our current discussion? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto: > irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On Behalf Of *Lisa > Horner > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:37 AM > *To:* irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > *Subject:* [IRP] Twitter and other sites blocked in Egypt > > ...during ongoing protests: > http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/25/twitter-blocked-egypt/# > > And facebook: > https://www.facebook.com/elshaheeed.co.uk > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jan 26 11:40:11 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:10:11 -0430 Subject: [governance] Appreciation for IGF leadership Message-ID: <4D404E6B.2000103@diplomacy.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thank_you_ Card_for_Nitin_&_Markus_from_Diplo.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 652078 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: VirginiaP.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 148 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jan 26 12:51:25 2011 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:51:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> Am 26.01.2011 13:18, schrieb Graciela Selaimen: > Hi, Wolfganfg and all, > >> >> I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of >> chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be >> "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this >> case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. >> And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about >> 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a >> fair reflection of all positions. > > This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in the > two first days of the meeting. Their messages could be the main input > for the plenary sessions; the moderators of the main sessions would have > to work together with rapporteurs of the workshops in order to focus the > sessions on the presentation and discussion of the messages and this > would make these sessions really linked to the workshops - something > that we've been highlighting as desirable for years... That is exactly what we did at the Vilnius meeting. For critical Internet resources, workshops were scheduled for the first day so that they would take place before the main session. Personally, I didn't find the result convincing. So far, our experience with reporting from workshop have been somewhat disappointing. I don't know exactly why. Perhaps the summaries lacked a bit of the excitement we were hoping for :-) jeanette > > my 2 cents, > > graciela > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 graciela at nupef.org.br Wed Jan 26 14:35:33 2011 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:35:33 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> Thanks for the feedback, Jeannette. I wasn't in Vilnius, unfortunately. Your comment on the disappointment with the workshops' reports makes me think that it's important to reflect not only how workshops are organized but also why they are held. Perhaps it's time to think of a way to give more meaning to workshops in the IGF and to expect more commitment from workshop organizers in formulating concrete messages as an outcome of these events - not only formal, bureaucratic reports. graciela Em 1/26/11 3:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann escreveu: > > > Am 26.01.2011 13:18, schrieb Graciela Selaimen: >> Hi, Wolfganfg and all, >> >>> >>> I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of >>> chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be >>> "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this >>> case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. >>> And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about >>> 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a >>> fair reflection of all positions. >> >> This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in the >> two first days of the meeting. Their messages could be the main input >> for the plenary sessions; the moderators of the main sessions would have >> to work together with rapporteurs of the workshops in order to focus the >> sessions on the presentation and discussion of the messages and this >> would make these sessions really linked to the workshops - something >> that we've been highlighting as desirable for years... > > That is exactly what we did at the Vilnius meeting. For critical > Internet resources, workshops were scheduled for the first day so that > they would take place before the main session. Personally, I didn't > find the result convincing. So far, our experience with reporting from > workshop have been somewhat disappointing. I don't know exactly why. > Perhaps the summaries lacked a bit of the excitement we were hoping > for :-) > > jeanette >> >> my 2 cents, >> >> graciela >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 Wed Jan 26 14:43:54 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:43:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: Totally agree, Graciela. Sometimes it seems that workshop organizers are doing a favor in organizing workshops, therefore they should not be let down and face the refusal of their workshop proposals. This has led to the merge of workshops that had very little in common and ended up with ten, twelve spekers that could talk during 5 minutes. This is totally contraproducive. There is no favor in organizing workshops. It is an opportunity to promote meaningful debate, that should be enough. It is also a responsibility, and workshop organizers need to be efficient and accountable. Best, Marília On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Graciela Selaimen wrote: > Thanks for the feedback, Jeannette. I wasn't in Vilnius, unfortunately. > Your comment on the disappointment with the workshops' reports makes me > think that it's important to reflect not only how workshops are organized > but also why they are held. Perhaps it's time to think of a way to give more > meaning to workshops in the IGF and to expect more commitment from workshop > organizers in formulating concrete messages as an outcome of these events - > not only formal, bureaucratic reports. > > graciela > > Em 1/26/11 3:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann escreveu: > > >> >> Am 26.01.2011 13:18, schrieb Graciela Selaimen: >> >>> Hi, Wolfganfg and all, >>> >>> >>>> I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of >>>> chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be >>>> "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this >>>> case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. >>>> And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about >>>> 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a >>>> fair reflection of all positions. >>>> >>> >>> This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in the >>> two first days of the meeting. Their messages could be the main input >>> for the plenary sessions; the moderators of the main sessions would have >>> to work together with rapporteurs of the workshops in order to focus the >>> sessions on the presentation and discussion of the messages and this >>> would make these sessions really linked to the workshops - something >>> that we've been highlighting as desirable for years... >>> >> >> That is exactly what we did at the Vilnius meeting. For critical Internet >> resources, workshops were scheduled for the first day so that they would >> take place before the main session. Personally, I didn't find the result >> convincing. So far, our experience with reporting from workshop have been >> somewhat disappointing. I don't know exactly why. Perhaps the summaries >> lacked a bit of the excitement we were hoping for :-) >> >> jeanette >> >>> >>> my 2 cents, >>> >>> graciela >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jan 26 15:06:59 2011 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:06:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <4D407EE3.2010109@wzb.eu> I have tried to argue for more outcome oriented workshops. They should define some form of a goal in their workshop proposal. Alas, outcome orientation is a cultural issue as well. Many people in the international sphere tend to think in procedural terms. Perhaps we are just a bit demanding in this respect? In any case, we should not over estimate what we can expect from workshops for structuring main sessions. Some of them have something meaningful to contribute, others less so. jeanette Am 26.01.2011 20:35, schrieb Graciela Selaimen: > Thanks for the feedback, Jeannette. I wasn't in Vilnius, unfortunately. > Your comment on the disappointment with the workshops' reports makes me > think that it's important to reflect not only how workshops are > organized but also why they are held. Perhaps it's time to think of a > way to give more meaning to workshops in the IGF and to expect more > commitment from workshop organizers in formulating concrete messages as > an outcome of these events - not only formal, bureaucratic reports. > > graciela > > Em 1/26/11 3:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann escreveu: >> >> >> Am 26.01.2011 13:18, schrieb Graciela Selaimen: >>> Hi, Wolfganfg and all, >>> >>>> >>>> I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of >>>> chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be >>>> "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this >>>> case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. >>>> And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about >>>> 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a >>>> fair reflection of all positions. >>> >>> This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in the >>> two first days of the meeting. Their messages could be the main input >>> for the plenary sessions; the moderators of the main sessions would have >>> to work together with rapporteurs of the workshops in order to focus the >>> sessions on the presentation and discussion of the messages and this >>> would make these sessions really linked to the workshops - something >>> that we've been highlighting as desirable for years... >> >> That is exactly what we did at the Vilnius meeting. For critical >> Internet resources, workshops were scheduled for the first day so that >> they would take place before the main session. Personally, I didn't >> find the result convincing. So far, our experience with reporting from >> workshop have been somewhat disappointing. I don't know exactly why. >> Perhaps the summaries lacked a bit of the excitement we were hoping >> for :-) >> >> jeanette >>> >>> my 2 cents, >>> >>> graciela >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 26 15:49:36 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:49:36 +1100 Subject: [governance] The mobile world Message-ID: In the context of our discussions about neutrality and the mobile world - Well worth watching and reading as a commentary on increased mobile use by the generation who skipped PCs and when straight to mobiles http://bryce.vc/post/2938771491/the-video-above-is-less-than-a-minute-long-p lease " I¹ve made clear my belief that we¹re in the midst of a massive global reinvention. Not just a shift from analog to digital, but a shift from centralized control to distributed systems. From isolated single user experiences to a global social fabric. These mobile devices are the of Gutenberg presses of our generation. " ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Jan 26 16:19:05 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:19:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <4D408FC9.70204@apc.org> Hi all I agree here too. Jeanette, I think that Graciela's proposal to have workshop days, followed by plenary days, is different from what happened at Vilnius. In Vilnius there was an attempt to have some workshops feed into main sessions.. but this in parallel to other workshops taking place so the incentive for people to take this seriously was limited. Creating a more fundamental separation between the workshop phase of the IGF, and the main session phase, will, I think help people to think and report more strategically. And we definitely need more commitment from workshop organisers to not crowd them with speakers, with no substantial discussion, learning, or ideas/messages. And the MAG's merging policy needs a good rethink as well :) As Marilia points out.. it really just did not work in many if not most cases. Best Anriette On 26/01/11 21:43, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Totally agree, Graciela. Sometimes it seems that workshop organizers are > doing a favor in organizing workshops, therefore they should not be let down > and face the refusal of their workshop proposals. This has led to the merge > of workshops that had very little in common and ended up with ten, twelve > spekers that could talk during 5 minutes. This is totally contraproducive. > > There is no favor in organizing workshops. It is an opportunity to promote > meaningful debate, that should be enough. It is also a responsibility, and > workshop organizers need to be efficient and accountable. > > Best, > > Marília > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Graciela Selaimen wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback, Jeannette. I wasn't in Vilnius, unfortunately. >> Your comment on the disappointment with the workshops' reports makes me >> think that it's important to reflect not only how workshops are organized >> but also why they are held. Perhaps it's time to think of a way to give more >> meaning to workshops in the IGF and to expect more commitment from workshop >> organizers in formulating concrete messages as an outcome of these events - >> not only formal, bureaucratic reports. >> >> graciela >> >> Em 1/26/11 3:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann escreveu: >> >> >>> >>> Am 26.01.2011 13:18, schrieb Graciela Selaimen: >>> >>>> Hi, Wolfganfg and all, >>>> >>>> >>>>> I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of >>>>> chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be >>>>> "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this >>>>> case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. >>>>> And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about >>>>> 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a >>>>> fair reflection of all positions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in the >>>> two first days of the meeting. Their messages could be the main input >>>> for the plenary sessions; the moderators of the main sessions would have >>>> to work together with rapporteurs of the workshops in order to focus the >>>> sessions on the presentation and discussion of the messages and this >>>> would make these sessions really linked to the workshops - something >>>> that we've been highlighting as desirable for years... >>>> >>> >>> That is exactly what we did at the Vilnius meeting. For critical Internet >>> resources, workshops were scheduled for the first day so that they would >>> take place before the main session. Personally, I didn't find the result >>> convincing. So far, our experience with reporting from workshop have been >>> somewhat disappointing. I don't know exactly why. Perhaps the summaries >>> lacked a bit of the excitement we were hoping for :-) >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>>> >>>> my 2 cents, >>>> >>>> graciela >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jan 26 16:24:07 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:54:07 -0430 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <4D4090F7.4000904@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 katitza at eff.org Wed Jan 26 16:37:11 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:37:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D4090F7.4000904@gmail.com> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> <4D4090F7.4000904@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D409407.6000503@eff.org> A short comment on this: We need to make sure that workshops are truly multi-stakeholder and include the voice of civil society on it. I did mentioned that in previous MAG meetings (and some business sector did in fact include civil society in their workshops after our discussion). However, it was not the case in all workshops. You also need several people from civil society monitoring the different workshops proposals classified by different themes, so you can identify a workshop that does not include all voices. Indeed, this suggestion of reviewing "workshop proposals to make sure they meet quality, time constraints, and other organizational factors" was made but unfortunately, many people do this in the last minutes and many changes are held in the last minute, which I think is a bit annoying. Especially if you bring new people to IGF, it seems IGF is not well organized since people still changing things at the last minute.. (a little chaotic) ;-) and outsiders just dont understand the chaotic dynamics. my two cents, On 1/26/11 1:24 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Marilia: 'Totally agree, Graciela. Sometimes it seems that workshop > organizers are doing a favor in organizing workshops, therefore they > should not be let down and face the refusal of their workshop proposals.' > > Ginger says: Marilia, I agree that we should recognize that workshop > organizers do a lot of hard work as volunteers. However, this fact > should be separated from the fact that workshop proposals should be > reviewed to make sure they meet quality, time constraints, and other > organizational factors. And of course merging of workshops should be > carefully considered and only done when appropriate. > > I think these are two separate issues, both of which merit attention. > Thanks for all your work. > Ginger > > * > **Ginger (Virginia) Paque > *I > > > On 1/26/2011 3:13 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Totally agree, Graciela. Sometimes it seems that workshop organizers >> are doing a favor in organizing workshops, therefore they should not >> be let down and face the refusal of their workshop proposals. This >> has led to the merge of workshops that had very little in common and >> ended up with ten, twelve spekers that could talk during 5 minutes. >> This is totally contraproducive. >> >> There is no favor in organizing workshops. It is an opportunity to >> promote meaningful debate, that should be enough. It is also a >> responsibility, and workshop organizers need to be efficient and >> accountable. >> >> Best, >> >> Marília >> >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Graciela Selaimen >> > wrote: >> >> Thanks for the feedback, Jeannette. I wasn't in Vilnius, >> unfortunately. >> Your comment on the disappointment with the workshops' reports >> makes me think that it's important to reflect not only how >> workshops are organized but also why they are held. Perhaps it's >> time to think of a way to give more meaning to workshops in the >> IGF and to expect more commitment from workshop organizers in >> formulating concrete messages as an outcome of these events - not >> only formal, bureaucratic reports. >> >> graciela >> >> Em 1/26/11 3:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann escreveu: >> >> >> >> Am 26.01.2011 13:18, schrieb Graciela Selaimen: >> >> Hi, Wolfganfg and all, >> >> >> I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the >> nomination of >> chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a >> workshop could be >> "one group says so and the other group says so". The >> message in this >> case would be: This is an important issue, but there >> is no agreement. >> And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 >> rapporteurs (with about >> 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree >> diversity and a >> fair reflection of all positions. >> >> >> This is why I think it would be interesting to have the >> workshops in the >> two first days of the meeting. Their messages could be >> the main input >> for the plenary sessions; the moderators of the main >> sessions would have >> to work together with rapporteurs of the workshops in >> order to focus the >> sessions on the presentation and discussion of the >> messages and this >> would make these sessions really linked to the workshops >> - something >> that we've been highlighting as desirable for years... >> >> >> That is exactly what we did at the Vilnius meeting. For >> critical Internet resources, workshops were scheduled for the >> first day so that they would take place before the main >> session. Personally, I didn't find the result convincing. So >> far, our experience with reporting from workshop have been >> somewhat disappointing. I don't know exactly why. Perhaps the >> summaries lacked a bit of the excitement we were hoping for :-) >> >> jeanette >> >> >> my 2 cents, >> >> graciela >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 16:38:22 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:38:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: The mobile/wireless grid - or is it ambient? - world Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109127@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> On Ian's note... Bob Frankston will be speaking on 'Towards Ambient Connectivity' Friday 1.28 9:15-9:35am est. Bob's the coinventor of electronic spreadsheets and home nets, who doesn't see why 19th century regs should constrain access to - connectivity - in 21st Century. Context is our rather geeky 'Wireless Grid Innovation Testbed' meetings of the WiGiT Virtual Organization led by Syracuse and Virginia Tech; tip of cap to Derrick and American U for facilitating remote participation. http://n.b5z.net/i/u/10001167/f/Agenda/7thWiGiTMeetingAgenda.1.28.2011FINAL.pdf Info on WiGiT at: http://wglab. IGCers are welcome to tune in if interested, assuming space available. Lee PS: Parminder, you may be alarmed or annoyed ; ) to know that OECD's been a partner for a couple years already, though frankly it just means they know we exist. It's all still early researchy days for our activities to develop new open specifications - for wireless grids. Whose policy or govenrnace implications we explored at: http://n.b5z.net/i/u/10001167/f/paper/TPRC2010_Wireless_Grids_or_Personal_Infrastructure_Implications.pdf ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:49 PM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Subject: [governance] The mobile world In the context of our discussions about neutrality and the mobile world - Well worth watching and reading as a commentary on increased mobile use by the generation who skipped PCs and when straight to mobiles http://bryce.vc/post/2938771491/the-video-above-is-less-than-a-minute-long-p lease " I¹ve made clear my belief that we¹re in the midst of a massive global reinvention. Not just a shift from analog to digital, but a shift from centralized control to distributed systems. From isolated single user experiences to a global social fabric. These mobile devices are the of Gutenberg presses of our generation. " ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Wed Jan 26 21:16:58 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:16:58 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <1296094618.30689.925.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 10:18 -0200, Graciela Selaimen wrote: > Hi, Wolfganfg and all, > > > > > I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions. > > This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in the > two first days of the meeting. I agree and have said the same. Something like this is common in other Internet governance institutions. For example, in my region, the annual APRICOT conference (see apricot.net) always commences with workshops. Plenary sessions are only held afterwards, so as not to overlap and compete with the workshops. The IGF will never make any progress while the majority of participants don't even attend its plenary sessions. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Jan 27 01:23:38 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:23:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] UNESCO Freedom of Expression References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> <4D4090F7.4000904@gmail.com> <4D409407.6000503@eff.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07758@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31190&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 27 04:01:45 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:01:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D408FC9.70204@apc.org> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> <4D408FC9.70204@apc.org> Message-ID: <9K1WQIB5RTQNFAoV@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4D408FC9.70204 at apc.org>, at 23:19:05 on Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Anriette Esterhuysen writes >I agree here too. Jeanette, I think that Graciela's proposal to have >workshop days, followed by plenary days, is different from what happened >at Vilnius. In Vilnius there was an attempt to have some workshops feed >into main sessions.. In Sharm, the scheduling attempted to have workshops before the respective main session, and that was a major element of the scheduling for Vilnius. Of course, if the main session is the second day, you can't have all the feeder workshops the first day because they start clashing. >but this in parallel to other workshops taking >place so the incentive for people to take this seriously was limited. Brave attempts to have fewer parallel workshop streams failed to have the desired effect. >Creating a more fundamental separation between the workshop phase of the >IGF, and the main session phase, will, I think help people to think and >report more strategically. I wonder if that would result in some people (particularly new and high-ranking) people only attending for the main sessions and therefore miss the opportunity to dip into workshops. We are veterans and understand how the dynamics of the week plays out - others aren't. >And we definitely need more commitment from workshop organisers to not >crowd them with speakers, with no substantial discussion, learning, or >ideas/messages. > >And the MAG's merging policy needs a good rethink as well :) As Marilia >points out.. it really just did not work in many if not most cases. This is a classic case of a process that simply doesn't work by "remote participation" (whether that's video conference or bilateral email). To merge workshops the two (or more!) organisers need to spend some time across a table from each other, that's the only way to hammer out reducing the number of panellists and sub-topics to fit the slot. And more fundamentally to agree that a working relationship is possible at all. Then you need to negotiate with other organisers so that workshops with a similar audience don't clash in the timetable (the secretariat does a good first-pass allocating slots, but experience shows that's just the beginning). This is what that the planning sessions are for, and you simply have to be there. (Perhaps if we had six months rather than six weeks for the final stages, it could be done another way; but it's always a rush). -- 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 Jan 27 04:05:01 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:35:01 +0530 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07745@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401AB9.50407@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07745@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D41353D.30405@itforchange.net> A short process observation first - CSTD IX is the last part of the draft structure relating to what may be the conclusions and recs of the WGIGF and not about recs or outcomes from the IGF itslef, which is part III , 'shaping the outcomes of the IGF meeting. Anyway... Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > Parminder: > However, too much of 'one said this and other said that' would not work. We need to be able to close the gaps at least in some key areas, and evne if differences remain - they can, for instance, be put into 2 or ore clear models (as WGIG did about oversight models). > > Wolfgang: > This is exactly what I propose. In the WGIG there was no consensus on oversight. So we did send the message to the Summit : "one group says this (model 1), one group says this (model 2) etc." This does not solve the problem but it helps to clear the air. > > Wolfgang, I completely agree with you here. But the docs so produced should have a good amount of completeness and represent some step forward. Of course some thing substantially more that Chair's summary that has been givne till now, or even an additional point wise short summary as came out of Vilnius. What that additional thing cna be and how it can and should come about requires us to get into a serious exercise. And I keep repeating, that is one of the most important tasks to do at present. parminder -- 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 Thu Jan 27 04:27:24 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:57:24 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <1296094618.30689.925.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <1296094618.30689.925.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> Message-ID: <4D413A7C.5080806@itforchange.net> I agree that plenaries should be held in a manner that all can attend them. However, about making workshops and their outcomes effective and impactful, I think it works backwards. Make sure you take up specific and clear IG issues at each plenary with some possibility and structure to take what comes out forward into smaller committees or whatever to make some specific recommendations from the IGF on that particular issue, with mechanisms both to communicate these recs effectively to relevant policy bodies, and later reviewing what happened about them (see earlier email exchanges on this subject). If this happens the workshops will automatically, or with some prodding, split into two kinds. One kind would be that would try to contribute as much possible to what would happen in the plenary and subsequently. These workshops would by themselves become very effective and would get out relatively clearer outcomes. (The main thing to ensure than would be, as alluded to by Katitza, to ensure that these workshops are not captured and have enough diversity of views, and there is enough diversity among workshops themselves). The other kind of workshops will be those which are kind of warming up issues for later IGFs, or in general considering a larger ambit of IG issues. So either all workshops can be help before plenaries start, or at least all type 1 workshops above can be finished before the plenaries and type 2 allowed to overlap with plenaries. This is not an ideal solution since there are very interested type 2 workshops which many those also wanted to focus on plenaries will like to attend. Parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 10:18 -0200, Graciela Selaimen wrote: > >> Hi, Wolfganfg and all, >> >> >>> I am aware that this will trigger a debate about the nomination of chairs or rapporteurs. However the message from a workshop could be "one group says so and the other group says so". The message in this case would be: This is an important issue, but there is no agreement. And if you have 60 workshops you would have 60 rapporteurs (with about 150 messages) which guarantees to a certain degree diversity and a fair reflection of all positions. >>> >> This is why I think it would be interesting to have the workshops in the >> two first days of the meeting. >> > > I agree and have said the same. Something like this is common in other > Internet governance institutions. For example, in my region, the annual > APRICOT conference (see apricot.net) always commences with workshops. > Plenary sessions are only held afterwards, so as not to overlap and > compete with the workshops. The IGF will never make any progress while > the majority of participants don't even attend its plenary sessions. > > -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 27 15:46:49 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:46:49 +1100 Subject: [governance] Rights online petition In-Reply-To: <0e7956e22139ce37260f3550a35560fc@access.queue.bluestatedigital.com> Message-ID: While realising that the long term answer lies in governance, in the short term people might like to support the petition suggested below. And perhaps somewhere in our strategies the idea of advocating terms of service as a tool for protection of users might be a good inclusion! Ian Peter > > Dear Friends, > > Events in Egypt and Tunisia, and Amazon's takedown of Wikileaks, have shown > that our right to information online is fundamentally at risk. Increasingly, > internet companies on both sides of the firewall are unilaterally removing the > online information that they host, and right now, nothing can stop them. > > That includes the websites we get our information from, the videos we watch, > and the social networking pages that channel news directly to us from around > the world. This free exchange of information is in danger not just in > countries like Tunisia and Egypt (where Twitter has just been blocked), but as > the Wikileaks experience has shown us, in front of the firewall as well. > > Each year thousands of webpages are taken offline, yet few receive legal > review or appeal, and only a handful, like Wikileaks, receive media attention. > In the international information arms race, authoritarian governments are > redoubling efforts to close down open communication channels. Sign this > petition, urging internet companies like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Google > to respond with a firm commitment to preserve the free flow of information: > > https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all > > Most online content is hosted on corporate-owned servers, which have > unregulated control over what information we see and read. Following Amazon's > decision to delete Wikileaks from its servers, internet companies are now > reviewing which sites they host and tightening their acceptable use policies. > > We may not be able to influence authoritarian states, but there are many ways > that webhosts (often referred to as internet service providers (ISPs) and > online service providers (OSPs)) can respect our rights in their Terms of > Service, but they're not going to change their ways unless there's a global > public outcry urging them to do so. Take action now by signing this petition: > > https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all > > The Tunisian government blocked YouTube, Vimeo, and Dailymotion but protestors > were still able to use Facebook and Twitter to organize and spread information > about the grassroots movement for democracy. The Egyptian government has just > blocked Twitter while thousands of protestors are on the streets demonstrating > for democracy and reform. > > We can help keep the internet open and support freedom movements around the > world, but only if we stand together as users and demand our right to > information. Join us by signing this petition, and we'll deliver it to the > largest internet companies: > > https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all > > In 2010, we fought against the sale of surveillance technologies to repressive > regimes; called upon the top 100 most trafficked websites to protect our > security by implementing HTTPS by default; and supported technologies that > allow activists to securely connect to the internet. Now, let's take the fight > for digital freedom to the online service providers who singlehandedly control > what can be said on the internet. Sign here: > > https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all > > With hope, > The Access Team > > ------ End of Forwarded Message ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jan 27 16:20:45 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:50:45 -0430 Subject: [governance] Rights online petition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D41E1AD.7050600@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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 27 16:27:23 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 08:27:23 +1100 Subject: [governance] Rights online petition In-Reply-To: <4D41E1AD.7050600@paque.net> Message-ID: While I cant tell you a great deal, their Advisory Board adds good credibility for me (moveon, avaaz, ethanzuckerman, peter gabriel, tor project etc) Ian Andrew Lewman - Executive Director of the Tor Project Andrew Rasiej - Founder of Personal Democracy Forum Chris Hughes - Co-founder of Facebook and Director of Online Organizing for Obama¹s Presidential Campaign Eli Pariser - Former Executive Director and Current Board President of MoveOn.org Ethan Zuckerman - Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Co-Founder of Global Voices Online Joe Rospars - New Media Director for Obama¹s 2008 Presidential Campaign and Founding Partner of Blue State Digital Lawrence Lessig - Co-founder of Creative Commons and Professor at Harvard Law School Peter Gabriel - Grammy Award winning international musician and co-founder of Witness and the Elders Reihan Salam - Policy advisor at Economics 21, blogger and conservative political analyst Ricken Patel - Co-founder and Executive Director, Avaaz.org Professor Ron Deibert - Director of the Citizen Lab, Co-founder of the OpenNet Initiative and Psiphon   Tattu Mambetallieva Emilbekovna - Director of the Civil Initiative on Internet Policy Yvette J. Alberdingk Thijm - Executive Director, Witness From: Ginger Paque Reply-To: Ginger Paque Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:50:45 -0430 To: , Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Rights online petition I tried to find more information on accessnow.org, and did not find much background or history outside of their own site. Does anyone have information or links to reviews or more information about this organization? Even Web of Trust (WOT) says 'not enough ratings for this site' about their site. This is not negative... but I would like to read more about them. Thanks, Ginger On 1/27/2011 4:16 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > While realising that the long term answer lies in governance, in the short > term people might like to support the petition suggested below. > > And perhaps somewhere in our strategies the idea of advocating terms of > service as a tool for protection of users might be a good inclusion! > > Ian Peter > > > >> >> >> Dear Friends, >> >> Events in Egypt and Tunisia, and Amazon's takedown of Wikileaks, have shown >> that our right to information online is fundamentally at risk. Increasingly, >> internet companies on both sides of the firewall are unilaterally removing >> the >> online information that they host, and right now, nothing can stop them. >> >> That includes the websites we get our information from, the videos we watch, >> and the social networking pages that channel news directly to us from around >> the world. This free exchange of information is in danger not just in >> countries like Tunisia and Egypt (where Twitter has just been blocked), but >> as >> the Wikileaks experience has shown us, in front of the firewall as well. >> >> Each year thousands of webpages are taken offline, yet few receive legal >> review or appeal, and only a handful, like Wikileaks, receive media >> attention. >> In the international information arms race, authoritarian governments are >> redoubling efforts to close down open communication channels. Sign this >> petition, urging internet companies like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and >> Google >> to respond with a firm commitment to preserve the free flow of information: >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >> >> Most online content is hosted on corporate-owned servers, which have >> unregulated control over what information we see and read. Following Amazon's >> decision to delete Wikileaks from its servers, internet companies are now >> reviewing which sites they host and tightening their acceptable use policies. >> >> We may not be able to influence authoritarian states, but there are many ways >> that webhosts (often referred to as internet service providers (ISPs) and >> online service providers (OSPs)) can respect our rights in their Terms of >> Service, but they're not going to change their ways unless there's a global >> public outcry urging them to do so. Take action now by signing this petition: >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >> >> The Tunisian government blocked YouTube, Vimeo, and Dailymotion but >> protestors >> were still able to use Facebook and Twitter to organize and spread >> information >> about the grassroots movement for democracy. The Egyptian government has just >> blocked Twitter while thousands of protestors are on the streets >> demonstrating >> for democracy and reform. >> >> We can help keep the internet open and support freedom movements around the >> world, but only if we stand together as users and demand our right to >> information. Join us by signing this petition, and we'll deliver it to the >> largest internet companies: >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >> >> In 2010, we fought against the sale of surveillance technologies to >> repressive >> regimes; called upon the top 100 most trafficked websites to protect our >> security by implementing HTTPS by default; and supported technologies that >> allow activists to securely connect to the internet. Now, let's take the >> fight >> for digital freedom to the online service providers who singlehandedly >> control >> what can be said on the internet. Sign here: >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >> >> With hope, >> The Access Team >> >> >> > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBP Online Coordinator DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo... Call for applications for Diplo Internet governance foundation courses now open. See: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/news.asp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jan 27 17:10:57 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:10:57 +1200 Subject: [governance] Rights online petition In-Reply-To: References: <4D41E1AD.7050600@paque.net> Message-ID: Dear Ian, Could you please send me an explanation of what the Petition is about? I am not sure whether this is a petition for citizens within countries who have have their internet content and media censored or whether it is a Petition to declare Internet as a Human Right. Eitherway, the theft of data/information from Facebook and other Social utility sites and the challenges of citizens from various jurisdictions to lodge a claim against these sites, or even the investigation process, underresourced regulatory regimes, and the various challenges extraterritorially pose deep philosophical questions that need to be asked before policies are written and laws are passed and treaties are signed. Kind Regards, Sala On 1/28/11, Ian Peter wrote: > While I cant tell you a great deal, their Advisory Board adds good > credibility for me (moveon, avaaz, ethanzuckerman, peter gabriel, tor > project etc) > > Ian > > Andrew Lewman - Executive Director of the Tor Project > Andrew Rasiej - Founder of Personal Democracy Forum > Chris Hughes - Co-founder of Facebook and Director of Online Organizing for > Obama¹s Presidential Campaign > Eli Pariser - Former Executive Director and Current Board President of > MoveOn.org > Ethan Zuckerman - Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and > Society, Co-Founder of Global Voices Online > Joe Rospars - New Media Director for Obama¹s 2008 Presidential Campaign and > Founding Partner of Blue State Digital > Lawrence Lessig - Co-founder of Creative Commons and Professor at Harvard > Law School > Peter Gabriel - Grammy Award winning international musician and co-founder > of Witness and the Elders > Reihan Salam - Policy advisor at Economics 21, blogger and conservative > political analyst > Ricken Patel - Co-founder and Executive Director, Avaaz.org > Professor Ron Deibert - Director of the Citizen Lab, Co-founder of the > OpenNet Initiative and Psiphon > Tattu Mambetallieva Emilbekovna - Director of the Civil Initiative on > Internet Policy > Yvette J. Alberdingk Thijm - Executive Director, Witness > > > > > From: Ginger Paque > Reply-To: Ginger Paque > Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:50:45 -0430 > To: , Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights online petition > > I tried to find more information on accessnow.org, and did not find much > background or history outside of their own site. Does anyone have > information or links to reviews or more information about this organization? > Even Web of Trust (WOT) says 'not enough ratings for this site' about their > site. This is not negative... but I would like to read more about them. > > Thanks, Ginger > > On 1/27/2011 4:16 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> While realising that the long term answer lies in governance, in the short >> term people might like to support the petition suggested below. >> >> And perhaps somewhere in our strategies the idea of advocating terms of >> service as a tool for protection of users might be a good inclusion! >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Dear Friends, >>> >>> Events in Egypt and Tunisia, and Amazon's takedown of Wikileaks, have >>> shown >>> that our right to information online is fundamentally at risk. >>> Increasingly, >>> internet companies on both sides of the firewall are unilaterally >>> removing >>> the >>> online information that they host, and right now, nothing can stop them. >>> >>> That includes the websites we get our information from, the videos we >>> watch, >>> and the social networking pages that channel news directly to us from >>> around >>> the world. This free exchange of information is in danger not just in >>> countries like Tunisia and Egypt (where Twitter has just been blocked), >>> but >>> as >>> the Wikileaks experience has shown us, in front of the firewall as well. >>> >>> Each year thousands of webpages are taken offline, yet few receive legal >>> review or appeal, and only a handful, like Wikileaks, receive media >>> attention. >>> In the international information arms race, authoritarian governments are >>> redoubling efforts to close down open communication channels. Sign this >>> petition, urging internet companies like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and >>> Google >>> to respond with a firm commitment to preserve the free flow of >>> information: >>> >>> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >>> >>> Most online content is hosted on corporate-owned servers, which have >>> unregulated control over what information we see and read. Following >>> Amazon's >>> decision to delete Wikileaks from its servers, internet companies are now >>> reviewing which sites they host and tightening their acceptable use >>> policies. >>> >>> We may not be able to influence authoritarian states, but there are many >>> ways >>> that webhosts (often referred to as internet service providers (ISPs) and >>> online service providers (OSPs)) can respect our rights in their Terms of >>> Service, but they're not going to change their ways unless there's a >>> global >>> public outcry urging them to do so. Take action now by signing this >>> petition: >>> >>> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >>> >>> The Tunisian government blocked YouTube, Vimeo, and Dailymotion but >>> protestors >>> were still able to use Facebook and Twitter to organize and spread >>> information >>> about the grassroots movement for democracy. The Egyptian government has >>> just >>> blocked Twitter while thousands of protestors are on the streets >>> demonstrating >>> for democracy and reform. >>> >>> We can help keep the internet open and support freedom movements around >>> the >>> world, but only if we stand together as users and demand our right to >>> information. Join us by signing this petition, and we'll deliver it to >>> the >>> largest internet companies: >>> >>> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >>> >>> In 2010, we fought against the sale of surveillance technologies to >>> repressive >>> regimes; called upon the top 100 most trafficked websites to protect our >>> security by implementing HTTPS by default; and supported technologies >>> that >>> allow activists to securely connect to the internet. Now, let's take the >>> fight >>> for digital freedom to the online service providers who singlehandedly >>> control >>> what can be said on the internet. Sign here: >>> >>> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >>> >>> With hope, >>> The Access Team >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ------ End of Forwarded Message >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -- > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > The latest from Diplo... > Call for applications for Diplo Internet governance foundation courses now > open. > See: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/news.asp > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jan 27 17:42:53 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:42:53 +1100 Subject: [governance] Rights online petition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Sala, I think these paragraphs say it all "Please sign this petition demanding that the platforms which host much of the world¹s information, stand firm against the regimes who are repressing their citizens, by establishing robust policies that respect human rights and protecting the security of those who use their services." To Online Service Providers: "We call upon you to uphold the right to freedom of speech by establishing rights-respecting policies and practices that protect online content regardless of political pressures, hacks, or other attacks." To me this is about getting companies, many of whom have global reach, to adopt and announce policy principles which respect users rights and freedom of speech, and outline in user agreements how they will react to requests from governments and other bodies to take down sites or deny access. In other words, a principle based response rather than a pragmatic political one. I know from a workshop IGC hosted in Hyderabad that, at that time at least, even Google had no specific policy regime to deal with requests from governments to deny access to certain sites. A policy regime would perhaps start with a judicial process being required before the company responded, rather than just mere political pressure. Yes, this is perhaps firstly about the companies who have global reach - eg Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Paypal etc - but to me it makes sense for this to move towards a global industry code of conduct for all access providers, including small regional ones. Such a code of conduct would provide a mechanism for service providers to resist pressure, be it from governments (eg China and Facebook, US and Wikileaks) or other companies (eg Hollywood pressure on small ISPs re movie downloads). Yes, this is primarily something for the business community. But it wouldn't hurt for civil society to support such action and promote it. Ian Peter > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:10:57 +1200 > To: , Ian Peter > Cc: Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] Rights online petition > > Dear Ian, > > Could you please send me an explanation of what the Petition is > about? I am not sure whether this is a petition for citizens within > countries who have have their internet content and media censored or > whether it is a Petition to declare Internet as a Human Right. > > Eitherway, the theft of data/information from Facebook and other > Social utility sites and the challenges of citizens from various > jurisdictions to lodge a claim against these sites, or even the > investigation process, underresourced regulatory regimes, and the > various challenges extraterritorially pose deep philosophical > questions that need to be asked before policies are written and laws > are passed and treaties are signed. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > On 1/28/11, Ian Peter wrote: >> While I cant tell you a great deal, their Advisory Board adds good >> credibility for me (moveon, avaaz, ethanzuckerman, peter gabriel, tor >> project etc) >> >> Ian >> >> Andrew Lewman - Executive Director of the Tor Project >> Andrew Rasiej - Founder of Personal Democracy Forum >> Chris Hughes - Co-founder of Facebook and Director of Online Organizing for >> Obama¹s Presidential Campaign >> Eli Pariser - Former Executive Director and Current Board President of >> MoveOn.org >> Ethan Zuckerman - Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and >> Society, Co-Founder of Global Voices Online >> Joe Rospars - New Media Director for Obama¹s 2008 Presidential Campaign and >> Founding Partner of Blue State Digital >> Lawrence Lessig - Co-founder of Creative Commons and Professor at Harvard >> Law School >> Peter Gabriel - Grammy Award winning international musician and co-founder >> of Witness and the Elders >> Reihan Salam - Policy advisor at Economics 21, blogger and conservative >> political analyst >> Ricken Patel - Co-founder and Executive Director, Avaaz.org >> Professor Ron Deibert - Director of the Citizen Lab, Co-founder of the >> OpenNet Initiative and Psiphon >> Tattu Mambetallieva Emilbekovna - Director of the Civil Initiative on >> Internet Policy >> Yvette J. Alberdingk Thijm - Executive Director, Witness >> >> >> >> >> From: Ginger Paque >> Reply-To: Ginger Paque >> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:50:45 -0430 >> To: , Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] Rights online petition >> >> I tried to find more information on accessnow.org, and did not find much >> background or history outside of their own site. Does anyone have >> information or links to reviews or more information about this organization? >> Even Web of Trust (WOT) says 'not enough ratings for this site' about their >> site. This is not negative... but I would like to read more about them. >> >> Thanks, Ginger >> >> On 1/27/2011 4:16 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> While realising that the long term answer lies in governance, in the short >>> term people might like to support the petition suggested below. >>> >>> And perhaps somewhere in our strategies the idea of advocating terms of >>> service as a tool for protection of users might be a good inclusion! >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Friends, >>>> >>>> Events in Egypt and Tunisia, and Amazon's takedown of Wikileaks, have >>>> shown >>>> that our right to information online is fundamentally at risk. >>>> Increasingly, >>>> internet companies on both sides of the firewall are unilaterally >>>> removing >>>> the >>>> online information that they host, and right now, nothing can stop them. >>>> >>>> That includes the websites we get our information from, the videos we >>>> watch, >>>> and the social networking pages that channel news directly to us from >>>> around >>>> the world. This free exchange of information is in danger not just in >>>> countries like Tunisia and Egypt (where Twitter has just been blocked), >>>> but >>>> as >>>> the Wikileaks experience has shown us, in front of the firewall as well. >>>> >>>> Each year thousands of webpages are taken offline, yet few receive legal >>>> review or appeal, and only a handful, like Wikileaks, receive media >>>> attention. >>>> In the international information arms race, authoritarian governments are >>>> redoubling efforts to close down open communication channels. Sign this >>>> petition, urging internet companies like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and >>>> Google >>>> to respond with a firm commitment to preserve the free flow of >>>> information: >>>> >>>> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >>>> >>>> Most online content is hosted on corporate-owned servers, which have >>>> unregulated control over what information we see and read. Following >>>> Amazon's >>>> decision to delete Wikileaks from its servers, internet companies are now >>>> reviewing which sites they host and tightening their acceptable use >>>> policies. >>>> >>>> We may not be able to influence authoritarian states, but there are many >>>> ways >>>> that webhosts (often referred to as internet service providers (ISPs) and >>>> online service providers (OSPs)) can respect our rights in their Terms of >>>> Service, but they're not going to change their ways unless there's a >>>> global >>>> public outcry urging them to do so. Take action now by signing this >>>> petition: >>>> >>>> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >>>> >>>> The Tunisian government blocked YouTube, Vimeo, and Dailymotion but >>>> protestors >>>> were still able to use Facebook and Twitter to organize and spread >>>> information >>>> about the grassroots movement for democracy. The Egyptian government has >>>> just >>>> blocked Twitter while thousands of protestors are on the streets >>>> demonstrating >>>> for democracy and reform. >>>> >>>> We can help keep the internet open and support freedom movements around >>>> the >>>> world, but only if we stand together as users and demand our right to >>>> information. Join us by signing this petition, and we'll deliver it to >>>> the >>>> largest internet companies: >>>> >>>> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >>>> >>>> In 2010, we fought against the sale of surveillance technologies to >>>> repressive >>>> regimes; called upon the top 100 most trafficked websites to protect our >>>> security by implementing HTTPS by default; and supported technologies >>>> that >>>> allow activists to securely connect to the internet. Now, let's take the >>>> fight >>>> for digital freedom to the online service providers who singlehandedly >>>> control >>>> what can be said on the internet. Sign here: >>>> >>>> https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all >>>> >>>> With hope, >>>> The Access Team >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ------ End of Forwarded Message >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IGCBP Online Coordinator >> DiploFoundation >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> >> The latest from Diplo... >> Call for applications for Diplo Internet governance foundation courses now >> open. >> See: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/news.asp >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 03:23:52 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:53:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt Message-ID: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... Pl read below. AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Jan 28 03:58:25 2011 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:58:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <560099.66349.qm@web120516.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Al Jazeera has much more influence on happenings in the Middle East than the internet... ________________________________ From: parminder To: "gov >> "governance at lists.cpsr.org"" Sent: Fri, 28 January, 2011 7:23:52 PM Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... Pl read below. AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jan 28 04:34:33 2011 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:34:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Rights online petition In-Reply-To: <4D41E1AD.7050600@paque.net> References: <4D41E1AD.7050600@paque.net> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D7D@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Hi all I'm not sure if you know Brett Solomon and Kim Pham, but they're 2 of the driving forces behind Access. They were both at last year's IGF, and Brett has been working with a group of IRP coalition members to distil the Charter of human rights and principles for the Internet down into a set of more punchy principles that can be used for advocacy whilst we spend a bit longer delving into the complex policy issues that underlie the main Charter itself. I've copied Brett in here...I'm sure he'd be happy to give a bit more background about Access. All the best, Lisa From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque Sent: 27 January 2011 21:21 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Rights online petition I tried to find more information on accessnow.org, and did not find much background or history outside of their own site. Does anyone have information or links to reviews or more information about this organization? Even Web of Trust (WOT) says 'not enough ratings for this site' about their site. This is not negative... but I would like to read more about them. Thanks, Ginger On 1/27/2011 4:16 PM, Ian Peter wrote: While realising that the long term answer lies in governance, in the short term people might like to support the petition suggested below. And perhaps somewhere in our strategies the idea of advocating terms of service as a tool for protection of users might be a good inclusion! Ian Peter Dear Friends, Events in Egypt and Tunisia, and Amazon's takedown of Wikileaks, have shown that our right to information online is fundamentally at risk. Increasingly, internet companies on both sides of the firewall are unilaterally removing the online information that they host, and right now, nothing can stop them. That includes the websites we get our information from, the videos we watch, and the social networking pages that channel news directly to us from around the world. This free exchange of information is in danger not just in countries like Tunisia and Egypt (where Twitter has just been blocked), but as the Wikileaks experience has shown us, in front of the firewall as well. Each year thousands of webpages are taken offline, yet few receive legal review or appeal, and only a handful, like Wikileaks, receive media attention. In the international information arms race, authoritarian governments are redoubling efforts to close down open communication channels. Sign this petition, urging internet companies like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Google to respond with a firm commitment to preserve the free flow of information: https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all Most online content is hosted on corporate-owned servers, which have unregulated control over what information we see and read. Following Amazon's decision to delete Wikileaks from its servers, internet companies are now reviewing which sites they host and tightening their acceptable use policies. We may not be able to influence authoritarian states, but there are many ways that webhosts (often referred to as internet service providers (ISPs) and online service providers (OSPs)) can respect our rights in their Terms of Service, but they're not going to change their ways unless there's a global public outcry urging them to do so. Take action now by signing this petition: https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all The Tunisian government blocked YouTube, Vimeo, and Dailymotion but protestors were still able to use Facebook and Twitter to organize and spread information about the grassroots movement for democracy. The Egyptian government has just blocked Twitter while thousands of protestors are on the streets demonstrating for democracy and reform. We can help keep the internet open and support freedom movements around the world, but only if we stand together as users and demand our right to information. Join us by signing this petition, and we'll deliver it to the largest internet companies: https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all In 2010, we fought against the sale of surveillance technologies to repressive regimes; called upon the top 100 most trafficked websites to protect our security by implementing HTTPS by default; and supported technologies that allow activists to securely connect to the internet. Now, let's take the fight for digital freedom to the online service providers who singlehandedly control what can be said on the internet. Sign here: https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all With hope, The Access Team ------ End of Forwarded Message ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Ginger (Virginia) Paque IGCBP Online Coordinator DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo... Call for applications for Diplo Internet governance foundation courses now open. See: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/news.asp ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk Fri Jan 28 05:00:21 2011 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:00:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <560099.66349.qm@web120516.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <560099.66349.qm@web120516.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D7E@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> I don’t think in this converged world that we can necessarily separate out the online and offline platforms. Al Jazeera undoubtedly has huge influence at national, regional and global levels. It has on the ground reporters, but is also very well hooked in to online politics. The mainstream media often takes its lead from citizen reporting, especially in more closed environments in moments of turmoil and crisis. The circular link between wikileaks and “offline” media illustrates the levels of intertwining and interaction. I was in Egypt a couple of weeks ago, and was struck by the influence that online platforms and media are having. Some of the best media outfits there have online and offline versions, with online reporting much freer and having demonstrable impact. For example, citizen reporting and logging of cases of harassment of women on the street has led to much wider awareness of the issue, leading to unprecedented convictions and draft legislation on sexual harassment. The Internet may be shut down now, but the information from individual protestors is still getting out. And we have to look at the role that online media and activism have played in laying the ground for the protests, however slowly and incrementally. So, whilst Al Jazeera has huge impact, it’s part of a much wider communications ecosystem in which outlets and discussions all feed off each other at local, national and regional levels.....The Internet is playing a role, even in countries with heavily controlled networks and low levels of penetration. Anyway, would be good to hear from people actually living in the region..... All the best, Lisa From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of David Goldstein Sent: 28 January 2011 08:58 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt Al Jazeera has much more influence on happenings in the Middle East than the internet... ________________________________ From: parminder To: "gov >> "governance at lists.cpsr.org"" Sent: Fri, 28 January, 2011 7:23:52 PM Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... Pl read below. AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" -- ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Fri Jan 28 05:04:50 2011 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:04:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D7E@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <560099.66349.qm@web120516.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D7E@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Message-ID: Coming from Yemen, I can say that it all depends on where you live and in my country, Al Jazeera certainly has the upper hand in reaching a much broader section of the population. Internet penetration is much lower there compared to Egypt and Tunisia and hence, the impact of social networks is minimal. Nonetheless, what I feel is important is to focus on the complementary relationship between satellite TV and the Internet. Each has an impact and when both are aligned, they create the perfect storm, which explains why Jordan once jammed Al Jazeera's signal once and Egypt cut off the Internet. Best.. Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: > I don’t think in this converged world that we can necessarily separate out > the online and offline platforms. Al Jazeera undoubtedly has huge influence > at national, regional and global levels. It has on the ground reporters, > but is also very well hooked in to online politics. The mainstream media > often takes its lead from citizen reporting, especially in more closed > environments in moments of turmoil and crisis. The circular link between > wikileaks and “offline” media illustrates the levels of intertwining and > interaction. I was in Egypt a couple of weeks ago, and was struck by the > influence that online platforms and media are having. Some of the best > media outfits there have online and offline versions, with online reporting > much freer and having demonstrable impact. For example, citizen reporting > and logging of cases of harassment of women on the street has led to much > wider awareness of the issue, leading to unprecedented convictions and draft > legislation on sexual harassment. The Internet may be shut down now, but > the information from individual protestors is still getting out. And we > have to look at the role that online media and activism have played in > laying the ground for the protests, however slowly and incrementally. So, > whilst Al Jazeera has huge impact, it’s part of a much wider communications > ecosystem in which outlets and discussions all feed off each other at local, > national and regional levels.....The Internet is playing a role, even in > countries with heavily controlled networks and low levels of penetration. > > > > Anyway, would be good to hear from people actually living in the > region..... > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] *On Behalf Of *David Goldstein > *Sent:* 28 January 2011 08:58 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt > > > > Al Jazeera has much more influence on happenings in the Middle East than > the internet... > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* parminder > *To:* "gov >> "governance at lists.cpsr.org"" > *Sent:* Fri, 28 January, 2011 7:23:52 PM > *Subject:* [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt > > Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... > > > Pl read below. > > AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" > > http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) > > "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong > control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of > them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called > 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" > > -- > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kpham26 at ucla.edu Fri Jan 28 05:12:44 2011 From: kpham26 at ucla.edu (Kim Pham) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:12:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] Rights Online Petition Message-ID: Hi all, I have actually since left Access along with the co-founders and the Iran team to start a new venture that will focus primarily on the development and provision of technical solutions to individuals and groups working in closed contexts. Through this, we hope to improve the security of our clients, access to information and protect their right to free expression. Although our main focus is the on the ground work in the startup phase, we will be staying involved with the Internet Governance community. The policy debates and issues set forth in this space have a significant impact on our clients and the threats they face. One of the founding members of this new team, Cameran Ashraf, is currently pursuing a Ph.D. at UCLA studying the geopolitics of the Internet, and as he moves toward candidacy, we anticipate our involvement with the Internet governance community will grow. Brett is in the best position to speak about Access and its current work, including the petition that has been circulated on this list-serv. All the best, Kim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 05:55:39 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:55:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over things Internety. Rgds, McTim On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: > Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... > > > Pl read below. > > AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" > > http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) > > "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong > control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of > them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called > 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" > > -- > > > -- Sent from my mobile device Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Fri Jan 28 06:07:09 2011 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:07:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The question that imposes itself is: "What can be done in order to prevent this?" How can we garrantee that other countries won't do that as well? In addition to the social impact think of this impact on business (We shifted all the communication from internet back to phonecalls, that is if they don't cut these as well soon... what used to take 15 seconds by email, is taking 15 minutes by phonecall !!! ) All the best, Bernard. - Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Twitter: @sdkaaa Website: http://evoliuvo.com Email : sdkaaa at evoliuvo.com, sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ DiploFoundation Associate Social Media & Remote Participation Consultant BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:23 AM, parminder wrote: > Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... > > > Pl read below. > > AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" > http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) > > "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong > control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of > them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called > 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" > > -- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Jan 28 06:16:10 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:16:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> Sorry, McTim, this can happen in any sector in any country in which a government decides to do so in a crisis situation, be it right, just, democratic or, as in this case, dictatorial. When the USA invaded Iraq all communications were cut except for the US military and the "embedded media", just to quote a somewhat more extreme example. The USA government has already explicitly mentioned moves to "shut down" the Internet in a crisis. So, it demonstrates nothing of this sort... We need other arguments to keep our struggle for multiskaholder governance of the Net. Our major worry regarding the "influence" or control of the State over the Internet is what is happening on a day-to-day basis in major countries (like the USA, with the COICA proposal, in France, in England etc) which can in practice draw dozens of other countries' governments to the same trend. --c.a. On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, McTim wrote: > This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over > things Internety. Rgds, McTim > > On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: >> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >> >> >> Pl read below. >> >> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" >> >> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) >> >> "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >> control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >> them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >> 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >> >> -- >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 08:05:15 2011 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:05:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rights Online Petition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All the best Aaron On 1/28/11, Kim Pham wrote: > Hi all, > > I have actually since left Access along with the co-founders and the Iran > team to start a new venture that will focus primarily on the development and > provision of technical solutions to individuals and groups working in closed > contexts. Through this, we hope to improve the security of our clients, > access to information and protect their right to free expression. > > Although our main focus is the on the ground work in the startup phase, we > will be staying involved with the Internet Governance community. The policy > debates and issues set forth in this space have a significant impact on our > clients and the threats they face. One of the founding members of this new > team, Cameran Ashraf, is currently pursuing a Ph.D. at UCLA studying the > geopolitics of the Internet, and as he moves toward candidacy, we anticipate > our involvement with the Internet governance community will grow. > > Brett is in the best position to speak about Access and its current work, > including the petition that has been circulated on this list-serv. > > All the best, > > Kim > -- 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 avri at acm.org Fri Jan 28 08:07:20 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 08:07:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> Hi, This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing development of technology that stays ahead of any government's ability to shut if off or block it. This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non centralized services and furthering their development. a. On 28 Jan 2011, at 06:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Sorry, McTim, this can happen in any sector in any country in which a > government decides to do so in a crisis situation, be it right, just, > democratic or, as in this case, dictatorial. When the USA invaded Iraq > all communications were cut except for the US military and the "embedded > media", just to quote a somewhat more extreme example. The USA > government has already explicitly mentioned moves to "shut down" the > Internet in a crisis. > > So, it demonstrates nothing of this sort... We need other arguments to > keep our struggle for multiskaholder governance of the Net. Our major > worry regarding the "influence" or control of the State over the > Internet is what is happening on a day-to-day basis in major countries > (like the USA, with the COICA proposal, in France, in England etc) which > can in practice draw dozens of other countries' governments to the same > trend. > > --c.a. > > On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, McTim wrote: >> This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over >> things Internety. Rgds, McTim >> >> On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: >>> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >>> >>> >>> Pl read below. >>> >>> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" >>> >>> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) >>> >>> "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >>> control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >>> them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >>> 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 aizu at anr.org Fri Jan 28 09:11:11 2011 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:11:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> Message-ID: While I agree with what both Carlos and Avri argues for, I also think that giving too much weight to "media" - be it Internet or Satellite TV or mobile phones- may distore the picture. I mean it is the people's will, acts and causes that is really shaping the scene in Tunisia or Egypt or USA. Of course, we cannot underestimate the influence and potential of distributed media, social networking and twitter, etc, they do not constitute the "sufficient condition" for change. Please don't misunderstand that I am supporting the control of media by government. I may be wrong, but hope not. izumi 2011/1/28 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing development of technology that stays ahead of any government's ability to shut if off or block it.  This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non centralized services and furthering their development. > > a. > > > On 28 Jan 2011, at 06:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Sorry, McTim, this can happen in any sector in any country in which a >> government decides to do so in a crisis situation, be it right, just, >> democratic or, as in this case, dictatorial. When the USA invaded Iraq >> all communications were cut except for the US military and the "embedded >> media", just to quote a somewhat more extreme example. The USA >> government has already explicitly mentioned moves to "shut down" the >> Internet in a crisis. >> >> So, it demonstrates nothing of this sort... We need other arguments to >> keep our struggle for multiskaholder governance of the Net. Our major >> worry regarding the "influence" or control of the State over the >> Internet is what is happening on a day-to-day basis in major countries >> (like the USA, with the COICA proposal, in France, in England etc) which >> can in practice draw dozens of other countries' governments to the same >> trend. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, McTim wrote: >>> This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over >>> things Internety. Rgds, McTim >>> >>> On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: >>>> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >>>> >>>> >>>> Pl read below. >>>> >>>> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" >>>> >>>> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt  (AP / MSN) >>>> >>>>   "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >>>>    control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >>>>    them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >>>>    'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 khaled.koubaa at gmail.com Fri Jan 28 09:30:11 2011 From: khaled.koubaa at gmail.com (Khaled KOUBAA) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:30:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D42D2F3.8070905@gmail.com> I totally agree with you Avri. Le 28/01/2011 14:07, Avri Doria a écrit : > Hi, > > This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing development of technology that stays ahead of any government's ability to shut if off or block it. This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non centralized services and furthering their development. > > a. > > > On 28 Jan 2011, at 06:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > >> Sorry, McTim, this can happen in any sector in any country in which a >> government decides to do so in a crisis situation, be it right, just, >> democratic or, as in this case, dictatorial. When the USA invaded Iraq >> all communications were cut except for the US military and the "embedded >> media", just to quote a somewhat more extreme example. The USA >> government has already explicitly mentioned moves to "shut down" the >> Internet in a crisis. >> >> So, it demonstrates nothing of this sort... We need other arguments to >> keep our struggle for multiskaholder governance of the Net. Our major >> worry regarding the "influence" or control of the State over the >> Internet is what is happening on a day-to-day basis in major countries >> (like the USA, with the COICA proposal, in France, in England etc) which >> can in practice draw dozens of other countries' governments to the same >> trend. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over >>> things Internety. Rgds, McTim >>> >>> On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >>>> >>>> >>>> Pl read below. >>>> >>>> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" >>>> >>>> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) >>>> >>>> "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >>>> control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >>>> them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >>>> 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 Fri Jan 28 10:16:00 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:16:00 -0200 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D42DDB0.10301@cafonso.ca> Exactly, Avri! --c.a. On 01/28/2011 11:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing development of technology that stays ahead of any government's ability to shut if off or block it. This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non centralized services and furthering their development. > > a. > > > On 28 Jan 2011, at 06:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Sorry, McTim, this can happen in any sector in any country in which a >> government decides to do so in a crisis situation, be it right, just, >> democratic or, as in this case, dictatorial. When the USA invaded Iraq >> all communications were cut except for the US military and the "embedded >> media", just to quote a somewhat more extreme example. The USA >> government has already explicitly mentioned moves to "shut down" the >> Internet in a crisis. >> >> So, it demonstrates nothing of this sort... We need other arguments to >> keep our struggle for multiskaholder governance of the Net. Our major >> worry regarding the "influence" or control of the State over the >> Internet is what is happening on a day-to-day basis in major countries >> (like the USA, with the COICA proposal, in France, in England etc) which >> can in practice draw dozens of other countries' governments to the same >> trend. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, McTim wrote: >>> This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over >>> things Internety. Rgds, McTim >>> >>> On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: >>>> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >>>> >>>> >>>> Pl read below. >>>> >>>> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" >>>> >>>> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) >>>> >>>> "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >>>> control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >>>> them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >>>> 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 Jan 28 10:35:57 2011 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:35:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yes McTim But Internet ws created by man not out of any said government policy (I hope Tim Lee will not disagree here) How on earth did it even occur to some one that Governments (that are mainly bureaucrats) be given leeways to control Internet. Regulating, yes but controlling the nternet, no! What is happening in Egypt is sure sign that the Oligarchy there is living its last moments... For a more free Egypt. Mark that Opposition Leader El Baradei has been placed under house arrest. Aaron On 1/28/11, McTim wrote: > This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over > things Internety. Rgds, McTim > > On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: >> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >> >> >> Pl read below. >> >> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" >> >> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) >> >> "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >> control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >> them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >> 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >> >> -- >> >> >> > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 email at hakik.org Fri Jan 28 11:42:43 2011 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:42:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> Message-ID: <20110128164323.08C484B1E0@npogroups.org> Exactly! +1 Hakikur At 01:07 PM 1/28/2011, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet >Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing >development of technology that stays ahead of any government's >ability to shut if off or block it. This is one reason also for >protecting the notion of non centralized services and furthering >their development. > >a. > > >On 28 Jan 2011, at 06:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > Sorry, McTim, this can happen in any sector in any country in which a > > government decides to do so in a crisis situation, be it right, just, > > democratic or, as in this case, dictatorial. When the USA invaded Iraq > > all communications were cut except for the US military and the "embedded > > media", just to quote a somewhat more extreme example. The USA > > government has already explicitly mentioned moves to "shut down" the > > Internet in a crisis. > > > > So, it demonstrates nothing of this sort... We need other arguments to > > keep our struggle for multiskaholder governance of the Net. Our major > > worry regarding the "influence" or control of the State over the > > Internet is what is happening on a day-to-day basis in major countries > > (like the USA, with the COICA proposal, in France, in England etc) which > > can in practice draw dozens of other countries' governments to the same > > trend. > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, McTim wrote: > >> This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over > >> things Internety. Rgds, McTim > >> > >> On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: > >>> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... > >>> > >>> > >>> Pl read below. > >>> > >>> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" > >>> > >>> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) > >>> > >>> "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong > >>> control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of > >>> them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called > >>> 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 28 12:17:18 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:47:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> Message-ID: <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing development of technology that stays ahead of any government's ability to shut if off or block it. Or any corporate's ability to take illegitimate rent by squatting over a commons - and also to choose what political development - including revolutions - it will support or not . What is the way to support the continuing development of 'such technology' that prevents such inappropriate controls? > This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non centralized services and furthering their development. > The question as to how do we support the development of non centralized services is really one of the most important IG issues, because all empirical evidence today points to the fact that we are moving towards more and more centralized and monopolistic Internet services. I suggest policy interventions that ensure that there is no concentration of market power towards monopolisation in any application area (google. facebook, twitter etc) and there is adequate policy measures to ensure a decentralized architecture of the Internet - ensuing against vertical integration across content, application and infrastructure layers (net neutrality), search engine algorithms are open, and social networking sites can cross access data to ensure there are no lock-ins, Who would take these required policy measures? Not the US where most of these big companies are registered, because the social costs of these monopolies to its citizens are weighed against the money that these companies earn for the US economy. Then, who can take the required measures ? I once again suggest, this can only be some by appropriate global governance systems for the Internet, Thus my interest in this area, and my stated positions on various IG issues, But I am open to be persuaded to alternative possibilities of ensuring what we all seem to want. parminder > a. > > > On 28 Jan 2011, at 06:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > >> Sorry, McTim, this can happen in any sector in any country in which a >> government decides to do so in a crisis situation, be it right, just, >> democratic or, as in this case, dictatorial. When the USA invaded Iraq >> all communications were cut except for the US military and the "embedded >> media", just to quote a somewhat more extreme example. The USA >> government has already explicitly mentioned moves to "shut down" the >> Internet in a crisis. >> >> So, it demonstrates nothing of this sort... We need other arguments to >> keep our struggle for multiskaholder governance of the Net. Our major >> worry regarding the "influence" or control of the State over the >> Internet is what is happening on a day-to-day basis in major countries >> (like the USA, with the COICA proposal, in France, in England etc) which >> can in practice draw dozens of other countries' governments to the same >> trend. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over >>> things Internety. Rgds, McTim >>> >>> On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >>>> >>>> >>>> Pl read below. >>>> >>>> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" >>>> >>>> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) >>>> >>>> "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >>>> control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >>>> them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >>>> 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 qshatti at gmail.com Fri Jan 28 12:29:42 2011 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:29:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: (THIS E-MAIL IS WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTER TO PROTEST DEPRIVING INDIVIDUALS FROM THEIR RIGHTS TO ACCESS THE INTERNET AND OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS) IT SEEMS THAT PEOPLE IN OUR PART OF THE WORLD DOES NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY EVEN WHEN EVENTS CLOSE TO THEM JUST HAPPENED DAYS AGO. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT SOMEONE STILL THINKS THAT BY BLOCKING WEBSITES OR CUTTING THE INTERNET, SMS, AND OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS WILL RESOLVE UNRESTS RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE REAL ISSUES THAT CAUSED IT, RESPOND TO IT AND COMMIT TO CHANGE. THESE ARE ALL COUNTRIES THAT SIGNED THE WSIS GENEVA DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES WHICH STATES: "Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organization. It is central to the Information Society." THESE ACTS NOT ONLY DEMONSTRATE THE INCAPABILITIES OF THESE AUTHORITIES TO DEAL WITH CHANGE, SOCIAL NETWORKS AND THE IMPACT OF THE INTERNET, IT MAKES THE INTERNET AS THE FIRST TARGET TO BE HALTED WHEN EVER ANY PROTEST TAKES PLACE RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE REAL ISSUES (IT IS A SIGN OF WEAKNESS). IT IS NOT ONLY IMPORTANT TO DEVELOP ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES THAT MAY GO BEYOND THE CAPABILITIES OF GOVERNMENT TO BLOCK THE INTERNET BUT WE NEED TO MAKE WHO EVER COMMIT SUCH ACTIONS BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT. WHILE THE WORLD IS TALKING ABOUT A DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATORY INTERNET, SOMEONE ELSE IS CUTTING THE INTERNET OFF. THIS IS BEYOND BLOCKING SOME SITES OR FILTERING CONTENTS. REGARDS, QUSAI ALSHATTI On Friday, January 28, 2011, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Yes McTim > > But Internet ws created by man not out of any said government policy > (I hope Tim Lee will not disagree here) > > How on earth did it even occur to some one that Governments (that are > mainly bureaucrats) be given leeways to control Internet. > > Regulating, yes but controlling the nternet, no! > > What is happening in Egypt is sure sign that the Oligarchy there is > living its last moments... > > For a more free Egypt. Mark that Opposition Leader El Baradei has been > placed under house arrest. > > Aaron > > On 1/28/11, McTim wrote: >> This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over >> things Internety. Rgds, McTim >> >> On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: >>> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >>> >>> >>> Pl read below. >>> >>> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" >>> >>> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt  (AP / MSN) >>> >>>    "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >>>     control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >>>     them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >>>     'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Sent from my mobile device >> >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 12:30:47 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:30:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, Some interspersed comments. On 28 Jan 2011, at 12:17, parminder wrote: > > Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing development of technology that stays ahead of any government's ability to shut if off or block it. >> > Or any corporate's ability to take illegitimate rent by squatting over a commons - and also to choose what political development - including revolutions - it will support or not . > > What is the way to support the continuing development of 'such technology' that prevents such inappropriate controls? One way is to make sure that any technology we develop is available as FOSS. There may be other design constraints that would be useful i consideration of how one se to it that for all proprietary services, there are also non proprietary service providers. Very much like the TOR project model is built on a volunteer base of relays. >> This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non centralized services and furthering their development. >> >> > The question as to how do we support the development of non centralized services is really one of the most important IG issues, because all empirical evidence today points to the fact that we are moving towards more and more centralized and monopolistic Internet services. I think moving toward centralization/monopoly is always the predominant motion that needs to be resisted. > > I suggest policy interventions that ensure that there is no concentration of market power towards monopolisation in any application area (google. facebook, twitter etc) and there is adequate policy measures to ensure a decentralized architecture of the Internet - ensuing against vertical integration across content, application and infrastructure layers (net neutrality), search engine algorithms are open, and social networking sites can cross access data to ensure there are no lock-ins, sure. and one way to do this is to offer other alternatives beyond those that have become concentrators. all of the network services you mentioned, were once the open independent innovators. and everything that is successful will get co-opted into the profit making schemes, hence the need to always be developing something new. and the need for there to be policies that support the creation of something new at all times. > > Who would take these required policy measures? Not the US where most of these big companies are registered, because the social costs of these monopolies to its citizens are weighed against the money that these companies earn for the US economy. Then, who can take the required measures ? whether it is the US or Europe, of any other nation or group of nations that sponsor research, I think you find that they do fund the technology and they will even often fund FOSS research. I am not looking for any country to do the policy work, though countries will ally themselves and help when it is in their interest or part of their national identity. I think civil society has to find its allies where it can and should not close any doors. and sometimes the allies are nations, and sometimes the allies are corporate entities. and frequently the allies are found in the internet technical community. > > I once again suggest, this can only be some by appropriate global governance systems for the Internet, Thus my interest in this area, and my stated positions on various IG issues, But I am open to be persuaded to alternative possibilities of ensuring what we all seem to want. parminder and there we diverge. I see no way for global centralized governance systems to motivate non centralized services or the policies that enable them. > > >> a. >> >> >> On 28 Jan 2011, at 06:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> >> >>> Sorry, McTim, this can happen in any sector in any country in which a >>> government decides to do so in a crisis situation, be it right, just, >>> democratic or, as in this case, dictatorial. When the USA invaded Iraq >>> all communications were cut except for the US military and the "embedded >>> media", just to quote a somewhat more extreme example. The USA >>> government has already explicitly mentioned moves to "shut down" the >>> Internet in a crisis. >>> >>> So, it demonstrates nothing of this sort... We need other arguments to >>> keep our struggle for multiskaholder governance of the Net. Our major >>> worry regarding the "influence" or control of the State over the >>> Internet is what is happening on a day-to-day basis in major countries >>> (like the USA, with the COICA proposal, in France, in England etc) which >>> can in practice draw dozens of other countries' governments to the same >>> trend. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> >>>> This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over >>>> things Internety. Rgds, McTim >>>> >>>> On 1/28/11, parminder >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pl read below. >>>>> >>>>> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark >>>>> " >>>>> >>>>> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) >>>>> >>>>> " >>>>> The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >>>>> control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >>>>> them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >>>>> 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> To 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 28 12:35:14 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:05:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D42FE52.8030105@itforchange.net> McTim wrote: > This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over > things Internety. Rgds, McTim > McTim, Democracy is about democratic institutions, of which democratic governments are a basic component. You simply do not seem to believe in democratic institutions as against anarchy masquerading as democracy. And this argument extends to global democracy in terms of governing the essentially global phenomenon of the Internet. The kind of arrangements that you seem to support, by design or default, just means that the 'Internety things' are controlled and exploited to their advantage by a few global corporates and a few governments of the richer countries. They just hide these controls well enough to mislead the more gullible. parminder > On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: > >> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >> >> >> Pl read below. >> >> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" >> >> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) >> >> "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >> control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >> them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >> 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >> >> -- >> >> >> >> > > -- 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 Elvana.THACI at coe.int Fri Jan 28 12:39:51 2011 From: Elvana.THACI at coe.int (THACI Elvana) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:39:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <946641AC34E0E54FBB7E559B13CF36B703F37597@ASTERIX.key.coe.int> Dear list, Please note that on 18 and 19 April the Council of Europe will be organising a conference to discuss issues of Internet freedom: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/ You will find attached a tentative programme. Registrations will be possible via a website which at the moment is under construction. Please feel free to contact me for any queries. Best regards, Elvana ~ Elvana Thaçi InfoSoc, Media and Data Protection Division Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Tel. + 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98 Fax. + 33 (0) 3 88 41 27 05 E-mail: elvana.thaci at coe.int Internet: www.coe.int/media ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Friday 28 January 2011 18:17 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt Avri Doria wrote: Hi, This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing development of technology that stays ahead of any government's ability to shut if off or block it. Or any corporate's ability to take illegitimate rent by squatting over a commons - and also to choose what political development - including revolutions - it will support or not . What is the way to support the continuing development of 'such technology' that prevents such inappropriate controls? This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non centralized services and furthering their development. The question as to how do we support the development of non centralized services is really one of the most important IG issues, because all empirical evidence today points to the fact that we are moving towards more and more centralized and monopolistic Internet services. I suggest policy interventions that ensure that there is no concentration of market power towards monopolisation in any application area (google. facebook, twitter etc) and there is adequate policy measures to ensure a decentralized architecture of the Internet - ensuing against vertical integration across content, application and infrastructure layers (net neutrality), search engine algorithms are open, and social networking sites can cross access data to ensure there are no lock-ins, Who would take these required policy measures? Not the US where most of these big companies are registered, because the social costs of these monopolies to its citizens are weighed against the money that these companies earn for the US economy. Then, who can take the required measures ? I once again suggest, this can only be some by appropriate global governance systems for the Internet, Thus my interest in this area, and my stated positions on various IG issues, But I am open to be persuaded to alternative possibilities of ensuring what we all seem to want. parminder a. On 28 Jan 2011, at 06:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Sorry, McTim, this can happen in any sector in any country in which a government decides to do so in a crisis situation, be it right, just, democratic or, as in this case, dictatorial. When the USA invaded Iraq all communications were cut except for the US military and the "embedded media", just to quote a somewhat more extreme example. The USA government has already explicitly mentioned moves to "shut down" the Internet in a crisis. So, it demonstrates nothing of this sort... We need other arguments to keep our struggle for multiskaholder governance of the Net. Our major worry regarding the "influence" or control of the State over the Internet is what is happening on a day-to-day basis in major countries (like the USA, with the COICA proposal, in France, in England etc) which can in practice draw dozens of other countries' governments to the same trend. --c.a. On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, McTim wrote: This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over things Internety. Rgds, McTim On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... Pl read below. AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) " The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Tentative Programme.doc Type: application/msword Size: 52736 bytes Desc: Tentative Programme.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 12:40:21 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:40:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D42FF85.7010606@apc.org> We will always need subversive technologies, in the way that we will always need social activism. Even good policy environments can change, or policies can simply be overruled or disregarded by those who have the power to do so. Anriette On 28/01/11 19:17, parminder wrote: > > Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet >> Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing >> development of technology that stays ahead of any government's ability >> to shut if off or block it. > Or any corporate's ability to take illegitimate rent by squatting over a > commons - and also to choose what political development - including > revolutions - it will support or not . > > What is the way to support the continuing development of 'such > technology' that prevents such inappropriate controls? >> This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non centralized >> services and furthering their development. >> > The question as to how do we support the development of non centralized > services is really one of the most important IG issues, because all > empirical evidence today points to the fact that we are moving towards > more and more centralized and monopolistic Internet services. > > I suggest policy interventions that ensure that there is no > concentration of market power towards monopolisation in any application > area (google. facebook, twitter etc) and there is adequate policy > measures to ensure a decentralized architecture of the Internet - > ensuing against vertical integration across content, application and > infrastructure layers (net neutrality), search engine algorithms are > open, and social networking sites can cross access data to ensure there > are no lock-ins, > > Who would take these required policy measures? Not the US where most of > these big companies are registered, because the social costs of these > monopolies to its citizens are weighed against the money that these > companies earn for the US economy. Then, who can take the required > measures ? > > I once again suggest, this can only be some by appropriate global > governance systems for the Internet, Thus my interest in this area, and > my stated positions on various IG issues, But I am open to be persuaded > to alternative possibilities of ensuring what we all seem to want. > parminder > > >> a. >> >> >> On 28 Jan 2011, at 06:16, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> >>> Sorry, McTim, this can happen in any sector in any country in which a >>> government decides to do so in a crisis situation, be it right, just, >>> democratic or, as in this case, dictatorial. When the USA invaded Iraq >>> all communications were cut except for the US military and the "embedded >>> media", just to quote a somewhat more extreme example. The USA >>> government has already explicitly mentioned moves to "shut down" the >>> Internet in a crisis. >>> >>> So, it demonstrates nothing of this sort... We need other arguments to >>> keep our struggle for multiskaholder governance of the Net. Our major >>> worry regarding the "influence" or control of the State over the >>> Internet is what is happening on a day-to-day basis in major countries >>> (like the USA, with the COICA proposal, in France, in England etc) which >>> can in practice draw dozens of other countries' governments to the same >>> trend. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 01/28/2011 08:55 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >>>> This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE control over >>>> things Internety. Rgds, McTim >>>> >>>> On 1/28/11, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> Today may turn out to be a historic day for Egypt... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pl read below. >>>>> >>>>> AP: "The day part of the Internet died: Egypt goes dark" >>>>> >>>>> http://bit.ly/gCJFHt (AP / MSN) >>>>> >>>>> "The Internet blackout in Egypt shows that a country with strong >>>>> control over its Internet providers apparently can force all of >>>>> them to pull their plugs at once, something that Cowie called >>>>> 'almost entirely unprecedented in Internet history.'" >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Jan 28 12:45:26 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:45:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D407EE3.2010109@wzb.eu> (message from Jeanette Hofmann on Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:06:59 +0100) References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> <4D407EE3.2010109@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20110128174526.EB6EF15C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I have tried to argue for more outcome oriented workshops. They should > define some form of a goal in their workshop proposal. Alas, outcome > orientation is a cultural issue as well. Many people in the > international sphere tend to think in procedural terms. Perhaps we are > just a bit demanding in this respect? I think that it well-justified and quite necessary to be justly "a bit demanding in this respect". For some activity to be meaningful, it will quite generally need to have some kind of output that becomes input for something else. Of course, some of the potential results from discussions are of a kind that is not compatible with the idea of recording them in some kind of formal "output" document, and that does not make those kinds of informal outputs any less valuable. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jan 28 13:17:11 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:17:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <9K1WQIB5RTQNFAoV@internetpolicyagency.com> (message from Roland Perry on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:01:45 +0000) References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> <4D408FC9.70204@apc.org> <9K1WQIB5RTQNFAoV@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <20110128181711.4C6A515C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Roland Perry wrote: > >Creating a more fundamental separation between the workshop phase of the > >IGF, and the main session phase, will, I think help people to think and > >report more strategically. > > I wonder if that would result in some people (particularly new and > high-ranking) people only attending for the main sessions and therefore > miss the opportunity to dip into workshops. I agree that this a potential problem to keep in mind, but I think that this potential problem can and should actively be countercated by scheduling, on the days of the workshop phase (but not at the same time as the workshops) some kind of event that is extremely attractive specifically for this target group. 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 yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Fri Jan 28 13:22:36 2011 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:22:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <20110128174526.EB6EF15C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> <4D407EE3.2010109@wzb.eu>,<20110128174526.EB6EF15C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear all, Over the years, the view has been expressed time and again that the main outcomes of the IGF are those impressions, new ideas and conclusions carried home by its individual participants, to be used by them as input on whatever other internet-related fora (decision-making or not) they are active. I subscribe to this view. These thousands of individual outcomes are much more effective than a piece of paper, painfully negotiated before and and during the event, that nobody will read but that will be a proof that IGF achieved "results", for those bureaucrats and politicians who need something to put ad actam. At the same time, it does not hurt to try to go a step further achieving conclusions at workshops and "messages" (as proposed by Wolfgang) from the IGF itself. But these efforts should not take time from the main purpose of the IGF. Best, Yrjö > From: nb at bollow.ch > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:45:26 +0100 > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I have tried to argue for more outcome oriented workshops. They should > > define some form of a goal in their workshop proposal. Alas, outcome > > orientation is a cultural issue as well. Many people in the > > international sphere tend to think in procedural terms. Perhaps we are > > just a bit demanding in this respect? > > I think that it well-justified and quite necessary to be justly "a bit > demanding in this respect". > > For some activity to be meaningful, it will quite generally need to > have some kind of output that becomes input for something else. Of > course, some of the potential results from discussions are of a kind > that is not compatible with the idea of recording them in some kind > of formal "output" document, and that does not make those kinds of > informal outputs any less valuable. > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 28 13:35:58 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:05:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4D3FDBCD.7080102@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07741@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D401113.4050606@nupef.org.br> <4D405F1D.70908@wzb.eu> <4D407785.9000105@nupef.org.br> <4D407EE3.2010109@wzb.eu>,<20110128174526.EB6EF15C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4D430C8E.4000304@itforchange.net> Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > Dear all, > > Over the years, the view has been expressed time and again that the > main outcomes of the IGF are those impressions, new ideas and > conclusions carried home by its individual participants, to be used by > them as input on whatever other internet-related fora (decision-making > or not) they are active. Yrjo How would that be different from any global IG conference that any private party can hold and many of them do get hled, from where the participatants take home whatever they choose or not to take home, Is then IGF just another global IG conference? > > I subscribe to this view. These thousands of individual outcomes are > much more effective than a piece of paper, painfully negotiated before > and and during the event, that nobody will read but that will be a > proof that IGF achieved "results", for those bureaucrats and > politicians who need something to put /ad actam/. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and before that Magna Carta, or the constitution of India of of Finland may as well be considered painfully negotiated but largely useless pieces of paper. Your statement just bespeaks a distrust of politics and governance, and this is merely an one sided ideological position, contributing little of substance to the real debate. > > At the same time, it does not hurt to try to go a step further > achieving conclusions at workshops and "messages" (as proposed by > Wolfgang) from the IGF itself. But these efforts should not take time > from the main purpose of the IGF. Who decides what is the main purpose of the IGF? I think it is written in the Tunis Agenda, as well as the recent UN General Assembly's directions to improve the IGF towards some specific purposes. Parminder > > Best, > > Yrjö > > > > > From: nb at bollow.ch > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:45:26 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > I have tried to argue for more outcome oriented workshops. They > should > > > define some form of a goal in their workshop proposal. Alas, outcome > > > orientation is a cultural issue as well. Many people in the > > > international sphere tend to think in procedural terms. Perhaps we > are > > > just a bit demanding in this respect? > > > > I think that it well-justified and quite necessary to be justly "a bit > > demanding in this respect". > > > > For some activity to be meaningful, it will quite generally need to > > have some kind of output that becomes input for something else. Of > > course, some of the potential results from discussions are of a kind > > that is not compatible with the idea of recording them in some kind > > of formal "output" document, and that does not make those kinds of > > informal outputs any less valuable. > > > > 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 > > -- 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 valeriab at apc.org Fri Jan 28 13:59:21 2011 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:59:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Regimes cannot overcome the power of people communicating in solidarity Message-ID: ∗∗Apologies for cross-posting∗∗ Regimes cannot overcome the power of people communicating in solidarity JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA, January 28 2011-- The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) joins the global solidarity and social justice movement in affirming our support to and solidarity with the Egyptian people as they take to the streets in the struggle for democratic reform and human rights. “People have had enough, tens of thousands of Egyptians are in the streets protesting in numerous cities, defying the imposed curfew and demanding Mubarak leave. They are no longer fearful. This regime is going down and things will never go back to what they used to be,” said Manal Hassan, Egyptian activist and blogger who works with APC's Feminist Technology Exchange training team, today. “The total communication shut down -- of mobiles, the internet and now even landlines-- is beyond what was anticipated,” Leila Hassanin of APC member ArabDev wrote. “In hindsight this was to be expected with the government having complete control over telecoms but it shows how panicked the regime is.” Internet rights, such as access to the internet, and the freedom to use it to speak out against repression, must be guaranteed by all governments. This is a foundational part of the the right to freedom of expression and association, to which the international community have committed through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “The power of people communicating in solidarity and joint action is a power that even the most over-confident rulers and regimes cannot overcome, not in the long term”, said APC's executive director Anriette Estherhuysen. “New technologies such as the internet and mobile phones strengthen, connects and amplify this power. What is happening in Egypt at the moment, and what has happened in Tunisia recently, is a demonstration of people's outrage and courage in the face of long term repression – now played out on and supported by the internet and mobile technologies." About Internet Rights http://www.apc.org/en/node/5677/ For minute-to-minute updates on Egypt follow APC partner Alaa Abd El Fattah https://twitter.com/alaa END ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jan 28 14:07:34 2011 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:07:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations Message-ID: Parminder, I have great respect for the outcomes of processes that produced the great documents you mentioned, but the IGF is not such a process. It is not a treaty conference, it is a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue. I agree, it's purpose is clearly written in article 72 of Tunis Agenda. I'm all for implementing all of it, but not for turning the IGF into a binding process expressly excluded in article 77. Best, Yrjö Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:05:58 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: Dear all, Over the years, the view has been expressed time and again that the main outcomes of the IGF are those impressions, new ideas and conclusions carried home by its individual participants, to be used by them as input on whatever other internet-related fora (decision-making or not) they are active. Yrjo How would that be different from any global IG conference that any private party can hold and many of them do get hled, from where the participatants take home whatever they choose or not to take home, Is then IGF just another global IG conference? I subscribe to this view. These thousands of individual outcomes are much more effective than a piece of paper, painfully negotiated before and and during the event, that nobody will read but that will be a proof that IGF achieved "results", for those bureaucrats and politicians who need something to put ad actam. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and before that Magna Carta, or the constitution of India of of Finland may as well be considered painfully negotiated but largely useless pieces of paper. Your statement just bespeaks a distrust of politics and governance, and this is merely an one sided ideological position, contributing little of substance to the real debate. At the same time, it does not hurt to try to go a step further achieving conclusions at workshops and "messages" (as proposed by Wolfgang) from the IGF itself. But these efforts should not take time from the main purpose of the IGF. Who decides what is the main purpose of the IGF? I think it is written in the Tunis Agenda, as well as the recent UN General Assembly's directions to improve the IGF towards some specific purposes. Parminder Best, Yrjö > From: nb at bollow.ch > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:45:26 +0100 > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I have tried to argue for more outcome oriented workshops. They should > > define some form of a goal in their workshop proposal. Alas, outcome > > orientation is a cultural issue as well. Many people in the > > international sphere tend to think in procedural terms. Perhaps we are > > just a bit demanding in this respect? > > I think that it well-justified and quite necessary to be justly "a bit > demanding in this respect". > > For some activity to be meaningful, it will quite generally need to > have some kind of output that becomes input for something else. Of > course, some of the potential results from discussions are of a kind > that is not compatible with the idea of recording them in some kind > of formal "output" document, and that does not make those kinds of > informal outputs any less valuable. > > 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 > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Jan 28 14:16:57 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:16:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> (message from Avri Doria on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 08:07:20 -0500) References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> Message-ID: <20110128191657.9A31D15C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet > Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing > development of technology that stays ahead of any government's > ability to shut if off or block it. This is one reason also for > protecting the notion of non centralized services and furthering > their development. I absolutely agree. Let's seek to build a strong dynamic coalition for Non-Centralized Freedom Communication Infrastructure that will coordinate and promote activities that pursue these objectives. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jan 28 14:30:11 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:30:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The problem Yrjo, is that in the absence of something as a positive output of the IGF then things are left more or less as they are, as the default. If we are comfortable/satisfied with the status quo (however we perceive the status quo), that isn't a problem. If we aren't satisfied with the status quo then there is a perceived need to work through the process of having the status quo articulated and then responded to so as to move the situation forward. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Yrjö Länsipuro Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations Dear all, Over the years, the view has been expressed time and again that the main outcomes of the IGF are those impressions, new ideas and conclusions carried home by its individual participants, to be used by them as input on whatever other internet-related fora (decision-making or not) they are active. I subscribe to this view. These thousands of individual outcomes are much more effective than a piece of paper, painfully negotiated before and and during the event, that nobody will read but that will be a proof that IGF achieved "results", for those bureaucrats and politicians who need something to put ad actam. At the same time, it does not hurt to try to go a step further achieving conclusions at workshops and "messages" (as proposed by Wolfgang) from the IGF itself. But these efforts should not take time from the main purpose of the IGF. Best, Yrjö > From: nb at bollow.ch > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:45:26 +0100 > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I have tried to argue for more outcome oriented workshops. They should > > define some form of a goal in their workshop proposal. Alas, outcome > > orientation is a cultural issue as well. Many people in the > > international sphere tend to think in procedural terms. Perhaps we are > > just a bit demanding in this respect? > > I think that it well-justified and quite necessary to be justly "a bit > demanding in this respect". > > For some activity to be meaningful, it will quite generally need to > have some kind of output that becomes input for something else. Of > course, some of the potential results from discussions are of a kind > that is not compatible with the idea of recording them in some kind > of formal "output" document, and that does not make those kinds of > informal outputs any less valuable. > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 28 14:32:54 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:32:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Yes McTim > > But Internet ws created by man not out of any said government policy Well, the Internet originally was concieved, designed and built under US contracts, so it was created by government policy in many ways. > (I hope Tim Lee will not disagree here) The Internet was around for many years before html > > How on earth did it even occur to some one that Governments (that are > mainly bureaucrats) be given leeways to control Internet. a long, sordid sad story I'm afraid. -- 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 Fri Jan 28 15:23:53 2011 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:23:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Why governments are given leeway [was Internet blackout in Egypt] In-Reply-To: References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <30651758-00F8-4331-9BB4-D32FBF52F057@acm.org> On 28 Jan 2011, at 10:35, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > > How on earth did it even occur to some one that Governments (that are > mainly bureaucrats) be given leeways to control Internet. The answer I hear most often is that as the Internet became critical to the welfare of a nation's citizens and its enterprises, the government expected that they would be held responsible if anything ever went wrong. To governments being responsible for something means having a means to affect/control that thing. This responsibility is indeed a good reason for why government's need to be equal stakeholders in Internet governance. The problem is, sharing governance responsibility with other stakeholders is still a bit new for governments and they are slow learners when it comes to sharing. Hence the need to be persistent, but patient, with governments as they learn to share governance responsibilities. In fact all of us are just beginners when it comes to multistakeholder governance and we all need to patient with each other. 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 Fri Jan 28 15:47:29 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 08:47:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] Rights online petition In-Reply-To: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D7D@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> References: <4D41E1AD.7050600@paque.net> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D7D@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Message-ID: Lisa, When you were referring to the main charter, are you referring to the UDHR, the ICCPR, ICESCR or the main protocols, or were you making rederence to the UN Charter or a Charter in relation to IG? Please advise. Sala On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > > > I’m not sure if you know Brett Solomon and Kim Pham, but they’re 2 of the > driving forces behind Access. They were both at last year’s IGF, and Brett > has been working with a group of IRP coalition members to distil the Charter > of human rights and principles for the Internet down into a set of more > punchy principles that can be used for advocacy whilst we spend a bit longer > delving into the complex policy issues that underlie the main Charter > itself. > > > > I’ve copied Brett in here...I’m sure he’d be happy to give a bit more > background about Access. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] *On Behalf Of *Ginger Paque > *Sent:* 27 January 2011 21:21 > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Rights online petition > > > > I tried to find more information on accessnow.org, and did not find much > background or history outside of their own site. Does anyone have > information or links to reviews or more information about this organization?Even Web of Trust (WOT) says 'not enough ratings for this site' about their > site. This is not negative... but I would like to read more about them. > > > Thanks, Ginger > > On 1/27/2011 4:16 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > While realising that the long term answer lies in governance, in the short > > term people might like to support the petition suggested below. > > > > And perhaps somewhere in our strategies the idea of advocating terms of > > service as a tool for protection of users might be a good inclusion! > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > Events in Egypt and Tunisia, and Amazon's takedown of Wikileaks, have shown > > that our right to information online is fundamentally at risk. Increasingly, > > internet companies on both sides of the firewall are unilaterally removing the > > online information that they host, and right now, nothing can stop them. > > > > That includes the websites we get our information from, the videos we watch, > > and the social networking pages that channel news directly to us from around > > the world. This free exchange of information is in danger not just in > > countries like Tunisia and Egypt (where Twitter has just been blocked), but as > > the Wikileaks experience has shown us, in front of the firewall as well. > > > > Each year thousands of webpages are taken offline, yet few receive legal > > review or appeal, and only a handful, like Wikileaks, receive media attention. > > In the international information arms race, authoritarian governments are > > redoubling efforts to close down open communication channels. Sign this > > petition, urging internet companies like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Google > > to respond with a firm commitment to preserve the free flow of information: > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all > > > > Most online content is hosted on corporate-owned servers, which have > > unregulated control over what information we see and read. Following Amazon's > > decision to delete Wikileaks from its servers, internet companies are now > > reviewing which sites they host and tightening their acceptable use policies. > > > > We may not be able to influence authoritarian states, but there are many ways > > that webhosts (often referred to as internet service providers (ISPs) and > > online service providers (OSPs)) can respect our rights in their Terms of > > Service, but they're not going to change their ways unless there's a global > > public outcry urging them to do so. Take action now by signing this petition: > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all > > > > The Tunisian government blocked YouTube, Vimeo, and Dailymotion but protestors > > were still able to use Facebook and Twitter to organize and spread information > > about the grassroots movement for democracy. The Egyptian government has just > > blocked Twitter while thousands of protestors are on the streets demonstrating > > for democracy and reform. > > > > We can help keep the internet open and support freedom movements around the > > world, but only if we stand together as users and demand our right to > > information. Join us by signing this petition, and we'll deliver it to the > > largest internet companies: > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all > > > > In 2010, we fought against the sale of surveillance technologies to repressive > > regimes; called upon the top 100 most trafficked websites to protect our > > security by implementing HTTPS by default; and supported technologies that > > allow activists to securely connect to the internet. Now, let's take the fight > > for digital freedom to the online service providers who singlehandedly control > > what can be said on the internet. Sign here: > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/freedom-of-speech-for-all > > > > With hope, > > The Access Team > > > > > > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -- > > * > **Ginger (Virginia) Paque > *IGCBP Online Coordinator > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > *The latest from Diplo... > *Call for applications for Diplo Internet governance foundation courses > now open. > See: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/news.asp > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 16:51:13 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:51:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:47:18 +0530) References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110128215113.453D315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > > This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet > > Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing > > development of technology that stays ahead of any government's > > ability to shut if off or block it. > > Or any corporate's ability to take illegitimate rent by squatting over a > commons - and also to choose what political development - including > revolutions - it will support or not . > > What is the way to support the continuing development of 'such > technology' that prevents such inappropriate controls? Step 1: Systems theoretic analysis to determine what aspects of today's internet-related technological and sociopolitical systems make the inappropriate controls possible. Step 2: Figure out appropriate technical and political solutions to these challenges. Step 3: Inform about the potential solutions that have been determined, and convince a sufficient "critical mass" of individuals and decision-makers of organizations to commit resources to the implementation of these ideas. Step 4: Implement the plan, hopefully creating solutions to the problems that have been identified. Step 5: Market what has been developed and stay engaged also during the deployment phase, seeking to identify, understand and correct any shortcomings of the proposed solutions as quickly as possible. > > This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non > > centralized services and furthering their development. > > The question as to how do we support the development of non centralized > services is really one of the most important IG issues, because all > empirical evidence today points to the fact that we are moving towards > more and more centralized and monopolistic Internet services. Right now the situation is that those people who have made it their goal to become rich are well-organized with venture capitalists, lobbyists and everything, while those who care strongly about matters of freedom are much less well-organized. We need to develop ways to work together and support each other effectively. Then, jointly, we will be strong enough to be able to reverse the trend towards centralized and monopolistic Internet services. 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 admin at alkasir.com Fri Jan 28 16:58:51 2011 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid Al-Saqaf) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:58:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <20110128215113.453D315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> <20110128215113.453D315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hello all, I'd like to share a link that explains what appears to have happened in Egypt. I got it from the Liberation Tech mailing list, to which some of you may have subscribed already: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml Unlike what was claimed about a cut of the cable, it appears to have been instructions by the government. Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > > > > This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet > > > Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing > > > development of technology that stays ahead of any government's > > > ability to shut if off or block it. > > > > Or any corporate's ability to take illegitimate rent by squatting over a > > commons - and also to choose what political development - including > > revolutions - it will support or not . > > > > What is the way to support the continuing development of 'such > > technology' that prevents such inappropriate controls? > > Step 1: Systems theoretic analysis to determine what aspects of > today's internet-related technological and sociopolitical systems > make the inappropriate controls possible. > > Step 2: Figure out appropriate technical and political solutions > to these challenges. > > Step 3: Inform about the potential solutions that have been > determined, and convince a sufficient "critical mass" of individuals > and decision-makers of organizations to commit resources to the > implementation of these ideas. > > Step 4: Implement the plan, hopefully creating solutions to the > problems that have been identified. > > Step 5: Market what has been developed and stay engaged also during > the deployment phase, seeking to identify, understand and correct > any shortcomings of the proposed solutions as quickly as possible. > > > > This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non > > > centralized services and furthering their development. > > > > The question as to how do we support the development of non centralized > > services is really one of the most important IG issues, because all > > empirical evidence today points to the fact that we are moving towards > > more and more centralized and monopolistic Internet services. > > Right now the situation is that those people who have made it their > goal to become rich are well-organized with venture capitalists, > lobbyists and everything, while those who care strongly about matters > of freedom are much less well-organized. > > We need to develop ways to work together and support each other > effectively. > > Then, jointly, we will be strong enough to be able to reverse the > trend towards centralized and monopolistic Internet services. > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jan 28 17:39:07 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:39:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42A57A.3070000@cafonso.ca> <4F80807A-2FF8-44DA-8460-00FE899CC00A@acm.org> <4D42FA1E.4070203@itforchange.net> <20110128215113.453D315C1D5@quill.bollow.ch>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610915E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Another similar report, without the tables, from Network World: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/012811-internet-blackout-egypt.html?source=NWWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2011-01-28 ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Walid Al-Saqaf [admin at alkasir.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:58 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt Hello all, I'd like to share a link that explains what appears to have happened in Egypt. I got it from the Liberation Tech mailing list, to which some of you may have subscribed already: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml Unlike what was claimed about a cut of the cable, it appears to have been instructions by the government. Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: Parminder > wrote: > > This is all one reason while, though I think policy and Internet > > Governance moves are critical, we need to support the continuing > > development of technology that stays ahead of any government's > > ability to shut if off or block it. > > Or any corporate's ability to take illegitimate rent by squatting over a > commons - and also to choose what political development - including > revolutions - it will support or not . > > What is the way to support the continuing development of 'such > technology' that prevents such inappropriate controls? Step 1: Systems theoretic analysis to determine what aspects of today's internet-related technological and sociopolitical systems make the inappropriate controls possible. Step 2: Figure out appropriate technical and political solutions to these challenges. Step 3: Inform about the potential solutions that have been determined, and convince a sufficient "critical mass" of individuals and decision-makers of organizations to commit resources to the implementation of these ideas. Step 4: Implement the plan, hopefully creating solutions to the problems that have been identified. Step 5: Market what has been developed and stay engaged also during the deployment phase, seeking to identify, understand and correct any shortcomings of the proposed solutions as quickly as possible. > > This is one reason also for protecting the notion of non > > centralized services and furthering their development. > > The question as to how do we support the development of non centralized > services is really one of the most important IG issues, because all > empirical evidence today points to the fact that we are moving towards > more and more centralized and monopolistic Internet services. Right now the situation is that those people who have made it their goal to become rich are well-organized with venture capitalists, lobbyists and everything, while those who care strongly about matters of freedom are much less well-organized. We need to develop ways to work together and support each other effectively. Then, jointly, we will be strong enough to be able to reverse the trend towards centralized and monopolistic Internet services. 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 karl at cavebear.com Fri Jan 28 19:22:25 2011 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:22:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D435DC1.9070606@cavebear.com> On 01/28/2011 07:35 AM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > But Internet ws created by man not out of any said government policy > (I hope Tim Lee will not disagree here) TBL did his work 20 to 25 years after the net began moving packets. Some might disagree, but I draw a continuous line from the ARPAnet of the late 1960s to the internet of today. I was there when the ARPAnet started - 1968 or '69 - 4th floor of Boalter Hall, UCLA. (I was working with the institute of traffic engineering - early car crashing and stuff - on an IBM 7094. The Sigma 7 with IMP #1 was in the next room. The Sigma ran the "Sigma EXecutive" - guess what was written on the the spines of all the system manuals? ;-) In any event I don't remember who funded that UCLA work, but a couple of years later (1972) when I worked on net protocols and network security at System Development Corp (SDC) in Santa Monica we were most definitely funded by the US Gov't and we most definitely worked on the basis of network nodes being vaporized in nuclear fireballs. (It was ironic - we were working in a building constructed several years earlier specifically to house a US NORAD SAGE computer, the Q7, serious cold war stuff.) (When I was at SDC we all read and were greatly and positively influenced by the technical papers of Louis Pouzin - who is present on this list. The folks in France seemed to grasp the commercial and social potential of networking long before we did in the US.) I believe that until around 1980 the majority of network development funding came out of the US (and UK) gov'ts, largely the military parts. Even our beloved Unix came via the UC Berkeley release (BSD) that was funded by the US Dep't of Energy.) The world wide web - which really is merely one application of many layered upon the internet - came along in the mid 1990's, a decade after the switch of the net from NCP to IP. > What is happening in Egypt is sure sign that the Oligarchy there is > living its last moments... Be careful - the events in France of 1789 led rather quickly to Napoleon, the 1917 revolution in Russia soon led to Lenin. The chaos of a falling government opens the door to many influences, not all of which are necessarily of a liberal or democratic spirit. --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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jan 28 19:38:22 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:38:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] The Lessons of Egypt (ISOC statement) Message-ID: <50778C52DD504129AC48FBE7AD7B7511@userPC> -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Gene Gaines Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 2:59 PM Subject: Re: The Lessons of Egypt I am glad to see this from ISOC: Internet Society Statement on Egypt's Internet Shutdown 28 January 2011 We are following the current events in Egypt with concern as it appears that all incoming and outgoing Internet traffic has been disrupted. The Internet Society believes that the Internet is a global medium that fundamentally supports opportunity, empowerment, knowledge, growth, and freedom and that these values should never be taken away from individuals. The Internet Society considers this recent action by the Egyptian government to block Internet traffic to be an inappropriate response to a political crisis. It is a very serious decision for a government to block all Internet access in its country, and a serious intrusion into its citizens' basic rights to communicate. If the blockage continues, it will have a very detrimental impact on Egypt's economy and society. Ultimately, the Egyptian people and nation are the ones that will suffer, while the rest of the world will be worse off with the loss of Egyptian voices on the net. However we are most concerned about the safety and security of the Egyptian people. Alongside the rest of the world, we share the hope for a positive and lasting solution to the problems that have risen to the surface there. In the longer term, we are sure that the world will learn a lesson from this very unfortunate example, and come to understand that cutting off a nation's access to the Internet only serves to fuel dissent and does not address the underlying causes of dissatisfaction. Also available at: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3091 The Internet Society "The Internet is for Everyone" http://www.internetsociety.org Gene Gaines ----- snip ----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 20:03:04 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 09:03:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/01/2011, at 3:07 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > I have great respect for the outcomes of processes that produced the great documents you mentioned, but the IGF is not such a process. It is not a treaty conference, it is a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue. I agree, it's purpose is clearly written in article 72 of Tunis Agenda. I'm all for implementing all of it, but not for turning the IGF into a binding process expressly excluded in article 77. This straw man has been crucified one too many times. I remember standing up in a workshop in Athens to explain my views on why the IGF needed to be empowered to produce recommendations, only for another (member of the IGC, actually) to spend the next five minutes lambasting me for wanting the IGF to become a binding process. In fact I am not aware that anyone, ever, has suggested that the IGF's recommendations should be binding - indeed, those terms are contradictory. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now! http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress Twitter #CICongress Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jan 28 20:13:17 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:13:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D435DC1.9070606@cavebear.com> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> ,<4D435DC1.9070606@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109169@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> DARPA or ARPA is indeed the funding source of the work Karl's talking about, though it may have been one step removed via contracts from BBN to UCLA. Anyway, in spite of some DARPA vets insisting that 'cold' or very hot/nuclear war was furthest thing from their mind, an innovation that received 40 years of 'seed funding' from - US DOD - well let's just say I always felt it strained credibility to say the net's survivability was not an attractive feature, to the funders. And I could tell you more about what pushed Berners-Lee's innovations out of - a (Euro) government-funded lab - into the market but then I'd have to...well never mind ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach [karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 7:22 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt On 01/28/2011 07:35 AM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > But Internet ws created by man not out of any said government policy > (I hope Tim Lee will not disagree here) TBL did his work 20 to 25 years after the net began moving packets. Some might disagree, but I draw a continuous line from the ARPAnet of the late 1960s to the internet of today. I was there when the ARPAnet started - 1968 or '69 - 4th floor of Boalter Hall, UCLA. (I was working with the institute of traffic engineering - early car crashing and stuff - on an IBM 7094. The Sigma 7 with IMP #1 was in the next room. The Sigma ran the "Sigma EXecutive" - guess what was written on the the spines of all the system manuals? ;-) In any event I don't remember who funded that UCLA work, but a couple of years later (1972) when I worked on net protocols and network security at System Development Corp (SDC) in Santa Monica we were most definitely funded by the US Gov't and we most definitely worked on the basis of network nodes being vaporized in nuclear fireballs. (It was ironic - we were working in a building constructed several years earlier specifically to house a US NORAD SAGE computer, the Q7, serious cold war stuff.) (When I was at SDC we all read and were greatly and positively influenced by the technical papers of Louis Pouzin - who is present on this list. The folks in France seemed to grasp the commercial and social potential of networking long before we did in the US.) I believe that until around 1980 the majority of network development funding came out of the US (and UK) gov'ts, largely the military parts. Even our beloved Unix came via the UC Berkeley release (BSD) that was funded by the US Dep't of Energy.) The world wide web - which really is merely one application of many layered upon the internet - came along in the mid 1990's, a decade after the switch of the net from NCP to IP. > What is happening in Egypt is sure sign that the Oligarchy there is > living its last moments... Be careful - the events in France of 1789 led rather quickly to Napoleon, the 1917 revolution in Russia soon led to Lenin. The chaos of a falling government opens the door to many influences, not all of which are necessarily of a liberal or democratic spirit. --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 nhklein at gmx.net Fri Jan 28 21:30:29 2011 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 09:30:29 +0700 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D435DC1.9070606@cavebear.com> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D435DC1.9070606@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4D437BC5.8000007@gmx.net> Thanks, Karl, for a reminder, to remember from time to time what was waaaaaaaaaaaaay back, and that the immediate future and the longer range distance many not be the same. All the more we have to be awake and vigilant. Norbert On 01/29/2011 07:22 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 01/28/2011 07:35 AM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > >> But Internet ws created by man not out of any said government policy >> (I hope Tim Lee will not disagree here) > > TBL did his work 20 to 25 years after the net began moving packets. > Some might disagree, but I draw a continuous line from the ARPAnet of > the late 1960s to the internet of today. > > I was there when the ARPAnet started - 1968 or '69 - 4th floor of > Boalter Hall, UCLA. > > (I was working with the institute of traffic engineering - early car > crashing and stuff - on an IBM 7094. The Sigma 7 with IMP #1 was in > the next room. The Sigma ran the "Sigma EXecutive" - guess what was > written on the the spines of all the system manuals? ;-) > > In any event I don't remember who funded that UCLA work, but a couple > of years later (1972) when I worked on net protocols and network > security at System Development Corp (SDC) in Santa Monica we were most > definitely funded by the US Gov't and we most definitely worked on the > basis of network nodes being vaporized in nuclear fireballs. (It was > ironic - we were working in a building constructed several years > earlier specifically to house a US NORAD SAGE computer, the Q7, > serious cold war stuff.) > > (When I was at SDC we all read and were greatly and positively > influenced by the technical papers of Louis Pouzin - who is present on > this list. The folks in France seemed to grasp the commercial and > social potential of networking long before we did in the US.) > > I believe that until around 1980 the majority of network development > funding came out of the US (and UK) gov'ts, largely the military > parts. Even our beloved Unix came via the UC Berkeley release (BSD) > that was funded by the US Dep't of Energy.) > > The world wide web - which really is merely one application of many > layered upon the internet - came along in the mid 1990's, a decade > after the switch of the net from NCP to IP. > >> What is happening in Egypt is sure sign that the Oligarchy there is >> living its last moments... > > Be careful - the events in France of 1789 led rather quickly to > Napoleon, the 1917 revolution in Russia soon led to Lenin. The chaos > of a falling government opens the door to many influences, not all of > which are necessarily of a liberal or democratic spirit. > > --karl-- -- 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 Should We Care about Interfering with the Freedom of Information? Sunday, 23.1.2011 http://tinyurl.com/4u7chfr (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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 28 23:52:45 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:22:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D439D1D.5090607@itforchange.net> Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > Parminder, > > I have great respect for the outcomes of processes that produced the > great documents you mentioned, but the IGF is not such a process. It > is not a treaty conference, it is a forum for multistakeholder policy > dialogue. I agree, it's purpose is clearly written in article 72 of > Tunis Agenda. I'm all for implementing all of it, but not for turning > the IGF into a binding process expressly excluded in article 77. Yrjo/ All I havent ever heard one person argue for turning IGF into a binding process. It is simply a strawman that is then used to swing to the other extreme - reducing the IGF to merely an annual conference, and thus my direct question - how is the IGF different from any annual IG conference that any private actor(s) can hold? Earlier another bogey was used whenever a genuine discussion on the present shortcomings of the IGF was sought as a necessary prelude to coming up with the required improvements in the IGF. This bogey was that if we even as much as mention any shortcoming, it will strengthen the hands of those who want the IGF discontinued. (Strangely, this argument was advanced by many actors who had opposed setting by the IGF in the first place during the WSIS). Now that we know that IGF is indeed in no danger of being discontinued, can we be more bold to discuss its current shortcomings and under achievements to shape our recs for its improvements. More than anyone else the proponents of MSism should recognise that they cant play the game that it is either 'no tangible outcomes' or 'negotiated binding resolutions', when this binary simply doesnt hold. If stakeholders are to be really an active part of policy shaping process (a term used by Bertrand) it should be obvious that we will need to put our belief in policy related documents that are concrete enough to have influence, but less than binding policies themselves - whether they are advisory notes, recs, reports on specific issues, messages or whatever. It serves non-gov staekholder interests more than anyone's else. It is also rather puzzling how, when there are just two days left for inputs to be given to the WGIGF, we in the IGC are so reticent to take up any purposeful discussion on the central issue of IGF outcomes. Also cant understand why was there such vociferous demands to get CS members into the WGIGF when we seem to have little to contribute vis a vis the central issues of the discussion and mandate of the WG. Parminder > > Best, > > Yrjö > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:05:58 +0530 > From: parminder at itforchange.net > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations > > > > Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > > Dear all, > > Over the years, the view has been expressed time and again that > the main outcomes of the IGF are those impressions, new ideas and > conclusions carried home by its individual participants, to be > used by them as input on whatever other internet-related fora > (decision-making or not) they are active. > > Yrjo > > How would that be different from any global IG conference that any > private party can hold and many of them do get hled, from where the > participatants take home whatever they choose or not to take home, Is > then IGF just another global IG conference? > > > I subscribe to this view. These thousands of individual outcomes > are much more effective than a piece of paper, painfully > negotiated before and and during the event, that nobody will read > but that will be a proof that IGF achieved "results", for those > bureaucrats and politicians who need something to put /ad actam/. > > The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and before that Magna > Carta, or the constitution of India of of Finland may as well be > considered painfully negotiated but largely useless pieces of paper. > Your statement just bespeaks a distrust of politics and governance, > and this is merely an one sided ideological position, contributing > little of substance to the real debate. > > > At the same time, it does not hurt to try to go a step further > achieving conclusions at workshops and "messages" (as proposed > by Wolfgang) from the IGF itself. But these efforts should not > take time from the main purpose of the IGF. > > > Who decides what is the main purpose of the IGF? I think it is written > in the Tunis Agenda, as well as the recent UN General Assembly's > directions to improve the IGF towards some specific purposes. > > Parminder > > > Best, > > Yrjö > > > > > From: nb at bollow.ch > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:45:26 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > I have tried to argue for more outcome oriented workshops. > They should > > > define some form of a goal in their workshop proposal. Alas, > outcome > > > orientation is a cultural issue as well. Many people in the > > > international sphere tend to think in procedural terms. > Perhaps we are > > > just a bit demanding in this respect? > > > > I think that it well-justified and quite necessary to be justly > "a bit > > demanding in this respect". > > > > For some activity to be meaningful, it will quite generally need to > > have some kind of output that becomes input for something else. Of > > course, some of the potential results from discussions are of a kind > > that is not compatible with the idea of recording them in some kind > > of formal "output" document, and that does not make those kinds of > > informal outputs any less valuable. > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jan 29 00:06:44 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:06:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1296277604.30843.79.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> A consensus call on this statement is now in progress. I just issued email invitations to vote using our online poll system. (Incidentally, this is the first poll in which the polling software has been hosted on our own Web site.) If you didn't receive an invitation to vote in the poll, you have two choices: (a) you can register at http://www.igcaucus.org (you'll get your poll invitation within a few hours); or (b) you can reply on the list instead. Thanks. On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 09:37 +0800, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Without wanting to distract attention from Marilia's important threads > on the CSTD, here is a revised version of the statement on themes for > Nairobi. I think we can see the merits of both "open Internet" and > "network neutrality", so I think the only way to satisfy everyone is > to use both phrases, which I now have. I've also added the fourth > theme on A2K, since there seems to be a feeling that we should do > that; I used Ian's more succinct wording which is in line with the > others. In case anyone thinks that we should correspondingly > de-emphasise A2K in the other themes let me know - but I haven't > touched them for now. > > > This can go to a consensus call on the weekend if everyone is happy > now. > > > 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. > > With the explosion of Internet usage in the developing world mainly > occurring on mobile networks, it is particularly important to consider > how the ideal of open Internet will apply in the mobile space. Should > different rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks? If so, > how can communications rights and Access to Knowledge be preserved for > those users, in order to avoid an ongoing information divide? > > In proposing this topic for the Nairobi IGF, we want to particularly > ensure that it does not shy away from areas of disagreement. Only by > including panelists with divergent views on this topic can the very > real and practical Internet governance disputes in this area > be adequately and productively aired. > > 2. Cross border Issues > One of the oldest and thorniest issues for Internet governance > concerns the cross-border effects of national laws, policies, > enforcement practices, and the actions of intermediaries, on those who > have had no representation in the making of those laws, policies, > etc. Current examples include actions taken by governments and > intermediaries against Wikileaks, and the “seizure” of domain names > alleged to be connected with content piracy. > > The process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet policy issues > could lead to new proposals that would address some of these > cross-border anomalies and deficits. But at this stage of that > process, there is little shared understanding of the approach that > should be taken. This session will look at the philosophical > underpinnings and foundations that need to emerge in a world where > something like the Internet transcends boundaries and > national jurisdictions. Insights produced through this session may > feed into the enhanced coperation process. > > Once again, it will be important for discussion of this topic to > involve stakeholders with diverging views, discussing concrete issues > that demand eventual resolution. > > 3. Development agenda for Internet governance > Internet governance is not a neutral activity. All Internet governance > decisions have implications for development, though in some cases > these implications may be less obvious than in others, and they are > easily overlooked. > > An example is the way in which decisions about such diverse issues as > new global top level domains (gTLDs), Unicode, IP enforcement, > filtering and censorship, may have an adverse and sometimes unforeseen > impact on Access to Knowledge in the developing world. > > We propose a main session theme on developing a development agenda for > Internet governance, building on the similar session in Vilnius. This > session will help to draw out areas of Internet governance which have > significant impacts on development, and to suggest how development > concerns can be mainstreamed in Internet governance institutions that > have responsibility in these areas. > > > 4. Access to knowledge > Access to knowledge is part of the great promise of the Internet in > aiding development, education and culture both within and between > countries. > > However, new international standards require countries to increase > the level and territorial extent of intellectual property rights. > This trend has developmental impacts, as countries become less free > to support open platforms for learning, innovating, sharing and > producing, while being required to raise the amount spent on > knowledge-based inputs. > > Rather than substantive law harmonization, international IP > norm-setting is now promoting an enforcement agenda, an increasingly > punitive response to counterfeiting and piracy now being discussed in > many national and international institutions. Often this puts > Internet Service Providers in the position of an “Internet police”, > with the role to oversight internet users. > > Governance of knowledge and Internet governance become deeply > intertwined in the context of an information society. The debate of > this theme in a multistakeholder forum, such as the IGF, would help > to reach a more round understanding about the impacts of this agenda > on issues such as access to knowledge, and the ability to innovate > online. > -- > 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. > > -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jan 29 04:03:42 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:03:42 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> This is a red hering. The question is not whether the outcome should be binding or not binding (to become legally binding you need a ratification by a national parliament), the question is whether the outcome is a negotiated text or just a collection of various relevant points of views/messages (where the pressure for players to accept such a "message" comes from the strength of the argument and not from the number of votes). 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 kill thinking out of the box and end up with "recommendations" like "the Internet should contribute to peace and international understanding and help underserved countries to enhance access to the Internet". Nobody, with the exception of paid diplomats (paid by tax payers/Internet users money) would go year by year to an annual conference which produces such type of "outcomes". After five years, when the IGF has to be re-evaluated, there would be enough arguments to close the IGF because it produces nothing more than Blabla and its "Final Declarations" will disappear in the bookshelfs of the forgotten documents. We should go beyond the traditional conference systems and try to be more innovative and create something new. I repeat my proposal with the seven roles/functions IGF 2.0 could play: 1. Observatory 2. Clearinghouse 3. Laboratory 4. School 5. Scout 6. Early Warning System 7. Watchdog For each of the seven function one can develop a special procedure how to translate this into concrete elements of an IGF process. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Gesendet: Sa 29.01.2011 02:03 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations On 29/01/2011, at 3:07 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: I have great respect for the outcomes of processes that produced the great documents you mentioned, but the IGF is not such a process. It is not a treaty conference, it is a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue. I agree, it's purpose is clearly written in article 72 of Tunis Agenda. I'm all for implementing all of it, but not for turning the IGF into a binding process expressly excluded in article 77. This straw man has been crucified one too many times. I remember standing up in a workshop in Athens to explain my views on why the IGF needed to be empowered to produce recommendations, only for another (member of the IGC, actually) to spend the next five minutes lambasting me for wanting the IGF to become a binding process. In fact I am not aware that anyone, ever, has suggested that the IGF's recommendations should be binding - indeed, those terms are contradictory. -- 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 Jan 29 04:11:27 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 12:11:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet blackout in Egypt In-Reply-To: <4D42FE52.8030105@itforchange.net> References: <4D427D18.8060903@itforchange.net> <4D42FE52.8030105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:35 PM, parminder wrote: > McTim wrote: > This is why its madness to comtenplate giving govts MORE > control over > things Internety. Rgds, McTim >    McTim, Democracy is about > democratic institutions, of which democratic  governments are a basic > component. You simply do not seem to believe in  democratic institutions as > against anarchy masquerading as democracy. Your attempts to paint me as anti-democratic border on the ad hominem. I simply believe in participatory democracy in re: the Internet as opposed to the representative democracy you cling to.  And this argument extends to > global democracy in terms of governing the  essentially global phenomenon of > the Internet. While it is essentially global in that my host SHOULD be able to reach your host, governance of the network is essentially local. I decide who i connect to, where, how, etc. So do you. I re-assert that what you would like to regulate is epiphenomenal. The kind of arrangements that you seem to support, by design > or default,  just means that the 'Internety things' are controlled and > exploited to  their advantage by a few global corporates and a few > governments of the  richer countries. Recent history shows that this is incorrect. Iran, Burma, North Korea, all tightly restrict Internet access. Tunisia tried it and now Egypt (a recent host of the IGF I may add which is quite ironic. They just hide these controls well > enough to mislead  the more gullible. Whereas you are a willing pawn of your government in re: the recent IBSA position? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 29 04:29:54 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:59:54 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4D43DE12.2050503@itforchange.net> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > This is a red hering. Agree. but important to note who or which side creates this red herring. > The question is not whether the outcome should be binding or not binding (to become legally binding you need a ratification by a national parliament), the question is whether the outcome is a negotiated text or just a collection of various relevant points of views/messages (where the pressure for players to accept such a "message" comes from the strength of the argument and not from the number of votes). > Excuse me to say, negotiated or not may be another red herring. All this is trying to reduce complex political process (which by their inherent meaning has to have some convergent directions) , made more complex by multi stakeholderism, to simplistic binaries, to be able to then arrive at the 'obvious' answer that serves one side of the debate. There are many stages between fully negotiated stuff to a set of graduated processes to close differences enough to provide concrete enough policy options. Everyone knows that it this intermediate kinds of outcomes that we have to have to arrive at. This is really the out of box kind of thing to refer to below. > > 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 kill thinking out of the box On the other hand one can say that when one knows that there is no specific need or context to 'close the gaps and understanding' towards some convergences, every actor can keep on speaking what they always speak, which is what we see happen at present at the IGF (and thus we have an empirical proof) rather than having to think out-of-box to be able to offer alternative positions which are more likely to have a broader acceptance. > and end up with "recommendations" like "the Internet should contribute to peace and international understanding and help underserved countries to enhance access to the Internet". Nobody, with the exception of paid diplomats (paid by tax payers/Internet users money) would go year by year to an annual conference which produces such type of "outcomes". After five years, when the IGF has to be re-evaluated, there would be enough arguments to close the IGF because it produces nothing more than Blabla and its "Final Declarations" will disappear in the bookshelfs of the forgotten documents. > Again not only can there be the exact opposite view but there is also good empirical evidence to assert that the present form of the IGF is more associated with purposelessness and boredom and people wondering why they should keep attending, and that not much more than, to use your term. blabla, happens. My friend, there are always trade offs and it finally boils down 'where one stand' and what kind of trade off look better to take from ones vantage. It depends for whom the status quo looks not too bad and for whom there is rather great hurry to get urgent policy interventions vis a vis a situation that is already bad going worse. Rather than going by the list below which i dont fully understand it will be good to look at each of the Tunis Agenda mandate items, and specific observations by the UN Gen Assembly reg IGF improvements, and look at structural deficiencies and required innovations for each... In any case you do think the functions you mention will not require some closing of gaps and documentation of them. Take for instance the watchdog function . Either one is able to put some concrete stuff down about how ITU or ICANN have fared vis a vis some specific issues, or one is just saying some people said this others quite the opposite - which is no way different from what already happens. People make all kind of observations at the workshops and plenaries and all of them are equally forgotten right away. Parminder > > We should go beyond the traditional conference systems and try to be more innovative and create something new. > I repeat my proposal with the seven roles/functions IGF 2.0 could play: > 1. Observatory > 2. Clearinghouse > 3. Laboratory > 4. School > 5. Scout > 6. Early Warning System > 7. Watchdog > > For each of the seven function one can develop a special procedure how to translate this into concrete elements of an IGF process. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Gesendet: Sa 29.01.2011 02:03 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro > Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations > > > On 29/01/2011, at 3:07 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > > > > I have great respect for the outcomes of processes that produced the great documents you mentioned, but the IGF is not such a process. It is not a treaty conference, it is a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue. I agree, it's purpose is clearly written in article 72 of Tunis Agenda. I'm all for implementing all of it, but not for turning the IGF into a binding process expressly excluded in article 77. > > > This straw man has been crucified one too many times. I remember standing up in a workshop in Athens to explain my views on why the IGF needed to be empowered to produce recommendations, only for another (member of the IGC, actually) to spend the next five minutes lambasting me for wanting the IGF to become a binding process. In fact I am not aware that anyone, ever, has suggested that the IGF's recommendations should be binding - indeed, those terms are contradictory. > > -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jan 29 12:19:38 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:19:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Dnssec-deployment] .com DNSSEC operational message In-Reply-To: <20110128140037.GE65553@DUL1MLARSON-M1.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <20110128140037.GE65553@DUL1MLARSON-M1.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: FYI, actual Internet Governance info below: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Over the next several weeks, Verisign will deploy DNSSEC in the .com zone.  This message contains operational information related to the deployment that might be of interest to the Internet operational community. The .com DNSSEC deployment consists of the following major milestones: February 26, 2011: The .com registry system will allow ICANN-accredited registrars to submit DS records for domains under .com.  These DS records will not be published in the .com zone until the .com zone is actually signed. February 28, 2011: A deliberately unvalidatable .com zone will be published.  Any DS records for .com that have been submitted by registrars will be published in the deliberately unvalidatable zone. March 31, 2011: The .com key material will have been unobscured over the course of the preceding several days and the .com zone will now be usable for DNSSEC validation.  DS records for .com should appear in the root zone on this day. If you have any questions or comments, please send email to info at verisign-grs.com or reply to this message. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iQEVAwUBTULMBddGiUJktOYBAQJWhQf/c6iTS1rctHbvK9xp3VbVxmVuLk/VjXXq 7DgR3gawr9IZ6fEAR6mT8PtStf1+e4HP5hzziIqKkzL+Ol69s/f7nj+cjEEkSDzn xDIaPkMWmowODS7nuVvQCjoZbAuxcSUeRKrXUVkpmxJfxDRSE9Y29ucRiBCvqb+F JkPu51+SHQl5UwIQZzf2eqnHZIJAq4GRv9NIpkHFu44icJTwC2DD7hvePl2AA1d3 ObyvF3HP15z9NwIElDPd67g/6Ht+2+d5thRrm60AVeVzo0VzhRUW5JTIAz2i/ldx yhJXi+txGWuQbxmAFYm+Ig3cMIzpZYZQvRyQ8/hY7O2R3gXi2y5kIA== =PD19 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jan 29 18:29:32 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:29:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Egypt cuts access to the Internet Message-ID: <82645E23E026473692562798CEA5B231@userPC> I'm wondering if this more or less unprecedented act raises issues that should be discussed at the IGF? 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 30 00:02:45 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:32:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: The Not-So-Neutral Net] Message-ID: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> quote from the article below We're already seeing what a world without real Net Neutrality will look like. Just weeks after the FCC's vote, MetroPCS, the nation's fifth-largest wireless carrier, announced new plans that would block popular applications like Skype and Netflix while favoring YouTube . This is particularly egregious because MetroPCS serves a lower-income audience that is increasingly moving toward the mobile Web as their only way to get online. (quote ends) Highlights the development aspect of non NN wireless Internet, when mobile internet is likely to be the main way to access Internet in the poorer areas of the world. And the anti NN rules ensure that it is the content and applications from the North that consumers in the South remain hooked to and dependent on. A wholly new and very potent North-South dependency paradigm is now being built over the non NN architect of mobile Internet, and I hope progressive global civil society takes notice and has something to say on this. If this is not an issue that IGF should take up in its plenary, than i dont think it is doing much of any worth. Parminder http://www.truth-out.org/the-not-so-neutral-net67276 The Not-So-Neutral Net Monday 24 January 2011 by: Jenn Ettinger | *YES! Magazine | News Analysis* /*The FCC's new rules on Net Neutrality open the Internet to corporate discrimination. But it's not too late to preserve Internet freedom.*/ The Internet was created as an "open" or "neutral" platform, and net neutrality is the principle that ensures that Internet providers can't interfere with a user's ability to access any content on the Web, whether it's a community blog, a YouTube video, or a major news site. It's essentially the First Amendment of the Internet. In late December, the Federal Communications Commission enacted new rules on net neutrality---rules that are supposed to protect Internet users from discrimination and to prevent Internet providers like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon from acting as gatekeepers on the Web. But the FCC missed the mark, and its rules not only fail to protect Internet users, but bolster the big phone and cable companies' ability to carve up the Internet among themselves. As Net Neutrality champion Senator Al Franken said, the rules are "simply inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet." The limited protections leave the door open for the phone and cable companies to favor their own content or applications. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama came out strongly in favor of net neutrality, saying he would "take a back seat to no one" on the issue. But in the end, Obama's FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, failed to deliver on the president's promise, instead issuing ambiguous rules riddled with loopholes that corporate lobbyists will easily undermine. Over the past several years, the phone and cable companies have flooded Washington with millions of dollars and hundreds of lobbyists to buy support in Congress and put pressure on the FCC. Public interest groups and a few lawmakers have tried to fight back, and more than two million people have urged the FCC to adopt strong net neutrality rules, but Chairman Genachowski ultimately caved to industry demands and turned a deaf ear to the public. What *Went Wrong: Real vs. Fake Net Neutrality* At its core, real net neutrality is a clear rule of non-discrimination that governs all Internet providers. It means that your provider can't slow down your service in order to speed up someone else's. It means that your provider can't exploit legal loopholes to slow down your access to Netflix while speeding up Hulu because it happens to own Hulu. It means that there's one Internet, whether you access it from your home computer or your mobile phone. But the rules that the FCC passed in December are vague and weak. The limited protections that were placed on wired connections, the kind you access through your home computer, leave the door open for the phone and cable companies to develop fast and slow lanes on the Web and to favor their own content or applications. Worse, the rules also explicitly allow wireless carriers---mobile phone companies like AT&T and Verizon---to block applications for any reason and to degrade and de-prioritize websites you access using your cell phone or a device like an iPad. That means these companies could block something like the music service Pandora, while offering unlimited access to its own preferred applications, like VCast. Better Than Facebook?Better Than Facebook Photo courtesy of On the Commons Fed up with Facebook's commercialism, four NYU students have created an open source, peer-to-peer alternative: Diaspora. We're already seeing what a world without real Net Neutrality will look like. Just weeks after the FCC's vote, MetroPCS, the nation's fifth-largest wireless carrier, announced new plans that would block popular applications like Skype and Netflix while favoring YouTube . This is particularly egregious because MetroPCS serves a lower-income audience that is increasingly moving toward the mobile Web as their only way to get online. Some companies are already marketing "deep packet inspection" technology that would allow carriers to nickel-and-dime you by charging you every time you visit Facebook or try to stream a Vimeo video. If MetroPCS gets away with its scheme---which appears to violate even the FCC's weak rules---you can bet that AT&T and Verizon will waste no time in unveiling their own plans, which would mean higher bills and fewer choices on the mobile Web. Lastly, the FCC's short-sighted action failed to contend with a series of drastic deregulatory decisions made during the Bush administration that severely hamstrung the FCC's ability to oversee the phone and cable companies. By failing to restore the agency's authority over broadband, the FCC risks seeing even these rules tossed out in court. The FCC rules were designed to appease the phone and cable companies---but even that didn't work. Verizon has already filed suit against the agency, showing that these gatekeepers will settle for nothing less than total deregulation and a toothless FCC. Undoing the Damage The FCC still has the opportunity to put in place a solid framework that would put the public interest above the profit motive of the phone and cable companies that it is supposed to regulate. *Undoing the Damage* The FCC's new rules are certainly a setback in the quest to protect the Web as an open platform and an integral piece of our communications infrastructure and our democracy. In the absence of clear FCC authority and oversight of the Internet and a strong Net Neutrality framework that protects your right to go wherever you want, whenever you want online, AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are free to interfere with your Internet experience. The FCC still has the opportunity to put in place a solid framework that would put the public interest above the profit motive of the phone and cable companies that it is supposed to regulate. And the FCC should take immediate steps to close the loopholes it created, to strengthen its rules, and to include wireless protections. The fight is far from over. We can work to change the rules, demand better oversight and consumer protections and make sure that the big companies can't pad their bottom lines on the backs of their customers. /Jenn Ettinger author photoJenn Ettinger wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Jenn is media coordinator for Free Press, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. / -- *Krittika Vishwanath* Research Associate IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.net Skype id: krittika85 Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 Mobile: +91 9945267341 Read our Teacher's Communities of Learning project's blogs, lesson plans and discussions here: http://bangalore.karnatakaeducation.org.in/ -- PK -------------- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jan 30 00:46:19 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 21:46:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance Message-ID: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> However, the example of Vodafone clearly demonstrates that there is an urgent need to define 'the rules of engagement' which dominate these relationships, especially when they are socially counterproductive. But it is the question of context which seems to have failed Vodafone on this occasion; its active participation in creating a local context which may shake the economic stability and investment opportunities in Egypt makes it a culprit, which rather than reinforce its market position, will shake it not only at a regional level, but internationally. In this case, 'hyper-connectivity' resulted in a dramatic loss of transparency, decision-making, and reactions which neglected to monitor and engage in dialogue with its key stakeholders; the people. http://theentrepreneurialist.net/2011/01/29/vodafone-egypt-a-tale-of-profits -over-ethics/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kim at accessnow.org Sun Jan 30 00:56:54 2011 From: kim at accessnow.org (Kim Pham) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 05:56:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance Message-ID: Michael Gurstein wrote: >However, the example of Vodafone clearly demonstrates that there is an >urgent need to define 'the rules of engagement' which dominate these >relationships, especially when they are socially counterproductive. But it >is the question of context which seems to have failed Vodafone on this >occasion; its active participation in creating a local context which may >shake the economic stability and investment opportunities in Egypt makes it >a culprit, which rather than reinforce its market position, will shake it >not only at a regional level, but internationally. In this case, >'hyper-connectivity' resulted in a dramatic loss of transparency, >decision-making, and reactions which neglected to monitor and engage in >dialogue with its key stakeholders; the people. > >http://theentrepreneurialist.net/2011/01/29/vodafone-egypt-a-tale-of-profits >-over-ethics/ > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 Sun Jan 30 01:38:06 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:38:06 +1100 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> Message-ID: To me the first basic rule in these situations is that companies should be required and should agree to act only on judicial orders, not to political pressure. In this sense Vodafone in Egypt is the same as either Paypal or Amazon in US in the case of Wikileaks. Ian Peter > From: Michael Gurstein > Reply-To: , Michael Gurstein > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 21:46:19 -0800 > To: > Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > However, the example of Vodafone clearly demonstrates that there is an > urgent need to define 'the rules of engagement' which dominate these > relationships, especially when they are socially counterproductive. But it > is the question of context which seems to have failed Vodafone on this > occasion; its active participation in creating a local context which may > shake the economic stability and investment opportunities in Egypt makes it > a culprit, which rather than reinforce its market position, will shake it > not only at a regional level, but internationally. In this case, > 'hyper-connectivity' resulted in a dramatic loss of transparency, > decision-making, and reactions which neglected to monitor and engage in > dialogue with its key stakeholders; the people. > > http://theentrepreneurialist.net/2011/01/29/vodafone-egypt-a-tale-of-profits > -over-ethics/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Jan 30 01:51:08 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:51:08 -0800 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3C74A69293264517893159295EF7B07A@userPC> Yes, which suggests the need for some sort of international (and enforceable?) code of conduct. M -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:38 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance To me the first basic rule in these situations is that companies should be required and should agree to act only on judicial orders, not to political pressure. In this sense Vodafone in Egypt is the same as either Paypal or Amazon in US in the case of Wikileaks. Ian Peter > From: Michael Gurstein > Reply-To: , Michael Gurstein > > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 21:46:19 -0800 > To: > Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > However, the example of Vodafone clearly demonstrates that there is an > urgent need to define 'the rules of engagement' which dominate these > relationships, especially when they are socially counterproductive. > But it is the question of context which seems to have failed Vodafone > on this occasion; its active participation in creating a local context > which may shake the economic stability and investment opportunities in > Egypt makes it a culprit, which rather than reinforce its market > position, will shake it not only at a regional level, but > internationally. In this case, 'hyper-connectivity' resulted in a > dramatic loss of transparency, decision-making, and reactions which > neglected to monitor and engage in dialogue with its key stakeholders; > the people. > > http://theentrepreneurialist.net/2011/01/29/vodafone-egypt-a-tale-of-p > rofits > -over-ethics/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Sun Jan 30 03:12:17 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:12:17 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Revised version of statement on themes for Nairobi In-Reply-To: (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:37:08 +0800) References: Message-ID: <20110130081217.EC00715C195@quill.bollow.ch> > 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." 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 Sun Jan 30 04:09:37 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:09:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: The Not-So-Neutral Net] In-Reply-To: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> References: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1D+EiCiRrSRNFAxe@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4D44F0F5.4090108 at itforchange.net>, at 10:32:45 on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, parminder writes >quote from the article below > >We're already seeing what a world without real Net Neutrality will look >like. Just weeks after the FCC's vote, MetroPCS, the nation's >fifth-largest wireless carrier, announced new plans that would block >popular applications like Skype and Netflix while favoring YouTube. >This is particularly egregious because MetroPCS serves a lower-income >audience that is increasingly moving toward the mobile Web as their >only way to get online The question still remains - why are users expecting to access Netflix from their mobile phones (at no extra cost)? It's not an appropriate use of the technology. I'd prefer people had unfettered access to information, rather than entertainment, but maybe I'm just an old-fashioned Internet user. I'm reminded of the "Penny Post", invented in the UK as a flat rate fee for sending a letter anywhere in the country (previously it was charged on distance, and the recipient rather than the sender paid). However, they probably wouldn't expect to deliver someone's weekly grocery shopping for a penny. Is that a restriction of free expression? -- 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 Sun Jan 30 04:12:38 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:12:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> Message-ID: <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 17:38:06 on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Ian Peter writes >To me the first basic rule in these situations is that companies should be >required and should agree to act only on judicial orders, not to political >pressure. And what if the Judge has no choice but to rubber-stamp a piece of paper where the government is declaring (under laws previously drawn up by politicians) that it's a national emergency? [This is a general point, not aimed at any particular country or incident]. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 30 04:24:59 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:24:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 17:38:06 on Sun, 30 > Jan 2011, Ian Peter writes >> >> To me the first basic rule in these situations is that companies should be >> required and should agree to act only on judicial orders, not to political >> pressure. > > And what if the Judge has no choice but to rubber-stamp a piece of paper > where the government is declaring (under laws previously drawn up by > politicians) that it's a national emergency? a fair point. In this case, however, I am very curious as to HOW the Egyptian gov't managed to shutdown all Internet services in the space of 25 minutes. I think they either sent many squads of boyz to pull the plugs on every router in every data center/ISP rack (unlikely given Cairo's traffic chaos) OR they had a script ready to run that telnetted into each BGP speaker and shut them down one by one. I don't think it likely that a series of phone calls in the middle of the night would have the effect we saw, rather such a series of phone calls would have seen routes withdrawn over a period of many hours, not minutes. In other words, I don't think vodafone or any of the other providers were happy to pull the plug. -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jan 30 04:30:35 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:30:35 +1100 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Hi Roland, I'm not suggesting this solves all problems - only that it creates the beginning of a more principled approach to such requests and the beginning of an understanding that humans have rights here that should not just be subject to the politics and political knee jerk reactions of the day. Just like police needing magistrates to issue search warrants, I guess - it doesn't create an end to police states, but it does create a situation where action to take down internet access needs to be justified according to the laws of the nation state involved (poor those they might be). I think its an important step for us to begin to lobby for such a code of conduct, even if only voluntary at this stage. I think many of the internet businesses would support such an approach, it helps them to have some universally accepted guidelines as well. Ian Peter > From: Roland Perry > Reply-To: , Roland Perry > > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:12:38 +0000 > To: > Subject: Re: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > In message , at 17:38:06 on Sun, > 30 Jan 2011, Ian Peter writes >> To me the first basic rule in these situations is that companies should be >> required and should agree to act only on judicial orders, not to political >> pressure. > > And what if the Judge has no choice but to rubber-stamp a piece of paper > where the government is declaring (under laws previously drawn up by > politicians) that it's a national emergency? > > [This is a general point, not aimed at any particular country or > incident]. > -- > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 30 04:34:09 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:34:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Roland, > > I'm not suggesting this solves all problems - only that it creates the > beginning of a more principled approach to such requests and the beginning > of an understanding that humans have rights here that should not just be > subject to the politics and political knee jerk reactions of the day. Just > like police needing magistrates to issue search warrants, I guess - it > doesn't create an end to police states, but it does create a situation where > action to take down internet access needs to be justified according to the > laws of the nation state involved (poor those they might be). > > I think its an important step for us to begin to lobby for such a code of > conduct, even if only voluntary at this stage. I think many of the internet > businesses would support such an approach, it helps them to have some > universally accepted guidelines as well. Plus, they can continue making money, which they like to do. A voluntary code of conduct is not going to help much when the men in black come through your doors and cut off power to all your gear however. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jan 30 05:01:07 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:01:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 12:24:59 on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, McTim writes >> And what if the Judge has no choice but to rubber-stamp a piece of paper >> where the government is declaring (under laws previously drawn up by >> politicians) that it's a national emergency? > >a fair point. > >In this case, however, I am very curious as to HOW the Egyptian gov't >managed to shutdown all Internet services in the space of 25 minutes. >I think they either sent many squads of boyz to pull the plugs on >every router in every data center/ISP rack (unlikely given Cairo's >traffic chaos) OR they had a script ready to run that telnetted into >each BGP speaker and shut them down one by one. I don't think it >likely that a series of phone calls in the middle of the night would >have the effect we saw, rather such a series of phone calls would have >seen routes withdrawn over a period of many hours, not minutes. > >In other words, I don't think vodafone or any of the other providers >were happy to pull the plug. If you want to discuss Egypt (I didn't particularly) then it has all the hallmarks of a detailed and pre-prepared contingency plan being activated. And I don't think any organisation (whether they are 45% owned by the government or not) likes having to activate contingency plans - some don't even like the work of having to design them. History (which includes opinion on whether what was done was a "good or bad thing") tends to be written by the winning side, and we are probably some way from knowing who that's going to be. -- 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 Sun Jan 30 05:21:06 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:21:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 12:34:09 on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, McTim writes >> I'm not suggesting this solves all problems - only that it creates the >> beginning of a more principled approach to such requests and the beginning >> of an understanding that humans have rights here that should not just be >> subject to the politics and political knee jerk reactions of the day. Just >> like police needing magistrates to issue search warrants, I guess - it >> doesn't create an end to police states, but it does create a situation where >> action to take down internet access needs to be justified according to the >> laws of the nation state involved (poor those they might be). >> >> I think its an important step for us to begin to lobby for such a code of >> conduct, even if only voluntary at this stage. I think many of the internet >> businesses would support such an approach, it helps them to have some >> universally accepted guidelines as well. > >Plus, they can continue making money, which they like to do. > >A voluntary code of conduct is not going to help much when the men in >black come through your doors and cut off power to all your gear >however. Whose code of conduct is this? It sounds like it might be an International Convention of some kind. ITU or UN to the rescue? Companies have to work within the local law, irrespective of how that law differs from the laws back home, which is exactly what Vodafone's CEO (an Italian living in UK) has been saying. It's unclear to me how a "code of conduct" (to keep things running as normal come what may) can be applied to a national government in a time of civil unrest. Or as happened in Australia recently, a time of floods where utilities were instructed what to do by the government (and which might not have been what they'd have done left to their own devices). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 30 06:36:19 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:36:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> (message from Roland Perry on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:12:38 +0000) References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> > In message , at 17:38:06 on Sun, > 30 Jan 2011, Ian Peter writes > >To me the first basic rule in these situations is that companies should be > >required and should agree to act only on judicial orders, not to political > >pressure. I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind that incorporates this principle. Roland Perry replied: > And what if the Judge has no choice but to rubber-stamp a piece of paper > where the government is declaring (under laws previously drawn up by > politicians) that it's a national emergency? This kind of situation can only addressed by taking whatever measures are necessary for ensuring the wide availability of reasonably inexpensive communication technology of a kind that is so non-centralized that it cannot practically be suppressed or censored. 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. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 30 06:46:32 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:16:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4D454F98.6040503@itforchange.net> Norbert Bollow wrote: >> In message , at 17:38:06 on Sun, >> 30 Jan 2011, Ian Peter writes >> >>> To me the first basic rule in these situations is that companies should be >>> required and should agree to act only on judicial orders, not to political >>> pressure. >>> > > I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind > that incorporates this principle. > IGC supported workshop on 'Transnational (or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy' at IGF Vilinus addressed this issue at length - meaning that any interference with Internet content could only be done through a clear judicial process. see transcript at - http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/102-transcripts2010/702-56 There was a great degree of support for this in the room, including by the BBC and EBU representative in the room. A rep of Brazil gov, also supporting such a process, said that in Brazil this was the way it got done. There was also discussion on the desirability of a global code to ensure that any interference to the Internet is only made through a due process. Milton and I shared a joke of doing a road show together across the globe to drum support for such a code :) Parminder > Roland Perry replied: > >> And what if the Judge has no choice but to rubber-stamp a piece of paper >> where the government is declaring (under laws previously drawn up by >> politicians) that it's a national emergency? >> > > This kind of situation can only addressed by taking whatever > measures are necessary for ensuring the wide availability of > reasonably inexpensive communication technology of a kind > that is so non-centralized that it cannot practically be > suppressed or censored. > > 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. > > 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 > > > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 30 06:56:23 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:56:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> (wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de) References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20110130115623.E72CC15C195@quill.bollow.ch> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 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. Ok, so what kinds of textual outcomes are possible to create (beyond what the IGF has been creating so far) while avoiding this problem? I mean textual outcomes that have better impact towards making positive changes happen. > I repeat my proposal with the seven roles/functions IGF 2.0 could play: > 1. Observatory > 2. Clearinghouse > 3. Laboratory > 4. School > 5. Scout > 6. Early Warning System > 7. Watchdog > > For each of the seven function one can develop a special procedure > how to translate this into concrete elements of an IGF process. I like the direction in which you're thinking here. I'd like to see the number of roles/functions reduced though, in order for us to be able to focus more on a smaller number of objectives. Role "3. Laboratory" is unavoidable -- the IGF is an important pioneer of UN-based multistakeholder work, so it must be a laboratory for this to some extent. Role "4. School" is necessary as well I think. I'm not sure of role "2. Clearinghouse" -- maybe establishing the kind of decision-making procedure that is necessary for a clearinghouse (or even just trying to do so) would unduly burden the IGF, in the same way as the point that you have made about creating a formally negotiated text? With respect to the roles "1. Observatory", "5. Scout", "6. Early Warning System", "7. Watchdog", it is not clear to me how they are differentiated from each other. Maybe it would be possible to combine these points into one? 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 Sun Jan 30 07:03:11 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:03:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind >that incorporates this principle. Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? >Roland Perry replied: >> And what if the Judge has no choice but to rubber-stamp a piece of paper >> where the government is declaring (under laws previously drawn up by >> politicians) that it's a national emergency? > >This kind of situation can only addressed by taking whatever >measures are necessary for ensuring the wide availability of >reasonably inexpensive communication technology of a kind >that is so non-centralized that it cannot practically be >suppressed or censored. > >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. As a student of law in different countries, you might want to comment upon the ease and frequency that the government imposes a curfew, and what circumstances they consider extreme enough; but that's a slightly different exercise. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 30 07:11:51 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:11:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <4D439D1D.5090607@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:22:45 +0530) References: <4D439D1D.5090607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110130121152.00D0715C195@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > If stakeholders are to be really an active part of policy shaping > process (a term used by Bertrand) it should be obvious that we will > need to put our belief in policy related documents that are concrete > enough to have influence, but less than binding policies themselves - > whether they are advisory notes, recs, reports on specific issues, > messages or whatever. Who are the envisioned users of the "policy related documents" output of the IFG that you're envisioning? - members of parliament (in various countries)? - people working for a government in some kind kind of administrative function? - members of standardization committees working on technical standards with relevance to internet governance? - others? What are their needs that could possibly be met by IGF-generated documents? 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 30 07:07:01 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:07:01 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <20110130115623.E72CC15C195@quill.bollow.ch> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20110130115623.E72CC15C195@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <18FE6C9E-6377-49E7-A1DF-73F49E024558@ciroap.org> On 30/01/2011, at 7:56 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Wolfgang Kleinwächter 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. > > Ok, so what kinds of textual outcomes are possible to create > (beyond what the IGF has been creating so far) while avoiding > this problem? It's not that the outcomes we want are wrong, it's that the processes aren't in place for achieving them. There is no need to resort to the kind of stifling negotiations that Wolfgang is worried about. There are scores of tried and tested practices under the banner of deliberative democracy that are designed precisely to avoid such strategic behaviour, and have been proved successful in doing so. The IGF even considered a variation on one of these - speed dialogues - for the Rio meeting. It was, of course, torpedoed even before the second planning meeting rolled around. -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 30 07:27:27 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:27:27 +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: <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch> > In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 on > Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind > >that incorporates this principle. > > Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process in the IGF context. Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal international treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, it would be policed only to the extent that of course nothing will stop the legislature of any country from adding the principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if following the "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, entirely voluntary, I would expect that the document could still have a very significant practical impact. Just like many of IETF's RFCs have very significant practical impact even without them having been formally adopted by any national legislature, or even by any standardization organization with the kind of formal international recognition that e.g. ISO has. And there's definitely to "internet police" to enforce the RFCs. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 30 07:40:23 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:40:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <18FE6C9E-6377-49E7-A1DF-73F49E024558@ciroap.org> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:07:01 +0800) References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20110130115623.E72CC15C195@quill.bollow.ch> <18FE6C9E-6377-49E7-A1DF-73F49E024558@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20110130124024.0BFCB15C195@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 30/01/2011, at 7:56 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Ok, so what kinds of textual outcomes are possible to create > > (beyond what the IGF has been creating so far) while avoiding > > this problem? > > It's not that the outcomes we want are wrong, it's that the > processes aren't in place for achieving them. There is no need to > resort to the kind of stifling negotiations that Wolfgang is worried > about. There are scores of tried and tested practices under the > banner of deliberative democracy that are designed precisely to > avoid such strategic behaviour, and have been proved successful in > doing so. The IGF even considered a variation on one of these - > speed dialogues - for the Rio meeting. It was, of course, torpedoed > even before the second planning meeting rolled around. If right now it's not politically feasible to implement this kind of thing at the "whole IGF" level, maybe it's possible to implement it at the "workshop" level, for those workshops whose organizers want to do it, initially? 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 pouzin at well.com Sun Jan 30 07:48:24 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:48:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: The Not-So-Neutral Net] In-Reply-To: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> References: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Quite clearly MetroPCS is testing FCC muscles. Hopefully US consumers should react and test MetroPCS muscles. Is MetroPCS (or AT&T, or Verizon, etc ..) operating in India ? Is India gov supporting NN ? If so the Indian telecom authority could rule that telecom operators in India may not discriminate services offered to Indian consumers, or else they would not be allowed to offer international services in India. Then work out a similar rule within the BRIC group. fwiw - - - On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:02 AM, parminder wrote: > quote from the article below > > We're already seeing what a world without real Net Neutrality will look > like. Just weeks after the FCC's vote, MetroPCS, the nation's fifth-largest > wireless carrier, announced new plans that would block popular > applications like Skype and Netflix while favoring YouTube. > This is particularly egregious because MetroPCS serves a lower-income > audience that is increasingly moving toward the mobile Web as their only way > to get online. > (quote ends) > > Highlights the development aspect of non NN wireless Internet, when mobile > internet is likely to be the main way to access Internet in the poorer areas > of the world. And the anti NN rules ensure that it is the content and > applications from the North that consumers in the South remain hooked to and > dependent on. A wholly new and very potent North-South dependency paradigm > is now being built over the non NN architect of mobile Internet, and I hope > progressive global civil society takes notice and has something to say on > this. If this is not an issue that IGF should take up in its plenary, than i > dont think it is doing much of any worth. Parminder > > http://www.truth-out.org/the-not-so-neutral-net67276 > > > The Not-So-Neutral Net > > Monday 24 January 2011 > > by: Jenn Ettinger | *YES! Magazine | News Analysis* > > *The FCC's new rules on Net Neutrality open the Internet to corporate > discrimination. But it's not too late to preserve Internet freedom.* > > The Internet was created as an "open" or "neutral" platform, and net > neutrality is the principle that ensures that Internet providers can't > interfere with a user's ability to access any content on the Web, whether > it's a community blog, a YouTube video, or a major news site. It's > essentially the First Amendment of the Internet. > > In late December, the Federal Communications Commission enacted new rules > on net neutrality—rules that are supposed to protect Internet users from > discrimination and to prevent Internet providers like AT&T, Comcast, and > Verizon from acting as gatekeepers on the Web. > > But the FCC missed the mark, and its rules not only fail to protect > Internet users, but bolster the big phone and cable companies' ability to > carve up the Internet among themselves. As Net Neutrality champion Senator > Al Franken said, the rules are "simply inadequate to protect consumers or > preserve the free and open Internet." The limited protections leave the door > open for the phone and cable companies to favor their own content or > applications. > > During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama came out strongly in favor > of net neutrality, saying he would "take a back seat to no one" on the > issue. But in the end, Obama's FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, failed to > deliver on the president's promise, instead issuing ambiguous rules riddled > with loopholes that corporate lobbyists will easily undermine. > > Over the past several years, the phone and cable companies have flooded > Washington with millions of dollars and hundreds of lobbyists to buy support > in Congress and put pressure on the FCC. Public interest groups and a few > lawmakers have tried to fight back, and more than two million people have > urged the FCC to adopt strong net neutrality rules, but Chairman Genachowski > ultimately caved to industry demands and turned a deaf ear to the public. > What > > *Went Wrong: Real vs. Fake Net Neutrality* > > At its core, real net neutrality is a clear rule of non-discrimination that > governs all Internet providers. It means that your provider can't slow down > your service in order to speed up someone else's. It means that your > provider can't exploit legal loopholes to slow down your access to Netflix > while speeding up Hulu because it happens to own Hulu. It means that there's > one Internet, whether you access it from your home computer or your mobile > phone. > > But the rules that the FCC passed in December are vague and weak. The > limited protections that were placed on wired connections, the kind you > access through your home computer, leave the door open for the phone and > cable companies to develop fast and slow lanes on the Web and to favor their > own content or applications. > > Worse, the rules also explicitly allow wireless carriers—mobile phone > companies like AT&T and Verizon—to block applications for any reason and to > degrade and de-prioritize websites you access using your cell phone or a > device like an iPad. That means these companies could block something like > the music service Pandora, while offering unlimited access to its own > preferred applications, like VCast. > > Better Than Facebook?Better Than Facebook Photo courtesy of On the Commons > > Fed up with Facebook's commercialism, four NYU students have created an > open source, peer-to-peer alternative: Diaspora. > > We're already seeing what a world without real Net Neutrality will look > like. Just weeks after the FCC's vote, MetroPCS, the nation's fifth-largest > wireless carrier, announced new plans that would block popular > applications like Skype and Netflix while favoring YouTube. > This is particularly egregious because MetroPCS serves a lower-income > audience that is increasingly moving toward the mobile Web as their only way > to get online. > > Some companies are already marketing "deep packet inspection" technology > that would allow carriers to nickel-and-dime you by charging you every time > you visit Facebook or try to stream a Vimeo video. If MetroPCS gets away > with its scheme—which appears to violate even the FCC's weak rules—you can > bet that AT&T and Verizon will waste no time in unveiling their own plans, > which would mean higher bills and fewer choices on the mobile Web. > > Lastly, the FCC's short-sighted action failed to contend with a series of > drastic deregulatory decisions made during the Bush administration that > severely hamstrung the FCC's ability to oversee the phone and cable > companies. By failing to restore the agency's authority over broadband, the > FCC risks seeing even these rules tossed out in court. > > The FCC rules were designed to appease the phone and cable companies—but > even that didn't work. Verizon has already filed suit against the agency, > showing that these gatekeepers will settle for nothing less than total > deregulation and a toothless FCC. Undoing the Damage The FCC still has the > opportunity to put in place a solid framework that would put the public > interest above the profit motive of the phone and cable companies that it is > supposed to regulate. > > *Undoing the Damage* > > The FCC's new rules are certainly a setback in the quest to protect the Web > as an open platform and an integral piece of our communications > infrastructure and our democracy. In the absence of clear FCC authority and > oversight of the Internet and a strong Net Neutrality framework that > protects your right to go wherever you want, whenever you want online, AT&T, > Comcast, and Verizon are free to interfere with your Internet experience. > > The FCC still has the opportunity to put in place a solid framework that > would put the public interest above the profit motive of the phone and cable > companies that it is supposed to regulate. And the FCC should take immediate > steps to close the loopholes it created, to strengthen its rules, and to > include wireless protections. The fight is far from over. We can work to > change the rules, demand better oversight and consumer protections and make > sure that the big companies can't pad their bottom lines on the backs of > their customers. > > *Jenn Ettinger author photoJenn Ettinger wrote this article for YES! > Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas > with practical actions. Jenn is media coordinator for Free Press, a > nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. > * > > -- > > *Krittika Vishwanath* > Research Associate > IT for Change > In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.net > Skype id: krittika85 > Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 > Mobile: +91 9945267341 > > Read our Teacher's Communities of Learning project's blogs, lesson > plans and discussions here: http://bangalore.karnatakaeducation.org.in/ > > > -- > 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jan 30 08:46:21 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:46:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch> References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <+EB2T5utuWRNFARd@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <20110130122727.C4FB915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 13:27:27 on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes >> >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind >> >that incorporates this principle. >> >> Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? > >It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process >in the IGF context. > >Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal >international treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, >it would be policed only to the extent that of course nothing >will stop the legislature of any country from adding the >principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. > >But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if >following the "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, >entirely voluntary, I would expect that the document could still >have a very significant practical impact. Then I'm a bit confused, because I thought this "code of conduct" was about networks resisting action against them by the authorities. Why would a country put such a thing into its law - and even then I can guarantee there will be a clause about exceptional circumstances. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jan 30 08:54:08 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:54:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: The Not-So-Neutral Net] In-Reply-To: References: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 13:48:24 on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, "Louis Pouzin (well)" writes >Is MetroPCS (or AT&T, or Verizon, etc ..) operating in India ? Is India >gov supporting NN ? If so the Indian telecom authority could rule that >telecom operators in India may not discriminate services offered to >Indian consumers, or else they would not be allowed to offer >international services in India Is that "no discrimination by content type", or "no discrimination by volume"? If a movie takes 1GB to deliver, would be allowed to say "sorry, no files above 0.5GB"[1] which would be a disguised ban on movies. [1] Or perhaps "unless you pay extra". -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jan 30 11:09:14 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 08:09:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <70B8364FA75A4CADA109D1814C62E380@userPC> I think that we need to see these as long term processes with multiple actors, influences, potential outcomes and so on. But there would clearly seem to be a need for a statement of principles/code of conduct with respect to access to/the opportunity to use the means of communication. That there will be opposition to such is hardly relevent to the articulation and civil society agitation in support of such a set of principles/code. That governments or whoever would insist that there were various kinds of clauses to ensure their ultimate authority in these areas is similarly irrelevant since as with Human Rights agreements/codes their presence acts as some sort of standard against which breaches can be measured and responded to and governments (and the private sector) can be held accountable. It is hard to see what in the area of Global Internet Governance could be of more importance than the setting in place of a process for the formulation and ratification of such an agreement. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 > on > Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind that > >incorporates this principle. > > Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process in the IGF context. Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal international treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, it would be policed only to the extent that of course nothing will stop the legislature of any country from adding the principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if following the "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, entirely voluntary, I would expect that the document could still have a very significant practical impact. Just like many of IETF's RFCs have very significant practical impact even without them having been formally adopted by any national legislature, or even by any standardization organization with the kind of formal international recognition that e.g. ISO has. And there's definitely to "internet police" to enforce the RFCs. 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jan 30 13:22:32 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:22:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <70B8364FA75A4CADA109D1814C62E380@userPC> References: <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch> <70B8364FA75A4CADA109D1814C62E380@userPC> Message-ID: In message <70B8364FA75A4CADA109D1814C62E380 at userPC>, at 08:09:14 on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Michael Gurstein writes >I think that we need to see these as long term processes with multiple >actors, influences, potential outcomes and so on. > >But there would clearly seem to be a need for a statement of principles/code >of conduct with respect to access to/the opportunity to use the means of >communication. That there will be opposition to such is hardly relevent to >the articulation and civil society agitation in support of such a set of >principles/code. > >That governments or whoever would insist that there were various kinds of >clauses to ensure their ultimate authority in these areas is similarly >irrelevant since as with Human Rights agreements/codes their presence acts >as some sort of standard against which breaches can be measured and >responded to and governments (and the private sector) can be held >accountable. > >It is hard to see what in the area of Global Internet Governance could be of >more importance than the setting in place of a process for the formulation >and ratification of such an agreement. I agree for normal times. And in normal times I also have a right of free passage on the roads. But today that was prevented to some extent by the police on account of the number of football fans attending a particularly rivalrous match[1]. The police probably thought they were protecting me from the football supporters, as much as vice versa. [1] Notts County vs Manchester City, a 1:1 draw. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 30 14:34:42 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:34:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <70B8364FA75A4CADA109D1814C62E380@userPC> References: <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch>,<70B8364FA75A4CADA109D1814C62E380@userPC> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109176@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Michael, I don't recall off-hand every last paragraph of the draft Charter of Internet Rights under discussion on the Internet Rights and Principles list...but wouldn't something along the lines you suggest be most easily promoted through that, perhaps by adding an additional paragraph or clause if needed? Which was already a topic for discussion at the next IGF right... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance I think that we need to see these as long term processes with multiple actors, influences, potential outcomes and so on. But there would clearly seem to be a need for a statement of principles/code of conduct with respect to access to/the opportunity to use the means of communication. That there will be opposition to such is hardly relevent to the articulation and civil society agitation in support of such a set of principles/code. That governments or whoever would insist that there were various kinds of clauses to ensure their ultimate authority in these areas is similarly irrelevant since as with Human Rights agreements/codes their presence acts as some sort of standard against which breaches can be measured and responded to and governments (and the private sector) can be held accountable. It is hard to see what in the area of Global Internet Governance could be of more importance than the setting in place of a process for the formulation and ratification of such an agreement. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 > on > Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind that > >incorporates this principle. > > Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process in the IGF context. Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal international treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, it would be policed only to the extent that of course nothing will stop the legislature of any country from adding the principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if following the "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, entirely voluntary, I would expect that the document could still have a very significant practical impact. Just like many of IETF's RFCs have very significant practical impact even without them having been formally adopted by any national legislature, or even by any standardization organization with the kind of formal international recognition that e.g. ISO has. And there's definitely to "internet police" to enforce the RFCs. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 30 14:49:57 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:49:57 +1200 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> Message-ID: It is critical that in analysing and assessing the Egypt situation that a few additional questions are asked ,eg. 1) What is the status of the regulator, is it independent or subject to political pressure? 2)Did Vodafone Egypt take the matter to Court, if it did, what was it outcome? 3)Has the judiciary gone through IG Capacity training? 4)Do the Members of Parliament in Egypt have adequate understanding of the value of ICT as an enabler for economic development? 5)Was there a threat against Vodafone Egypt that they would have their licence suspended if they did not comply and how real was that perceived threat and was it enough to justify their commercial decision to retain their capacity to provide other services other than as an ISP? 6)Has Vodafone Egypt initiated a Judicial Review against the decision, how long is it likely to take? 7) In the event that Vodafone Egypt is not likely to face adequate redress, are there international mechanisms in place where Vodafone Egypt can find redress and would those redress be recognisable in Egypt? Clearly, there is no "short term" answer and any short term answer that exists are merely band aid solutions. We need to address globally as a community the philosophy that needs to emerge to adequately address these issues and many more. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > However, the example of Vodafone clearly demonstrates that there is an > urgent need to define 'the rules of engagement' which dominate these > relationships, especially when they are socially counterproductive. But it > is the question of context which seems to have failed Vodafone on this > occasion; its active participation in creating a local context which may > shake the economic stability and investment opportunities in Egypt makes it > a culprit, which rather than reinforce its market position, will shake it > not only at a regional level, but internationally. In this case, > 'hyper-connectivity' resulted in a dramatic loss of transparency, > decision-making, and reactions which neglected to monitor and engage in > dialogue with its key stakeholders; the people. > > > http://theentrepreneurialist.net/2011/01/29/vodafone-egypt-a-tale-of-profits > -over-ethics/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Sun Jan 30 15:23:30 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:23:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> Message-ID: In message , at 07:49:57 on Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >It is critical that in analysing and assessing the Egypt situation that >a few additional questions are asked ,eg. >  >1) What is the status of the regulator, is it independent or subject to >political pressure? >2)Did Vodafone Egypt take the matter to Court, if it did, what was it >outcome? >3)Has the judiciary gone through IG Capacity training? >4)Do the Members of Parliament in Egypt have adequate understanding of >the value of ICT as an enabler for economic development? >5)Was there a threat against Vodafone Egypt that they would have their >licence suspended if they did not comply and how real was that >perceived threat and was it enough to justify their commercial decision >to retain their capacity to provide other services other than as an ISP? >6)Has Vodafone Egypt initiated a Judicial Review against the decision, >how long is it likely to take? >7) In the event that Vodafone Egypt is not likely to face adequate >redress, are there international mechanisms in place where Vodafone >Egypt can find redress and would those redress be recognisable in Egypt If Egypt has a completely new government in a week's time, can Vodafone usefully sue them for something that happened under the overthrown regime? And if the old regime continues, is it a good idea for a network to sue the government for failing to let them (as it would be argued) assist the protesters? I think they are between a rock and a hard place, either way. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 30 15:26:53 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:26:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <+EB2T5utuWRNFARd@internetpolicyagency.com> (message from Roland Perry on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:46:21 +0000) References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch> <+EB2T5utuWRNFARd@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <20110130202653.6ED4315C195@quill.bollow.ch> Roland Perry wrote: > In message <20110130122727.C4FB915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 13:27:27 on > Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > >> >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind > >> >that incorporates this principle. > >> > >> Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? > > > >It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process > >in the IGF context. > > > >Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal > >international treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, > >it would be policed only to the extent that of course nothing > >will stop the legislature of any country from adding the > >principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. > > > >But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if > >following the "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, > >entirely voluntary, I would expect that the document could still > >have a very significant practical impact. > > Then I'm a bit confused, because I thought this "code of conduct" was > about networks resisting action against them by the authorities. Why > would a country put such a thing into its law It would be a decision by the legislative branch of government to reduce the possibility of abuse of power by members of the executive branch of government. > - and even then I can guarantee there will be a clause about > exceptional circumstances. I don't know about your country, but here in Switzerland I wouldn't expect such a clause to get added. 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 katitza at eff.org Sun Jan 30 15:33:15 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:33:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations In-Reply-To: References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> Message-ID: <4D45CB0B.7050307@eff.org> 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 report released 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 effort to 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 . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 30 15:39:45 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:39:45 +1200 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> Message-ID: It would be interesting to see their State Proceedings Act. Again, this is why the IGF must open discussions on philosophy as it precedes, policy and law, anyway. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message , > at 07:49:57 on Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> writes > > It is critical that in analysing and assessing the Egypt situation that a >> few additional questions are asked ,eg. >> >> 1) What is the status of the regulator, is it independent or subject to >> political pressure? >> 2)Did Vodafone Egypt take the matter to Court, if it did, what was it >> outcome? >> 3)Has the judiciary gone through IG Capacity training? >> 4)Do the Members of Parliament in Egypt have adequate understanding of the >> value of ICT as an enabler for economic development? >> 5)Was there a threat against Vodafone Egypt that they would have their >> licence suspended if they did not comply and how real was that perceived >> threat and was it enough to justify their commercial decision to retain >> their capacity to provide other services other than as an ISP? >> 6)Has Vodafone Egypt initiated a Judicial Review against the decision, how >> long is it likely to take? >> 7) In the event that Vodafone Egypt is not likely to face adequate >> redress, are there international mechanisms in place where Vodafone Egypt >> can find redress and would those redress be recognisable in Egypt >> > > If Egypt has a completely new government in a week's time, can Vodafone > usefully sue them for something that happened under the overthrown regime? > > And if the old regime continues, is it a good idea for a network to sue the > government for failing to let them (as it would be argued) assist the > protesters? > > I think they are between a rock and a hard place, either way. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jan 30 15:58:47 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:58:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109176@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Lee, I tend to agree with you as below but I would leave it to others more knowledgeable on that document than myself to comment specifically. But I also think that it is important to situate the discussions at the IGF in real world contexts especially since the real world is inceasingly impinging on those discussions in such an active and volatile way. M -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:35 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance Michael, I don't recall off-hand every last paragraph of the draft Charter of Internet Rights under discussion on the Internet Rights and Principles list...but wouldn't something along the lines you suggest be most easily promoted through that, perhaps by adding an additional paragraph or clause if needed? Which was already a topic for discussion at the next IGF right... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance I think that we need to see these as long term processes with multiple actors, influences, potential outcomes and so on. But there would clearly seem to be a need for a statement of principles/code of conduct with respect to access to/the opportunity to use the means of communication. That there will be opposition to such is hardly relevent to the articulation and civil society agitation in support of such a set of principles/code. That governments or whoever would insist that there were various kinds of clauses to ensure their ultimate authority in these areas is similarly irrelevant since as with Human Rights agreements/codes their presence acts as some sort of standard against which breaches can be measured and responded to and governments (and the private sector) can be held accountable. It is hard to see what in the area of Global Internet Governance could be of more importance than the setting in place of a process for the formulation and ratification of such an agreement. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 > on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind that > >incorporates this principle. > > Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process in the IGF context. Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal international treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, it would be policed only to the extent that of course nothing will stop the legislature of any country from adding the principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if following the "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, entirely voluntary, I would expect that the document could still have a very significant practical impact. Just like many of IETF's RFCs have very significant practical impact even without them having been formally adopted by any national legislature, or even by any standardization organization with the kind of formal international recognition that e.g. ISO has. And there's definitely to "internet police" to enforce the RFCs. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 30 15:58:47 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:58:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Egypt, let your people go online! Message-ID: <952FFB6DC19B43748D05F0AA5FCC3C60@userPC> ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Egypt, let your people go online! From: "Brett Solomon" Date: Sat, January 29, 2011 6:53 pm To: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear friends and colleagues, Please find the link to the updated campaign we sent out last night calling on *Mr Mubarak to tear down the firewall* - It would be great if you could tweet this and sign the link below: *Egypt, let your people go online! Sign new @accessnowpetition calling on ISPs and telecos to reconnect #Egypt #Jan25: http://bit.ly/fqDmCZ* Full text of the campaign below. ---- With the help of European companies like Vodafone and Orange/France Telecom the Egyptian government shut down the internet and cut the phone lines. Despite news that the mobile phones are back up in some places, Egyptians demonstrating in the streets for a peaceful end to decades of tyranny are facing an attempted blackout. By succumbing to the regime's pressure, Vodafone and Orange/France Telecom betrayed their own operating principles and taken away one of the most important tools the people can use to challenge the iron fist of the Egyptian regime. Egyptian and internationally funded ISPs bear the same responsibility. Join us in calling them out on their complicity in human rights abuse and demanding that they immediately restore service to Egypt. https://www.accessnow.org/GetEgyptBackOnline With most of the country without any access to the internet, mobile phones, or SMS, it's very difficult to know what kind of human rights abuses the Egyptian government may be committing. The Egyptian police are shooting at unarmed protestors and journalists, setting cars on fire, and spraying protestors with water cannons and tear gas. We really won't know the full extent of the violence until the internet and mobile networks are restored. Please sign this petition, which we will deliver to Vodafone, Orange/France Telecom and the ISPs, urging them to reopen or maintain the channels of communication: https://www.accessnow.org/GetEgyptBackOnline -- Brett Solomon Executive Director Access www.accessnow.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 Sun Jan 30 16:25:09 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:25:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] China Blocks Chinese Word for 'Egypt' In-Reply-To: <8B757653-F238-488F-BB16-EE914EC147E3@me.com> References: ,<8B757653-F238-488F-BB16-EE914EC147E3@me.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Speaking of firewalls...and Egypt: ________________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:25 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] China Blocks Chinese Word for 'Egypt' Begin forwarded message: From: Sam™ > Date: January 30, 2011 3:12:14 PM EST To: Dave Farber IP > Subject: China Blocks Chinese Word for 'Egypt' Hi Dave, This might be of interest to the list. It's interesting to see how the fragmentation of the net continues. Imagine not being able to search for current events in Mexico, Europe, or elsewhere. Sam Waltz http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/218185/china_microblogs_block_chinese_word_for_egypt.html China's microblogs have blocked searches for the word "Egypt," a sign that the Chinese government is trying to limit public knowledge of the political unrest occurring in the Middle East. The blocking appeared to begin over the weekend on the Chinese Twitter-like services operated by Sina, Tencent and Sohu. Queries using the Chinese word for "Egypt" brought no results. "In accordance with the relevant laws, regulations and policies, the search result did not display," said the response on the Sina microblogging site. The English word for "Egypt," however, is still searchable across the sites. Yahoo Groups: Gen-YMs • GenX-Ms • M-Atheists • GaySIG • Freed-M • M-Trivia 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jan 30 16:33:13 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:33:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109176@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In the event that the Internet Access were to be declared a Human Right, this will be interesting because it could be viewed as a civil right, a political right, a social right, a cultural right or maybe even an economic right, making it truly universal or is it not. Either way, it makes Internet Right an excellent candidate for the debate between Universalism and Cultural Relativism. For LDCs who barely have access to water, reliable energy grids, and poor hospitalisation, lack of educational facilities, their governments would struggle with dispensing financial resources to laying out of infrastructure (ICT) and would be torn between directing it elsewhere. This of course excludes all the political forces and internal lobbying and discretion of the Government that would cause the flow of those resources to be channeled to their prioritisation list rather than a list that someone from outside those LDCs dictates to LDCs. Why I think the Internet as a Human Right will not succeed is that there are too many countries who have issues with Access and unless the World can guarantee the flow of financial resources that would fund the necessary infrastructure that would give Internet Access as a Human Right, then this would not be viable. Even if the world through (UN or WB or IMF etc) were to build the infrastructure that would enable human right access, these LDCs would be indebted in one way or another. This is why I would agree with Parminder's argument for an independent international organisation that should regulate the Internet and not one which would be subject to any one government's control. Sala On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Lee, > > I tend to agree with you as below but I would leave it to others more > knowledgeable on that document than myself to comment specifically. But I > also think that it is important to situate the discussions at the IGF in > real world contexts especially since the real world is inceasingly > impinging > on those discussions in such an active and volatile way. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:35 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > > Michael, > > I don't recall off-hand every last paragraph of the draft Charter of > Internet Rights under discussion on the Internet Rights and Principles > list...but wouldn't something along the lines you suggest be most easily > promoted through that, perhaps by adding an additional paragraph or clause > if needed? > > Which was already a topic for discussion at the next IGF right... > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > ] > On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:09 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > I think that we need to see these as long term processes with multiple > actors, influences, potential outcomes and so on. > > But there would clearly seem to be a need for a statement of > principles/code > of conduct with respect to access to/the opportunity to use the means of > communication. That there will be opposition to such is hardly relevent to > the articulation and civil society agitation in support of such a set of > principles/code. > > That governments or whoever would insist that there were various kinds of > clauses to ensure their ultimate authority in these areas is similarly > irrelevant since as with Human Rights agreements/codes their presence acts > as some sort of standard against which breaches can be measured and > responded to and governments (and the private sector) can be held > accountable. > > It is hard to see what in the area of Global Internet Governance could be > of > more importance than the setting in place of a process for the formulation > and ratification of such an agreement. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:27 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > > > In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 > > on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > > > >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind that > > >incorporates this principle. > > > > Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? > > It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process in the IGF > context. > > Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal international > treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, it would be policed only > to > the extent that of course nothing will stop the legislature of any country > from adding the principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. > > But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if following > the > "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, entirely voluntary, I > would expect that the document could still have a very significant > practical > impact. > > Just like many of IETF's RFCs have very significant practical impact even > without them having been formally adopted by any national legislature, or > even by any standardization organization with the kind of formal > international recognition that e.g. ISO has. And there's definitely to > "internet police" to enforce the RFCs. > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Sun Jan 30 16:09:01 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:09:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20110130202653.6ED4315C195@quill.bollow.ch> References: <541ABB9C4E384A24A9425D0C7EF695C2@userPC> <+zLG+7iGuSRNFASP@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110130113619.A00C915C195@quill.bollow.ch> <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch> <+EB2T5utuWRNFARd@internetpolicyagency.com> <20110130202653.6ED4315C195@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20110130202653.6ED4315C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 21:26:53 on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes >> - and even then I can guarantee there will be a clause about >> exceptional circumstances. > >I don't know about your country, but here in Switzerland I wouldn't >expect such a clause to get added. I thought you were all required to have a gun in the cupboard for emergencies? But more seriously, I'm sure most states have rules that kick in during civil emergencies, whether they are people-driven or weather-driven. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jan 30 17:13:07 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:13:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] Twitter Blog : The Tweets Must Flow Message-ID: <488C1F59FE3C42CDAAA55232B8548354@userPC> here is a policy statement by Twitter, presumably in response to the blockade by Egypt gov't of international internet traffic and mobile phone use (which can tweet too). > Blog: Twitter Blog > Post: The Tweets Must Flow > Link: http://blog.twitter.com/2011/01/tweets-must-flow.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 katitza at eff.org Sun Jan 30 18:10:05 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:10:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut Message-ID: <4D45EFCD.50400@eff.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:08:06 -0800 From: Katitza Rodriguez Reply-To: katitza at eff.org Organization: EFF To: EFF International https://cpj.org//2011/01/egypt-blocks-al-jazeera-transmissions-orders-burea.php New York, January 30, 2011*--*Nilesat, the satellite transmission company owned by the Egyptian Radio and Television Union and other government agencies, has stopped transmitting the signal of Al-Jazeera's primary channel, the station and others reported today. The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the actions of Egyptian authorities to disrupt media coverage by Al-Jazeera and calls on them to reverse the decision immediately. Shortly before 11 a.m., Al-Jazeera announced on the air that Anas al-Fiqi, information minister in the cabinet that was dismissed on Friday, had ordered the offices of all Al-Jazeera bureaus in Egypt shut down and the accreditation of all network journalists revoked. The official Middle East News Agency (MENA) reported that the order was to take effect on Sunday, and transmissions originating from Egypt ceased within an hour of the announcement. The discharged information minister ordered "the relevant government agencies to take the immediate legal measures necessary to revoke the licenses for live satellite transmission equipment (S.N.G.) and fiber optic cables or any other means of communication provided to Al-Jazeera," MENA reported. "The shutting down of Al-Jazeera is a brazen violation of the fundamental right of Egyptians to receive information as their country is in turmoil," said Mohamed Abdel Dayem, CPJ Middle East and North Africa program coordinator. "The international community should prevail upon President Mubarak to lift this censorship immediately." Today is the sixth day of massive street demonstrations in which citizens had been demanding political, social, and economic reforms, though demonstrators are now calling for the complete removal of Mubarak's three-decade-long regime. On Thursday, authorities suspended Internet and mobile phone service, according to news reports and mobile operators, in an effort to disrupt communications between protesters as well as transmission of news. On Saturday, mobile phone services were restored to a large degree, according to local journalists and press freedom advocates who spoke to CPJ. Internet connectivity, a vital resource for local journalists and those reporting from Egypt to the rest of the world, continues to be almost non-existent in Egypt, with more than 90 percent of connections to the wider Internet shut down. CPJ research indicates that this is a deliberate, coordinated result of Egyptian government orders to local Internet service providers. CPJ urges the government to rescind any such directives and order the restoration of Egypt's connections with the outside world. Both Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera English continued to report today on Egypt from other locations. CPJ research shows that viewers outside Egypt can now view the network's Arabic channel only on the Hotbird satellite or other satellites not controlled by Egyptian authorities. But at least two individuals in Egypt who spoke to the channel's anchor on air reported that they could not view the channel even on non-state satellites, an indication that authorities may be jamming those transmissions. As of 1 p.m. local time, Al-Jazeera English's broadcast remained on Nilesat. Al-Jazeera Mubasher, the network's live news channel, which had been transmitting live footage from Egypt's streets was taken off Nilesat on Thursday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 30 19:27:19 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:27:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut In-Reply-To: <4D45EFCD.50400@eff.org> References: <4D45EFCD.50400@eff.org> Message-ID: Thank you for this Katitza. Were the Submarine cables dismantled in Egypt, does anyone know? At least CNN is still transmitting, probably through satellite transmissions. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [E-intl] Egypt blocks > Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 > 15:08:06 -0800 From: Katitza Rodriguez Reply-To: > katitza at eff.org Organization: EFF To: EFF International > > > https://cpj.org//2011/01/egypt-blocks-al-jazeera-transmissions-orders-burea.php > > New York, January 30, 2011*--*Nilesat, the satellite transmission company > owned by the Egyptian Radio and Television Union and other government > agencies, has stopped transmitting the signal of Al-Jazeera's primary > channel, the station and others reported today. The Committee to Protect > Journalists condemns the actions of Egyptian authorities to disrupt media > coverage by Al-Jazeera and calls on them to reverse the decision > immediately. > > Shortly before 11 a.m., Al-Jazeera announced on the air that Anas al-Fiqi, > information minister in the cabinet that was dismissed on Friday, had > ordered the offices of all Al-Jazeera bureaus in Egypt shut down and the > accreditation of all network journalists revoked. The official Middle East > News Agency (MENA) reported that the order was to take effect on Sunday, and > transmissions originating from Egypt ceased within an hour of the > announcement. The discharged information minister ordered "the relevant > government agencies to take the immediate legal measures necessary to revoke > the licenses for live satellite transmission equipment (S.N.G.) and fiber > optic cables or any other means of communication provided to Al-Jazeera," > MENA reported. > > "The shutting down of Al-Jazeera is a brazen violation of the fundamental > right of Egyptians to receive information as their country is in turmoil," > said Mohamed Abdel Dayem, CPJ Middle East and North Africa program > coordinator. "The international community should prevail upon President > Mubarak to lift this censorship immediately." > > Today is the sixth day of massive street demonstrations in which citizens > had been demanding political, social, and economic reforms, though > demonstrators are now calling for the complete removal of Mubarak's > three-decade-long regime. On Thursday, authorities suspended Internet and > mobile phone service, according to news reports and mobile operators, in an > effort to disrupt communications between protesters as well as transmission > of news. On Saturday, mobile phone services were restored to a large degree, > according to local journalists and press freedom advocates who spoke to CPJ. > > Internet connectivity, a vital resource for local journalists and those > reporting from Egypt to the rest of the world, continues to be almost > non-existent in Egypt, with more than 90 percent of connections to the wider > Internet shut down. CPJ research indicates that this is a deliberate, > coordinated result of Egyptian government orders to local Internet service > providers. CPJ urges the government to rescind any such directives and order > the restoration of Egypt's connections with the outside world. > > Both Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera English continued to report today on Egypt > from other locations. CPJ research shows that viewers outside Egypt can now > view the network's Arabic channel only on the Hotbird satellite or other > satellites not controlled by Egyptian authorities. But at least two > individuals in Egypt who spoke to the channel's anchor on air reported that > they could not view the channel even on non-state satellites, an indication > that authorities may be jamming those transmissions. As of 1 p.m. local > time, Al-Jazeera English's broadcast remained on Nilesat. Al-Jazeera > Mubasher, the network's live news channel, which had been transmitting live > footage from Egypt's streets was taken off Nilesat on Thursday. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 30 20:29:03 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:29:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut In-Reply-To: References: <4D45EFCD.50400@eff.org>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Sala, I doubt submarine cables were 'dismantled.' No need. All the cables and satellite equipment is (I presume, from upstate NY) right where it always was. According to the reports I have seen, it was just that government authorities required all the companies operating it to - turn it off/cease transmission, as happened Friday for ISPs etc and now also for Al-Jazeera. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:27 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut Thank you for this Katitza. Were the Submarine cables dismantled in Egypt, does anyone know? At least CNN is still transmitting, probably through satellite transmissions. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:08:06 -0800 From: Katitza Rodriguez Reply-To: katitza at eff.org Organization: EFF To: EFF International https://cpj.org//2011/01/egypt-blocks-al-jazeera-transmissions-orders-burea.php New York, January 30, 2011--Nilesat, the satellite transmission company owned by the Egyptian Radio and Television Union and other government agencies, has stopped transmitting the signal of Al-Jazeera's primary channel, the station and others reported today. The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the actions of Egyptian authorities to disrupt media coverage by Al-Jazeera and calls on them to reverse the decision immediately. Shortly before 11 a.m., Al-Jazeera announced on the air that Anas al-Fiqi, information minister in the cabinet that was dismissed on Friday, had ordered the offices of all Al-Jazeera bureaus in Egypt shut down and the accreditation of all network journalists revoked. The official Middle East News Agency (MENA) reported that the order was to take effect on Sunday, and transmissions originating from Egypt ceased within an hour of the announcement. The discharged information minister ordered "the relevant government agencies to take the immediate legal measures necessary to revoke the licenses for live satellite transmission equipment (S.N.G.) and fiber optic cables or any other means of communication provided to Al-Jazeera," MENA reported. "The shutting down of Al-Jazeera is a brazen violation of the fundamental right of Egyptians to receive information as their country is in turmoil," said Mohamed Abdel Dayem, CPJ Middle East and North Africa program coordinator. "The international community should prevail upon President Mubarak to lift this censorship immediately." Today is the sixth day of massive street demonstrations in which citizens had been demanding political, social, and economic reforms, though demonstrators are now calling for the complete removal of Mubarak's three-decade-long regime. On Thursday, authorities suspended Internet and mobile phone service, according to news reports and mobile operators, in an effort to disrupt communications between protesters as well as transmission of news. On Saturday, mobile phone services were restored to a large degree, according to local journalists and press freedom advocates who spoke to CPJ. Internet connectivity, a vital resource for local journalists and those reporting from Egypt to the rest of the world, continues to be almost non-existent in Egypt, with more than 90 percent of connections to the wider Internet shut down. CPJ research indicates that this is a deliberate, coordinated result of Egyptian government orders to local Internet service providers. CPJ urges the government to rescind any such directives and order the restoration of Egypt's connections with the outside world. Both Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera English continued to report today on Egypt from other locations. CPJ research shows that viewers outside Egypt can now view the network's Arabic channel only on the Hotbird satellite or other satellites not controlled by Egyptian authorities. But at least two individuals in Egypt who spoke to the channel's anchor on air reported that they could not view the channel even on non-state satellites, an indication that authorities may be jamming those transmissions. As of 1 p.m. local time, Al-Jazeera English's broadcast remained on Nilesat. Al-Jazeera Mubasher, the network's live news channel, which had been transmitting live footage from Egypt's streets was taken off Nilesat on Thursday. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Sun Jan 30 20:35:15 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:35:15 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4D45EFCD.50400@eff.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Lee. It will be interesting though to see the damages and loss to Egyptian businesses from the loss of service and the consequence of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) obligations and whether the loss and disruption of service will constitute a force majeur. I wonder what the ramifications are globally and whether the events of Egypt will cause alternative remote hosting outside their country's ISPs and whether in the future individuals can purchase bandwidth capacity outside their country's ISP or is this already happening or restricted to those who can afford it? Sala (Non- Techie) On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Sala, > > I doubt submarine cables were 'dismantled.' No need. > > All the cables and satellite equipment is (I presume, from upstate NY) > right where it always was. > > According to the reports I have seen, it was just that government > authorities required all the companies operating it to - turn it off/cease > transmission, as happened Friday for ISPs etc and now also for Al-Jazeera. > > Lee > > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] > On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [ > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:27 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera > transmissions, orders bureaus shut > > Thank you for this Katitza. Were the Submarine cables dismantled in Egypt, > does anyone know? > > At least CNN is still transmitting, probably through satellite > transmissions. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders > bureaus shut > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:08:06 -0800 > From: Katitza Rodriguez > Reply-To: katitza at eff.org > Organization: EFF > To: EFF International > > > > https://cpj.org//2011/01/egypt-blocks-al-jazeera-transmissions-orders-burea.php > New York, January 30, 2011--Nilesat, the satellite transmission company > owned by the Egyptian Radio and Television Union and other government > agencies, has stopped transmitting the signal of Al-Jazeera's primary > channel, the station and others reported today. The Committee to Protect > Journalists condemns the actions of Egyptian authorities to disrupt media > coverage by Al-Jazeera and calls on them to reverse the decision > immediately. > Shortly before 11 a.m., Al-Jazeera announced on the air that Anas al-Fiqi, > information minister in the cabinet that was dismissed on Friday, had > ordered the offices of all Al-Jazeera bureaus in Egypt shut down and the > accreditation of all network journalists revoked. The official Middle East > News Agency (MENA) reported that the order was to take effect on Sunday, and > transmissions originating from Egypt ceased within an hour of the > announcement. The discharged information minister ordered "the relevant > government agencies to take the immediate legal measures necessary to revoke > the licenses for live satellite transmission equipment (S.N.G.) and fiber > optic cables or any other means of communication provided to Al-Jazeera," > MENA reported. > "The shutting down of Al-Jazeera is a brazen violation of the fundamental > right of Egyptians to receive information as their country is in turmoil," > said Mohamed Abdel Dayem, CPJ Middle East and North Africa program > coordinator. "The international community should prevail upon President > Mubarak to lift this censorship immediately." > Today is the sixth day of massive street demonstrations in which citizens > had been demanding political, social, and economic reforms, though > demonstrators are now calling for the complete removal of Mubarak's > three-decade-long regime. On Thursday, authorities suspended Internet and > mobile phone service, according to news reports and mobile operators, in an > effort to disrupt communications between protesters as well as transmission > of news. On Saturday, mobile phone services were restored to a large degree, > according to local journalists and press freedom advocates who spoke to CPJ. > Internet connectivity, a vital resource for local journalists and those > reporting from Egypt to the rest of the world, continues to be almost > non-existent in Egypt, with more than 90 percent of connections to the wider > Internet shut down. CPJ research indicates that this is a deliberate, > coordinated result of Egyptian government orders to local Internet service > providers. CPJ urges the government to rescind any such directives and order > the restoration of Egypt's connections with the outside world. > Both Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera English continued to report today on Egypt > from other locations. CPJ research shows that viewers outside Egypt can now > view the network's Arabic channel only on the Hotbird satellite or other > satellites not controlled by Egyptian authorities. But at least two > individuals in Egypt who spoke to the channel's anchor on air reported that > they could not view the channel even on non-state satellites, an indication > that authorities may be jamming those transmissions. As of 1 p.m. local > time, Al-Jazeera English's broadcast remained on Nilesat. Al-Jazeera > Mubasher, the network's live news channel, which had been transmitting live > footage from Egypt's streets was taken off Nilesat on Thursday. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 30 21:07:40 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:07:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut In-Reply-To: References: <4D45EFCD.50400@eff.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Sala, This CNBC story from Friday - and the comments on it - contrasts the infrastructure in Egypt with US....presuming no legislation for a presidential Internet 'kill-switch' is passed. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41311587 My instant political analysis suggests it will be much harder to get a bill like that through Congress now, than absent the Egyptian uprising. So thanks Egypt! An alternate route out of Egypt, albeit expensive, is satellite Internet services. But in current crisis probably hard to get hands on a satphone...even if service provider is operating from another country, with signal receivable in Egypt. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/218064/with_wired_internet_locked_egypt_looks_to_the_sky.html Lee ________________________________________ From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:35 PM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut Thanks Lee. It will be interesting though to see the damages and loss to Egyptian businesses from the loss of service and the consequence of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) obligations and whether the loss and disruption of service will constitute a force majeur. I wonder what the ramifications are globally and whether the events of Egypt will cause alternative remote hosting outside their country's ISPs and whether in the future individuals can purchase bandwidth capacity outside their country's ISP or is this already happening or restricted to those who can afford it? Sala (Non- Techie) On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: Sala, I doubt submarine cables were 'dismantled.' No need. All the cables and satellite equipment is (I presume, from upstate NY) right where it always was. According to the reports I have seen, it was just that government authorities required all the companies operating it to - turn it off/cease transmission, as happened Friday for ISPs etc and now also for Al-Jazeera. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:27 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut Thank you for this Katitza. Were the Submarine cables dismantled in Egypt, does anyone know? At least CNN is still transmitting, probably through satellite transmissions. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Katitza Rodriguez >> wrote: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:08:06 -0800 From: Katitza Rodriguez >> Reply-To: katitza at eff.org> Organization: EFF To: EFF International >> https://cpj.org//2011/01/egypt-blocks-al-jazeera-transmissions-orders-burea.php New York, January 30, 2011--Nilesat, the satellite transmission company owned by the Egyptian Radio and Television Union and other government agencies, has stopped transmitting the signal of Al-Jazeera's primary channel, the station and others reported today. The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the actions of Egyptian authorities to disrupt media coverage by Al-Jazeera and calls on them to reverse the decision immediately. Shortly before 11 a.m., Al-Jazeera announced on the air that Anas al-Fiqi, information minister in the cabinet that was dismissed on Friday, had ordered the offices of all Al-Jazeera bureaus in Egypt shut down and the accreditation of all network journalists revoked. The official Middle East News Agency (MENA) reported that the order was to take effect on Sunday, and transmissions originating from Egypt ceased within an hour of the announcement. The discharged information minister ordered "the relevant government agencies to take the immediate legal measures necessary to revoke the licenses for live satellite transmission equipment (S.N.G.) and fiber optic cables or any other means of communication provided to Al-Jazeera," MENA reported. "The shutting down of Al-Jazeera is a brazen violation of the fundamental right of Egyptians to receive information as their country is in turmoil," said Mohamed Abdel Dayem, CPJ Middle East and North Africa program coordinator. "The international community should prevail upon President Mubarak to lift this censorship immediately." Today is the sixth day of massive street demonstrations in which citizens had been demanding political, social, and economic reforms, though demonstrators are now calling for the complete removal of Mubarak's three-decade-long regime. On Thursday, authorities suspended Internet and mobile phone service, according to news reports and mobile operators, in an effort to disrupt communications between protesters as well as transmission of news. On Saturday, mobile phone services were restored to a large degree, according to local journalists and press freedom advocates who spoke to CPJ. Internet connectivity, a vital resource for local journalists and those reporting from Egypt to the rest of the world, continues to be almost non-existent in Egypt, with more than 90 percent of connections to the wider Internet shut down. CPJ research indicates that this is a deliberate, coordinated result of Egyptian government orders to local Internet service providers. CPJ urges the government to rescind any such directives and order the restoration of Egypt's connections with the outside world. Both Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera English continued to report today on Egypt from other locations. CPJ research shows that viewers outside Egypt can now view the network's Arabic channel only on the Hotbird satellite or other satellites not controlled by Egyptian authorities. But at least two individuals in Egypt who spoke to the channel's anchor on air reported that they could not view the channel even on non-state satellites, an indication that authorities may be jamming those transmissions. As of 1 p.m. local time, Al-Jazeera English's broadcast remained on Nilesat. Al-Jazeera Mubasher, the network's live news channel, which had been transmitting live footage from Egypt's streets was taken off Nilesat on Thursday. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org> To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Sun Jan 30 21:44:05 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:44:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders bureaus shut In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4D45EFCD.50400@eff.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Lee, these were very interesting articles. It is interesting that there were only two entities, Stock Exchange and the Banks that retained Internet Access (I suppose civil servants have to get their pay somehow :) ) It is also interesting that there were other service providers that allowed for access, even if it was restricted. I found Vodafone's comments interesting as per that article where they quoted from an email from Vodafone ie. they are obliged under Egyptian law to stop providing services to select regions. I am trying to access Egyptian law regulating the "event". Egyptian Judiciary and Legal System see: http://www.infoprod.co.il/country/egypt2a.htm. What I found to be interesting was how the Judiciary in Egypt does not have the powers to review/amend or nullify an Administrative Decree so I suspect, have yet to get a copy of the legal instrument that was used to force Telcos and ISPs from providing communication services. I suppose this was why, assuming that Vodafone etc in Egypt had to comply with the Administrative Decree, suspending the service. What will be interesting is when the Service Providers and consumers initate class actions against the State before the Council of State. Then again, if Egypt is in a State of Emergency then all these functions are probably suspended so the ISPs and Telcos really had no choice I suppose between having to disconnect and losing their licence? Sala On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Sala, > > This CNBC story from Friday - and the comments on it - contrasts the > infrastructure in Egypt with US....presuming no legislation for a > presidential Internet 'kill-switch' is passed. > http://www.cnbc.com/id/41311587 > > My instant political analysis suggests it will be much harder to get a bill > like that through Congress now, than absent the Egyptian uprising. So thanks > Egypt! > > An alternate route out of Egypt, albeit expensive, is satellite Internet > services. But in current crisis probably hard to get hands on a > satphone...even if service provider is operating from another country, with > signal receivable in Egypt. > > > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/218064/with_wired_internet_locked_egypt_looks_to_the_sky.html > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:35 PM > To: Lee W McKnight > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera > transmissions, orders bureaus shut > > Thanks Lee. > > It will be interesting though to see the damages and loss to Egyptian > businesses from the loss of service and the consequence of Service Level > Agreements (SLAs) obligations and whether the loss and disruption of service > will constitute a force majeur. > > I wonder what the ramifications are globally and whether the events of > Egypt will cause alternative remote hosting outside their country's ISPs and > whether in the future individuals can purchase bandwidth capacity outside > their country's ISP or is this already happening or restricted to those who > can afford it? > > Sala (Non- Techie) > > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Lee W McKnight lmcknigh at syr.edu>> wrote: > Sala, > > I doubt submarine cables were 'dismantled.' No need. > > All the cables and satellite equipment is (I presume, from upstate NY) > right where it always was. > > According to the reports I have seen, it was just that government > authorities required all the companies operating it to - turn it off/cease > transmission, as happened Friday for ISPs etc and now also for Al-Jazeera. > > Lee > > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org governance-request at lists.cpsr.org> [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > ] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>] > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:27 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza > Rodriguez > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera > transmissions, orders bureaus shut > > Thank you for this Katitza. Were the Submarine cables dismantled in Egypt, > does anyone know? > > At least CNN is still transmitting, probably through satellite > transmissions. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Katitza Rodriguez >> > wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [E-intl] Egypt blocks Al-Jazeera transmissions, orders > bureaus shut > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:08:06 -0800 > From: Katitza Rodriguez >>> > Reply-To: katitza at eff.org katitza at eff.org> > Organization: EFF > To: EFF International >>> > > > > https://cpj.org//2011/01/egypt-blocks-al-jazeera-transmissions-orders-burea.php > New York, January 30, 2011--Nilesat, the satellite transmission company > owned by the Egyptian Radio and Television Union and other government > agencies, has stopped transmitting the signal of Al-Jazeera's primary > channel, the station and others reported today. The Committee to Protect > Journalists condemns the actions of Egyptian authorities to disrupt media > coverage by Al-Jazeera and calls on them to reverse the decision > immediately. > Shortly before 11 a.m., Al-Jazeera announced on the air that Anas al-Fiqi, > information minister in the cabinet that was dismissed on Friday, had > ordered the offices of all Al-Jazeera bureaus in Egypt shut down and the > accreditation of all network journalists revoked. The official Middle East > News Agency (MENA) reported that the order was to take effect on Sunday, and > transmissions originating from Egypt ceased within an hour of the > announcement. The discharged information minister ordered "the relevant > government agencies to take the immediate legal measures necessary to revoke > the licenses for live satellite transmission equipment (S.N.G.) and fiber > optic cables or any other means of communication provided to Al-Jazeera," > MENA reported. > "The shutting down of Al-Jazeera is a brazen violation of the fundamental > right of Egyptians to receive information as their country is in turmoil," > said Mohamed Abdel Dayem, CPJ Middle East and North Africa program > coordinator. "The international community should prevail upon President > Mubarak to lift this censorship immediately." > Today is the sixth day of massive street demonstrations in which citizens > had been demanding political, social, and economic reforms, though > demonstrators are now calling for the complete removal of Mubarak's > three-decade-long regime. On Thursday, authorities suspended Internet and > mobile phone service, according to news reports and mobile operators, in an > effort to disrupt communications between protesters as well as transmission > of news. On Saturday, mobile phone services were restored to a large degree, > according to local journalists and press freedom advocates who spoke to CPJ. > Internet connectivity, a vital resource for local journalists and those > reporting from Egypt to the rest of the world, continues to be almost > non-existent in Egypt, with more than 90 percent of connections to the wider > Internet shut down. CPJ research indicates that this is a deliberate, > coordinated result of Egyptian government orders to local Internet service > providers. CPJ urges the government to rescind any such directives and order > the restoration of Egypt's connections with the outside world. > Both Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera English continued to report today on Egypt > from other locations. CPJ research shows that viewers outside Egypt can now > view the network's Arabic channel only on the Hotbird satellite or other > satellites not controlled by Egyptian authorities. But at least two > individuals in Egypt who spoke to the channel's anchor on air reported that > they could not view the channel even on non-state satellites, an indication > that authorities may be jamming those transmissions. As of 1 p.m. local > time, Al-Jazeera English's broadcast remained on Nilesat. Al-Jazeera > Mubasher, the network's live news channel, which had been transmitting live > footage from Egypt's streets was taken off Nilesat on Thursday. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org governance at lists.cpsr.org> > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 30 22:27:46 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:27:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: Egypt, let your people go online! In-Reply-To: <952FFB6DC19B43748D05F0AA5FCC3C60@userPC> References: <952FFB6DC19B43748D05F0AA5FCC3C60@userPC> Message-ID: Brett, Do you know for a fact that these companies "helped"? I suspect "We really won't know the full extent" of the complicity for a long time (if ever. If you have documented evidence that FT and Voda willingly shut themselves down, then I'd be happy to sign. If no evidence, then it smacks of knee-jerk anti-corporatism. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Egypt, let your people go online! > From:    "Brett Solomon" > Date:    Sat, January 29, 2011 6:53 pm > To: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear friends and colleagues, > > Please find the link to the updated campaign we sent out last night calling > on *Mr Mubarak to tear down the firewall* - It would be great if you could > tweet this and sign the link below: > > *Egypt, let your people go online! Sign new > @accessnowpetition calling on ISPs and telecos > to reconnect #Egypt > #Jan25: > http://bit.ly/fqDmCZ* > > Full text of the campaign below. > > ---- > > With the help of European companies like Vodafone and Orange/France Telecom > the Egyptian government shut down the internet and cut the phone lines. > Despite news that the mobile phones are back up in some places, Egyptians > demonstrating in the streets for a peaceful end to decades of tyranny are > facing an attempted blackout. > > By succumbing to the regime's pressure, Vodafone and Orange/France Telecom > betrayed their own operating principles and taken away one of the most > important tools the people can use to challenge the iron fist of the > Egyptian regime.  Egyptian and internationally funded ISPs bear the same > responsibility. Join us in calling them out on their complicity in human > rights abuse and demanding that they immediately restore service to Egypt. > >   > https://www.accessnow.org/GetEgyptBackOnline > > With most of the country without any access to the internet, mobile phones, > or SMS, it's very difficult to know what kind of human rights abuses the > Egyptian government may be committing.  The Egyptian police are shooting at > unarmed protestors and journalists, setting cars on fire, and spraying > protestors with water cannons and tear gas. We really won't know the full > extent of the violence until the internet and mobile networks are restored. > Please sign this petition, which we will deliver to Vodafone, Orange/France > Telecom and the ISPs, urging them to reopen or maintain the channels of > communication: > >   > https://www.accessnow.org/GetEgyptBackOnline > > -- > Brett Solomon > Executive Director > Access > www.accessnow.org > > n&id=42> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Sun Jan 30 22:43:38 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:43:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] FW: Egypt, let your people go online! In-Reply-To: References: <952FFB6DC19B43748D05F0AA5FCC3C60@userPC> Message-ID: No Telco in their right mind would willingly shut themselves down in my view, it would be like cutting off an arm or a leg. Any operator would benefit from movement of traffic or consumption of bandwidth or call traffic volumes. They would have had to be forced. If anyone has a copy of the legal instrument (I suspect it was an Administrative Decree), I would be happy to read the same. I am crossing my fingers that it is in English. Sala On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:27 PM, McTim wrote: > Brett, > > Do you know for a fact that these companies "helped"? I suspect "We > really won't know the full extent" of the complicity for a long time > (if ever. > > If you have documented evidence that FT and Voda willingly shut > themselves down, then I'd be happy to sign. If no evidence, then it > smacks of knee-jerk anti-corporatism. > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Michael Gurstein > wrote: > > > > ---------------------------- Original Message > ---------------------------- > > Subject: Egypt, let your people go online! > > From: "Brett Solomon" > > Date: Sat, January 29, 2011 6:53 pm > > To: > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Dear friends and colleagues, > > > > Please find the link to the updated campaign we sent out last night > calling > > on *Mr Mubarak to tear down the firewall* - It would be great if you > could > > tweet this and sign the link below: > > > > *Egypt, let your people go online! Sign new > > @accessnowpetition calling on ISPs and > telecos > > to reconnect #Egypt > > #Jan25: > > http://bit.ly/fqDmCZ* > > > > Full text of the campaign below. > > > > ---- > > > > With the help of European companies like Vodafone and Orange/France > Telecom > > the Egyptian government shut down the internet and cut the phone lines. > > Despite news that the mobile phones are back up in some places, Egyptians > > demonstrating in the streets for a peaceful end to decades of tyranny are > > facing an attempted blackout. > > > > By succumbing to the regime's pressure, Vodafone and Orange/France > Telecom > > betrayed their own operating principles and taken away one of the most > > important tools the people can use to challenge the iron fist of the > > Egyptian regime. Egyptian and internationally funded ISPs bear the same > > responsibility. Join us in calling them out on their complicity in human > > rights abuse and demanding that they immediately restore service to > Egypt. > > > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/GetEgyptBackOnline > > > > With most of the country without any access to the internet, mobile > phones, > > or SMS, it's very difficult to know what kind of human rights abuses the > > Egyptian government may be committing. The Egyptian police are shooting > at > > unarmed protestors and journalists, setting cars on fire, and spraying > > protestors with water cannons and tear gas. We really won't know the full > > extent of the violence until the internet and mobile networks are > restored. > > Please sign this petition, which we will deliver to Vodafone, > Orange/France > > Telecom and the ISPs, urging them to reopen or maintain the channels of > > communication: > > > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/GetEgyptBackOnline > > > > -- > > Brett Solomon > > Executive Director > > Access > > www.accessnow.org > > > > < > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?language=e > > n&id=42> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To 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 katitza at eff.org Sun Jan 30 22:51:41 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:51:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Inside_the_State_Department=92s_Ara?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?b_Twitter_diplomacy?= Message-ID: <4D4631CD.2070609@eff.org> http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/28/inside_the_state_department_s_arab_twitter_diplomacy The State Department has been working furiously and mostly behind the scenes to cajole and pressure Arab governments to halt their clampdowns on communications and social media. In Tunisia there seem to have been real results. In Egypt, it's too soon to tell. Ever since the State Department intervened during protests by the Iranian Green movement in June 2009, convincing Twitter to postpone maintenance so opposition protestors could communicate, the U.S. government has been ramping up its worldwide effort to set up a network of organizations that could circumvent crackdowns on Internet and cell phone technologies by foreign governments. That effort faced its first two major tests over the last few weeks and the State Department has been working with private companies, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions to activate this network and put it to use in real time. "Our mission is to provide a lifeline of protection when people get in trouble through a range of support for the activists and the people on the ground," Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) Michael Posner said in an interview on Friday with The Cable. "I think there will be an increase in contacts on several levels in the coming days and weeks." Even before the unrest in Tunisia and Egypt, the State Department was working to drastically increase its activities with the internet freedom organizations, many of them using State Department funding provided through a grant program administered by DRL. This month, State announced it would spend another $30 million on this project. For Posner, the drive to create an "open platform" for Internet communications is part of the overall drive to protect the universal rights the administration has been trumpeting in recent days and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laid out in her speech on Internet Freedom. "What we're really talking about here is the ability of people to speak freely, to demonstrate peacefully, to associate and assemble in the public square. These are the human rights that are being restricted," Posner said. In the case of Tunisia, the State Department mixed a strategy of working with companies and third party groups with a series of private and public communications between the Obama administration and the government of now-ousted president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. The effort began shortly after a Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, lit himself on fire in Sidi Bouzid on Dec. 17. News of the event shot around the country through Twitter and Facebook, sparking a wider protest movement. The Tunisian government responded by hacking massive amounts of Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail accounts and targeted other sites where protestors were convening or communicating. Facebook contacted the State Department soon thereafter, another State Department official told The Cable, asking for assistance and to help coordinate the response. Facebook then created an encrypted option for accessing the site from Tunisia while the State Department convoked the Tunisian ambassador in Washington to complain about the government's tactics. "These tactics were used against American companies, so we have equities on multiple fronts," the official said. Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman delivered a stern message to the ambassador in DC while the U.S. ambassador in Tunis Gordon Gray delivered the same message to the top levels of Ben Ali's government. When these private efforts to convince Tunis to open Internet restrictions failed, senior U.S. officials went public with their criticisms. "We've been in touch with State and a lot of people on the ground and helping them navigate any of the blocks the government has put in place," said one Washington human rights advocate who was deeply involved in the effort. State Department officials told The Cable that their efforts paid off, given that Ben Ali -- before stepping down -- said that he "heard the Tunisian people" and removed the blocks on the Internet and social media sites, although he had never cut off the entire country from communication. The State Department official said that while technology was an accelerant for the protests and a way for the protesters to get unvarnished information, it did not spur the movement. "This was not a Twitter revolution. It was not a revolution either made possible or successful through the use of applications like Twitter," the State Department official said. "It mattered in Tunisia but ultimately that was a revolution of, for, and by the Tunisians." Then came the protests this week in Egypt and the Mubarak government's decision on Thursday to cut off all Internet and cell phone service to the entire country. This sweeping, unprecedented action stymied both the State Department and the private and non-governmental organizations they were working with in Egypt. "When a government literally shuts down the networks, the solutions are few. You can't circumvent a complete network shutdown," the State Department official said. "None of this was an issue in Egypt until 24 hours ago," said another Washington expert who works on Internet freedom and human rights issues in the Arab world. Nevertheless, the pro-Internet freedom network kicked into high gear, looking for loopholes in the blackout and connecting with people on the ground via the few pieces of communications technology that were still working -- land line telephones and ham radios. The State Department started sending increasingly strong private messages to Cairo, the official said, culminating with Clinton's public statement on Friday, when she said, "We urge the Egyptian authorities to allow peaceful protests and to reverse the unprecedented steps it has taken to cut off communications." State Department officials also ramped up their coordination with U.S. companies, advocacy groups, and universities to share information on workarounds and connect these institutions to people on the ground. The official declined to comment on whether State was pressing Internet and cell phone carriers in Egypt to defy the government and restore access to services. Vodaphone, for example, said it was "obligated" to comply with the Egyptian government's demand to shut down. But the work with private entities to restore lines of communication in Egypt continues. For critics of the administration's stance on the Egypt protests, the State Department's furious efforts behind the scenes on the issue of Internet freedom are insufficient to compensate for what they see as an overall lackluster, and belated, U.S. government response to the crisis. "The real problem is that when your macro policy and your micro policy don't match up, it takes all the credibility away," said Danielle Pletka, vice president at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's one thing to stand up and say don't shut off access to cell phones, but when top administration officials refuse to side with the protestors overall, it sends the message that there will be no consequences" for the Egyptian government if it chooses to ignore the administration's calls for information openness. The Obama administration knows that their efforts to keep communications systems up and running are but a small part of what's needed diplomatically in Egypt. But they see it as one more tool they can use to pressure the government toward better behavior and find ways to protect American citizens and businesses caught in the crossfire. "None of us are cyber-utopians, we have always been clear eyed about this," the State Department official said. "The question is not whether tech is good or bad, it's disruptive. And in a disruptive environment, the question is, how can you maximize your interests." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 30 23:18:02 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:18:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: Egypt, let your people go online! In-Reply-To: References: <952FFB6DC19B43748D05F0AA5FCC3C60@userPC> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > No Telco in their right mind would willingly shut themselves down in my > view, it would be like cutting off an arm or a leg. Any operator would > benefit from movement of traffic or consumption of bandwidth or call traffic > volumes. Exactly my point. The rhetoric in this petition is reflexively anti-biz. Why not blame the bad guys in this case, instead of blaming the victims. -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 02:52:06 2011 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:52:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] China Blocks Chinese Word for 'Egypt' In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <8B757653-F238-488F-BB16-EE914EC147E3@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE033610917A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Interesting that searches are prevented in chinese and allowed in english. Another illustration of the emergence of "script plaques" (scripts are types of writing, for instance roman, cyrillic, chines, arabic ....), like the geographic tectonic plaques. Script communities are not exclusively related to physical territories, because of diasporas. In this case, someone in the US using chinese-based (the language) services with servers in China would not have access to searches about Egypt, but someone in China using a search in english would. The geography of cyberspace is structured in a way that is different from the physical territorial space, incorporating it, but not only. B. On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Speaking of firewalls...and Egypt: > ________________________________________ > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:25 PM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] China Blocks Chinese Word for 'Egypt' > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Sam™ > > Date: January 30, 2011 3:12:14 PM EST > To: Dave Farber IP > > Subject: China Blocks Chinese Word for 'Egypt' > > Hi Dave, > > This might be of interest to the list. It's interesting to see how the > fragmentation of the net continues. Imagine not being able to search for > current events in Mexico, Europe, or elsewhere. > > Sam Waltz > > > < > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/218185/china_microblogs_block_chinese_word_for_egypt.html > > > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/218185/china_microblogs_block_chinese_word_for_egypt.html > > China's microblogs have blocked searches for the word "Egypt," a sign that > the Chinese government is trying to limit public knowledge of the political > unrest occurring in the Middle East. The blocking appeared to begin over the > weekend on the Chinese Twitter-like services operated by Sina, Tencent and > Sohu. Queries using the Chinese word for "Egypt" brought no results. "In > accordance with the relevant laws, regulations and policies, the search > result did not display," said the response on the Sina microblogging site. > The English word for "Egypt," however, is still searchable across the sites. > > > > > Yahoo Groups: Gen-YMs • GenX-Ms • M-Atheists • GaySIG • Freed-M • M-Trivia > > > Archives [ > https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] < > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07> | > Modify< > https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc> > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now< > https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20110130152552:3F97599E-2CAF-11E0-9F6D-C702360F71A4> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] < > http://www.listbox.com> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 04:56:52 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:56:52 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The Twitter Revolution Must Die (by Ulises A. Mejias) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Frederick Noronha Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:38 PM The Twitter Revolution Must Die January 30th, 2011 · 12 Comments photo by Alia Malek photo by Alia Malek Have you ever heard of the Leica Revolution? No? That’s probably because folks who don’t know anything about “branding” insist on calling it the Mexican Revolution. An estimated two million people died in the long struggle (1910-1920) to overthrow a despotic government and bring about reform. But why shouldn’t we re-name the revolution not after a nation or its people, but after the “social media” that had such a great impact in making the struggle known all over the world: the photographic camera? Even better, let’s name the revolution not after the medium itself, but after the manufacturer of the cameras that were carried by people like Hugo Brehme to document the atrocities of war. Viva Leica, cabrones! My sarcasm is, of course, a thinly veiled attempt to point out how absurd it is to refer to events in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere as the Twitter Revolution, the Facebook Revolution, and so on. What we call things, the names we use to identify them, has incredible symbolic power, and I, for one, refuse to associate corporate brands with struggles for human dignity. I agree with Jillian York when she says: “… I am glad that Tunisians were able to utilize social media to bring attention to their plight.  But I will not dishonor the memory of Mohamed Bouazizi–or the 65 others that died on the streets for their cause–by dubbing this anything but a human revolution.” Granted, as Joss Hands points out, there appears to be more skepticism than support for the idea that tools like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are primarily responsible for igniting the uprisings in question. But that hasn’t stopped the internet intelligentsia from engaging in lengthy arguments about the role that technology is playing in these historic developments. One camp, comprised of people like Clay Shirky, seem to make allowances for what Cory Doctorow calls the “internet’s special power to connect and liberate.” On the other side, authors like Ethan Zuckerman, Malcolm Gladwell and Evgeny Morozov have proposed that while digital media can play a role in organizing social movements, it cannot be counted on to build lasting alliances, or even protect net activists once authorities start using the same tools to crack down on dissent. Both sides are, perhaps, engaging in a bit of technological determinism–one by embellishing the agency of technology, the other by diminishing it. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between, and philosophers of technology settled the dispute of whether technology shapes society (technological determinism) or society shapes technology (cultural materialism) a while ago: the fact is that technology and society mutually and continually determine each other. So why does the image of a revolution enabled by social media continue to grab headlines and spark the interest of Western audiences, and what are the dangers of employing such imagery? My fear is that the hype about a Twitter/Facebook/YouTube revolution performs two functions: first, it depoliticizes our understanding of the conflicts, and second, it whitewashes the role of capitalism in suppressing democracy. To elaborate, the discourse of a social media revolution is a form of self-focused empathy in which we imagine the other (in this case, a Muslim other) to be nothing more than a projection of our own desires, a depoliticized instant in our own becoming. What a strong affirmation of ourselves it is to believe that people engaged in a desperate struggle for human dignity are using the same Web 2.0 products we are using! That we are able to form this empathy largely on the basis of consumerism demonstrates the extent to which we have bought into the notion that democracy is a by-product of media products for self-expression, and that the corporations that create such media products would never side with governments against their own people. It is time to abandon this fantasy, and to realize that although the internet’s original architecture encouraged openness, it is becoming increasingly privatized and centralized. While it is true that an internet controlled by a handful of media conglomerates can still be used to promote democracy (as people are doing in Tunisia, Egypt, and all over the world), we need to reconsider the role that social media corporations like Facebook and Twitter will play in these struggles. The clearest way to understand this role is to simply look at the past and current role that corporations have played in “facilitating” democracy elsewhere. Consider the above image of the tear gas canister “fired against egyptians demanding democracy.” The can is labeled Made in U.S.A. But surely it would be a gross calumny to suggest that ICT are on the same level as tear gas, right? Well, perhaps not. Today, our exports encompass not only weapons of war and riot control used to keep in power corrupt leaders, but tools of internet surveillance like Narusinsight, produced by a subsidiary of Boeing and used by the Egyptian government to track down and “disappear” dissidents. Even without citing examples of specific Web companies that have aided governments in the surveillance and persecution of their citizens (Jillian York documents some of these examples), my point is simply that the emerging market structure of the internet is threatening its potential to be used by people as a tool for democracy. The more monopolies (a market structure characterized by a single seller) control access and infrastructure, and the more monopsonies (a market structure characterized by a single buyer) control aggregation and distribution of user-generated content, the easier it is going to be for authorities to pull the plug, as just happened in Egypt. I’m reminded of the first so-called Internet Revolution. Almost a hundred years after the original Mexican Revolution, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation launched an uprising in southern Mexico to try to address some of the injustices that the first revolution didn’t fix, and that remain unsolved to this day. But back in 1994, Subcomandante Marcos and the rest of the EZLN didn’t have Facebook profiles, or use Twitter to communicate or organize. Maybe their movement would have been more effective if they had. Or maybe it managed to stay alive because of the decentralized nature of the networks the EZLN and their supporters used. My point is this: as digital networks grow and become more centralized and privatized, they increase opportunities for participation, but they also increase inequality, and make it easier for authorities to control them. Thus, the real challenge is going to be figuring out how to continue the struggle after the network has been shut off. In fact, the struggle is going to be against those who own and control the network. If the fight can’t continue without Facebook and Twitter, then it is doomed. But I suspect the people of Iran, Tunisia and Egypt (unlike us) already know this, out of sheer necessity. [Ulises A. Mejias is assistant professor at the State University of New York, College at Oswego. His book,  The Limits of Nodes: Unmapping the Digital Network, is under review by publishers.] http://blog.ulisesmejias.com/2011/01/30/the-twitter-revolution-must-die/ Please see the original article at the link above, it contains useful links. Thanks to Ramnarayan.K for drawing attention to this via the GII-India mailing list. -FN Frederick Noronha :: +91-9822122436 :: +91-832-2409490 -- 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 Mon Jan 31 05:08:39 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:08:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Inside_the_State_Department=92s?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Arab_Twitter_diplomacy?= In-Reply-To: <4D4631CD.2070609@eff.org> References: <4D4631CD.2070609@eff.org> Message-ID: The SD's response to Wikileaks was otherwise and this statement falls very weak in lieu of what was done with Wikileaks, the privacy of over 637,000 Twitter followers of Wikileaks is subpoened and is a grand privacy and safety issue for many across the globe: - All 637,000 Twitter followers of Wikileaks subpoened by US government The following is the judicial order: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/subpoena.pdf - This is Iceland's reaction to the above: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14758284,00.html I wonder why privacy organizations and activists remained inactive to the issue...........that was putting the fate of many in jeopardy especially to many who were following the Wikileaks tweets from developing countries. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/28/inside_the_state_department_s_arab_twitter_diplomacy > > The State Department has been working furiously and mostly behind the scenes > to cajole and pressure Arab governments to halt their clampdowns on > communications and social media. In Tunisia there seem to have been real > results. In Egypt, it's too soon to tell. > > Ever since the State Department intervened during protests by the Iranian > Green movement in June 2009, convincing Twitter to postpone maintenance so > opposition protestors could communicate, the U.S. government has been > ramping up its worldwide effort to set up a network of organizations that > could circumvent crackdowns on Internet and cell phone technologies by > foreign governments. That effort faced its first two major tests over the > last few weeks and the State Department has been working with private > companies, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions to > activate this network and put it to use in real time. > > "Our mission is to provide a lifeline of protection when people get in > trouble through a range of support for the activists and the people on the > ground," Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor > (DRL) Michael Posner said in an interview on Friday with The Cable. "I think > there will be an increase in contacts on several levels in the coming days > and weeks." > > Even before the unrest in Tunisia and Egypt, the State Department was > working to drastically increase its activities with the internet freedom > organizations, many of them using State Department funding provided through > a grant program administered by DRL. This month, State announced it would > spend another $30 million on this project. > > For Posner, the drive to create an "open platform" for Internet > communications is part of the overall drive to protect the universal rights > the administration has been trumpeting in recent days and that Secretary of > State Hillary Clinton laid out in her speech on Internet Freedom. > > "What we're really talking about here is the ability of people to speak > freely, to demonstrate peacefully, to associate and assemble in the public > square. These are the human rights that are being restricted," Posner said. > > In the case of Tunisia, the State Department mixed a strategy of working > with companies and third party groups with a series of private and public > communications between the Obama administration and the government of > now-ousted president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. > > The effort began shortly after a Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, > lit himself on fire in Sidi Bouzid on Dec. 17. News of the event shot around > the country through Twitter and Facebook, sparking a wider protest movement. > The Tunisian government responded by hacking massive amounts of Twitter, > Facebook, and e-mail accounts and targeted other sites where protestors were > convening or communicating. > > Facebook contacted the State Department soon thereafter, another State > Department official told The Cable, asking for assistance and to help > coordinate the response. Facebook then created an encrypted option for > accessing the site from Tunisia while the State Department convoked the > Tunisian ambassador in Washington to complain about the government's > tactics. > > "These tactics were used against American companies, so we have equities on > multiple fronts," the official said. Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey > Feltman delivered a stern message to the ambassador in DC while the U.S. > ambassador in Tunis Gordon Gray delivered the same message to the top levels > of Ben Ali's government. When these private efforts to convince Tunis to > open Internet restrictions failed, senior U.S. officials went public with > their criticisms. > > "We've been in touch with State and a lot of people on the ground and > helping them navigate any of the blocks the government has put in place," > said one Washington human rights advocate who was deeply involved in the > effort. > > State Department officials told The Cable that their efforts paid off, given > that Ben Ali -- before stepping down -- said that he "heard the Tunisian > people" and removed the blocks on the Internet and social media sites, > although he had never cut off the entire country from communication. The > State Department official said that while technology was an accelerant for > the protests and a way for the protesters to get unvarnished information, it > did not spur the movement. > > "This was not a Twitter revolution. It was not a revolution either made > possible or successful through the use of applications like Twitter," the > State Department official said. "It mattered in Tunisia but ultimately that > was a revolution of, for, and by the Tunisians." > > Then came the protests this week in Egypt and the Mubarak government's > decision on Thursday to cut off all Internet and cell phone service to the > entire country. This sweeping, unprecedented action stymied both the State > Department and the private and non-governmental organizations they were > working with in Egypt. > > "When a government literally shuts down the networks, the solutions are few. > You can't circumvent a complete network shutdown," the State Department > official said. > > "None of this was an issue in Egypt until 24 hours ago," said another > Washington expert who works on Internet freedom and human rights issues in > the Arab world. > > Nevertheless, the pro-Internet freedom network kicked into high gear, > looking for loopholes in the blackout and connecting with people on the > ground via the few pieces of communications technology that were still > working -- land line telephones and ham radios. > > The State Department started sending increasingly strong private messages to > Cairo, the official said, culminating with Clinton's public statement on > Friday, when she said, "We urge the Egyptian authorities to allow peaceful > protests and to reverse the unprecedented steps it has taken to cut off > communications." > > State Department officials also ramped up their coordination with U.S. > companies, advocacy groups, and universities to share information on > workarounds and connect these institutions to people on the ground. > > The official declined to comment on whether State was pressing Internet and > cell phone carriers in Egypt to defy the government and restore access to > services. Vodaphone, for example, said it was "obligated" to comply with the > Egyptian government's demand to shut down. But the work with private > entities to restore lines of communication in Egypt continues. > > For critics of the administration's stance on the Egypt protests, the State > Department's furious efforts behind the scenes on the issue of Internet > freedom are insufficient to compensate for what they see as an overall > lackluster, and belated, U.S. government response to the crisis. > > "The real problem is that when your macro policy and your micro policy don't > match up, it takes all the credibility away," said Danielle Pletka, vice > president at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's one thing to stand up > and say don't shut off access to cell phones, but when top administration > officials refuse to side with the protestors overall, it sends the message > that there will be no consequences" for the Egyptian government if it > chooses to ignore the administration's calls for information openness. > > The Obama administration knows that their efforts to keep communications > systems up and running are but a small part of what's needed diplomatically > in Egypt. But they see it as one more tool they can use to pressure the > government toward better behavior and find ways to protect American citizens > and businesses caught in the crossfire. > > "None of us are cyber-utopians, we have always been clear eyed about this," > the State Department official said. "The question is not whether tech is > good or bad, it's disruptive. And in a disruptive environment, the question > is, how can you maximize your interests." > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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. -------------------------- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 05:41:21 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:41:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The Twitter Revolution Must Die (by Ulises A. Mejias) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Fouad, I agree with you. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Frederick Noronha Date: Mon, Jan > 31, 2011 at 2:38 PM > > The Twitter Revolution Must Die > January 30th, 2011 · 12 Comments > photo by Alia Malek > > photo by Alia Malek > > Have you ever heard of the Leica Revolution? No? > > That’s probably because folks who don’t know anything about “branding” > insist on calling it the Mexican Revolution. An estimated two million > people died in the long struggle (1910-1920) to overthrow a despotic > government and bring about reform. But why shouldn’t we re-name the > revolution not after a nation or its people, but after the “social > media” that had such a great impact in making the struggle known all > over the world: the photographic camera? Even better, let’s name the > revolution not after the medium itself, but after the manufacturer of > the cameras that were carried by people like Hugo Brehme to document > the atrocities of war. Viva Leica, cabrones! > > My sarcasm is, of course, a thinly veiled attempt to point out how > absurd it is to refer to events in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere > as the Twitter Revolution, the Facebook Revolution, and so on. What we > call things, the names we use to identify them, has incredible > symbolic power, and I, for one, refuse to associate corporate brands > with struggles for human dignity. I agree with Jillian York when she > says: > > “… I am glad that Tunisians were able to utilize social media to bring > attention to their plight. But I will not dishonor the memory of > Mohamed Bouazizi–or the 65 others that died on the streets for their > cause–by dubbing this anything but a human revolution.” > > Granted, as Joss Hands points out, there appears to be more skepticism > than support for the idea that tools like YouTube, Twitter and > Facebook are primarily responsible for igniting the uprisings in > question. But that hasn’t stopped the internet intelligentsia from > engaging in lengthy arguments about the role that technology is > playing in these historic developments. One camp, comprised of people > like Clay Shirky, seem to make allowances for what Cory Doctorow calls > the “internet’s special power to connect and liberate.” On the other > side, authors like Ethan Zuckerman, Malcolm Gladwell and Evgeny > Morozov have proposed that while digital media can play a role in > organizing social movements, it cannot be counted on to build lasting > alliances, or even protect net activists once authorities start using > the same tools to crack down on dissent. > > Both sides are, perhaps, engaging in a bit of technological > determinism–one by embellishing the agency of technology, the other by > diminishing it. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between, and > philosophers of technology settled the dispute of whether technology > shapes society (technological determinism) or society shapes > technology (cultural materialism) a while ago: the fact is that > technology and society mutually and continually determine each other. > > So why does the image of a revolution enabled by social media continue > to grab headlines and spark the interest of Western audiences, and > what are the dangers of employing such imagery? My fear is that the > hype about a Twitter/Facebook/YouTube revolution performs two > functions: first, it depoliticizes our understanding of the conflicts, > and second, it whitewashes the role of capitalism in suppressing > democracy. > > To elaborate, the discourse of a social media revolution is a form of > self-focused empathy in which we imagine the other (in this case, a > Muslim other) to be nothing more than a projection of our own desires, > a depoliticized instant in our own becoming. What a strong affirmation > of ourselves it is to believe that people engaged in a desperate > struggle for human dignity are using the same Web 2.0 products we are > using! That we are able to form this empathy largely on the basis of > consumerism demonstrates the extent to which we have bought into the > notion that democracy is a by-product of media products for > self-expression, and that the corporations that create such media > products would never side with governments against their own people. > > It is time to abandon this fantasy, and to realize that although the > internet’s original architecture encouraged openness, it is becoming > increasingly privatized and centralized. While it is true that an > internet controlled by a handful of media conglomerates can still be > used to promote democracy (as people are doing in Tunisia, Egypt, and > all over the world), we need to reconsider the role that social media > corporations like Facebook and Twitter will play in these struggles. > > The clearest way to understand this role is to simply look at the past > and current role that corporations have played in “facilitating” > democracy elsewhere. Consider the above image of the tear gas canister > “fired against egyptians demanding democracy.” The can is labeled Made > in U.S.A. > > But surely it would be a gross calumny to suggest that ICT are on the > same level as tear gas, right? Well, perhaps not. Today, our exports > encompass not only weapons of war and riot control used to keep in > power corrupt leaders, but tools of internet surveillance like > Narusinsight, produced by a subsidiary of Boeing and used by the > Egyptian government to track down and “disappear” dissidents. > > Even without citing examples of specific Web companies that have aided > governments in the surveillance and persecution of their citizens > (Jillian York documents some of these examples), my point is simply > that the emerging market structure of the internet is threatening its > potential to be used by people as a tool for democracy. The more > monopolies (a market structure characterized by a single seller) > control access and infrastructure, and the more monopsonies (a market > structure characterized by a single buyer) control aggregation and > distribution of user-generated content, the easier it is going to be > for authorities to pull the plug, as just happened in Egypt. > > I’m reminded of the first so-called Internet Revolution. Almost a > hundred years after the original Mexican Revolution, the Zapatista > Army of National Liberation launched an uprising in southern Mexico to > try to address some of the injustices that the first revolution didn’t > fix, and that remain unsolved to this day. But back in 1994, > Subcomandante Marcos and the rest of the EZLN didn’t have Facebook > profiles, or use Twitter to communicate or organize. Maybe their > movement would have been more effective if they had. Or maybe it > managed to stay alive because of the decentralized nature of the > networks the EZLN and their supporters used. > > My point is this: as digital networks grow and become more centralized > and privatized, they increase opportunities for participation, but > they also increase inequality, and make it easier for authorities to > control them. > > Thus, the real challenge is going to be figuring out how to continue > the struggle after the network has been shut off. In fact, the > struggle is going to be against those who own and control the network. > If the fight can’t continue without Facebook and Twitter, then it is > doomed. But I suspect the people of Iran, Tunisia and Egypt (unlike > us) already know this, out of sheer necessity. > > [Ulises A. Mejias is assistant professor at the State University of > New York, College at Oswego. His book, The Limits of Nodes: Unmapping > the Digital Network, is under review by publishers.] > > http://blog.ulisesmejias.com/2011/01/30/the-twitter-revolution-must-die/ > > Please see the original article at the link above, it contains useful > links. Thanks to Ramnarayan.K for drawing > attention to this via the GII-India mailing list. -FN > > Frederick Noronha :: +91-9822122436 :: +91-832-2409490 > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jan 31 06:01:37 2011 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:01:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109176@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch>,<70B8364FA75A4CADA109D1814C62E380@userPC> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109176@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D8E@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Hi all It's abhorrent that the Egyptian government is trying to stifle communication in this way. It just goes to show how powerful communication is. The continued activism of people on the streets in Egypt in these circumstances, and the ways in which information is still circulating inside and outside of the country, are testimony to people's dedication and commitment. I think the Charter that the IRP dynamic coalition is working on could be a useful, international campaigning document in circumstances like this..... We of course shouldn't overestimate the extent to which statements of principles, or even international law, impact on authoritarian, or even so-called democratic, states. I was asked recently by an activist from Gaza what impact the Charter could have in the contexts she's working in....in which governments wield power over private companies in arbitrary ways. But if we can build an authoritative document that has broad support from different communities, we can hopefully push norms in the right direction, we have a solid basis for our campaigning work, and can demonstrate the relevance (and necessity) of human rights as a framework for Internet governance. RE Access as a right....we've had extensive discussions on this for the Charter. At the moment, we've framed Internet access as a right because it's a constituent element of freedom of expression and other rights. Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, argues very strongly that access to the Internet is a fundamental component of freedom of expression in today's world. International law states that it is only permissible to place limitations or restrictions on expression in extremely narrow circumstances that are defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. National security and pubic order is included, but this doesn't mean that it can simply be used as an excuse. States must ensure that any limitation or restriction is provided for by clear and precise laws. They must demonstrate that the limitation or restriction is strictly necessary to meet the specific purpose. This means that any restriction must be carefully tailored to target the specific aim, must be narrowly defined, and must yield proportionately greater benefit to society than the harm that it causes to freedom of expression. Shutting down the Internet amidst popular protest in Egypt is clearly in violation of these principles. RE Rule of law....the Charter is pushing for rule of law on the Internet...it's too often ignored. So I agree with Ian...states have to have a court order to do anything that limits expression. Yes, states all over the world will continue to ignore this, and courts can act as mere rubber stampers. But that just means we should redouble our efforts to push for respect for established standards and procedures. In response to Sala's question, and for those unfamiliar with the Charter project...- the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet is an attempt to translate international human rights standards to apply to the Internet. It's a bit different from some similar initiatives in this area a number of ways: - Each article is firmly rooted in existing human rights standards. We're trying to harness the moral and legal weight of international human rights law to make sure that the document is as authoritative as possible. - To make the Charter useful for different groups, and also authoritative, the final Charter will consist of 3 documents: a) a set of overarching principles which set out the main standards that states should be adhering to; b) an explanatory document which explores the detail of each article - its roots in international law, whether it's a standard that is progressively realizable (e.g. universal accessibility) or immediate (absence of censorship). c) a matrix which breaks down the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, including private sector. Whilst human rights are only binding on states, John Ruggie's (the UN special representative on human rights and transnational corporations) framework giving companies responsibility to respect human rights is gaining increasing authority at the international level. We're trying to work out what that means in the context of the Internet. - We're trying to make it as comprehensive as possible - i.e. not just focusing on civil and political rights, but also upholding the principle of the indivisibility of rights - including economic, social and cultural rights too.The coalition is multi-stakeholder (or trying to be!!), with engagement in the process from individuals in the private, technical, government and civil society sectors. Unfortunately, the Charter isn't finished yet...we have a draft that we discussed in Vilnius, and plan to have a more finalized version for the next IGF. We're currently working out how we're going to finalise it over the coming months - consulting with relevant experts and different user communities etc. So please do join us if you'd like to get involved....we need your help! You can sign up to the IRP mailing list here: http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org Finally, there's also the Global Network Initiative (GNI) that has already developed a code of conduct for companies operating in countries with limited human rights protections. Their principles are a good place to start I think. Whilst companies do have to respect national law, the Initiative outlines steps they should take e.g. risk assessments when going into countries, challenging any requests to restrict expression and privacy, being transparent about their activities etc. Apologies for the length of the email! All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: 30 January 2011 19:35 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance Michael, I don't recall off-hand every last paragraph of the draft Charter of Internet Rights under discussion on the Internet Rights and Principles list...but wouldn't something along the lines you suggest be most easily promoted through that, perhaps by adding an additional paragraph or clause if needed? Which was already a topic for discussion at the next IGF right... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance I think that we need to see these as long term processes with multiple actors, influences, potential outcomes and so on. But there would clearly seem to be a need for a statement of principles/code of conduct with respect to access to/the opportunity to use the means of communication. That there will be opposition to such is hardly relevent to the articulation and civil society agitation in support of such a set of principles/code. That governments or whoever would insist that there were various kinds of clauses to ensure their ultimate authority in these areas is similarly irrelevant since as with Human Rights agreements/codes their presence acts as some sort of standard against which breaches can be measured and responded to and governments (and the private sector) can be held accountable. It is hard to see what in the area of Global Internet Governance could be of more importance than the setting in place of a process for the formulation and ratification of such an agreement. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 > on > Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind that > >incorporates this principle. > > Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process in the IGF context. Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal international treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, it would be policed only to the extent that of course nothing will stop the legislature of any country from adding the principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if following the "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, entirely voluntary, I would expect that the document could still have a very significant practical impact. Just like many of IETF's RFCs have very significant practical impact even without them having been formally adopted by any national legislature, or even by any standardization organization with the kind of formal international recognition that e.g. ISO has. And there's definitely to "internet police" to enforce the RFCs. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 31 06:06:31 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:36:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: The Not-So-Neutral Net] In-Reply-To: References: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4D4697B7.5060207@itforchange.net> Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Parminder, > > Quite clearly MetroPCS is testing FCC muscles. Hopefully US consumers > should react and test MetroPCS muscles. Hi Louis > > Is MetroPCS (or AT&T, or Verizon, etc ..) operating in India ? Is > India gov supporting NN ? If so the Indian telecom authority could > rule that telecom operators in India may not discriminate services > offered to Indian consumers, or else they would not be allowed to > offer international services in India. These companies do not operate in India, but things are bad over here, especially over the last few months. Net neutrality is being violated wholesale on wireless networks. No one is noticing much less complaining. One top telecom rather pointedly calls it 'pay per site' tariff plan. see http://www.tatadocomo.com/pay-per-site.aspx . There is no CS constituency addressing the issue. > > Then work out a similar rule within the BRIC group. I really hope they could recognise how absence of global net neutrality framework is going to work to their massive disadvantage vis vis the Northern countries so solidly dominating the Internet content and applications space. With the unprecedented economy of scale in digital arena that leads to monopolies in most areas, abandoning net neutrality means that late starters have little chance. Various trade agreements like WTO, and cultural protection related measures which were a major global governance issues have simply no meaning in the new digital paradigm. Hope developing countries wake up before it is too late. Global civil society, or at least civil society that from developing country, should be helping frame this key issue for developing countries but there is not much evidence of it Parminder > > fwiw > - - - > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:02 AM, parminder > wrote: > > quote from the article below > > We're already seeing what a world without real Net Neutrality will > look like. Just weeks after the FCC's vote, MetroPCS, the nation's > fifth-largest wireless carrier, announced new plans that would > block popular applications like Skype and Netflix while favoring > YouTube > . > This is particularly egregious because MetroPCS serves a > lower-income audience that is increasingly moving toward the > mobile Web as their only way to get online. > (quote ends) > > Highlights the development aspect of non NN wireless Internet, > when mobile internet is likely to be the main way to access > Internet in the poorer areas of the world. And the anti NN rules > ensure that it is the content and applications from the North that > consumers in the South remain hooked to and dependent on. A wholly > new and very potent North-South dependency paradigm is now being > built over the non NN architect of mobile Internet, and I hope > progressive global civil society takes notice and has something to > say on this. If this is not an issue that IGF should take up in > its plenary, than i dont think it is doing much of any worth. > Parminder > > http://www.truth-out.org/the-not-so-neutral-net67276 > > > The Not-So-Neutral Net > > Monday 24 January 2011 > > by: Jenn Ettinger | *YES! Magazine | News Analysis* > > > /*The FCC's new rules on Net Neutrality open the Internet to > corporate discrimination. But it's not too late to preserve > Internet freedom.*/ > > The Internet was created as an "open" or "neutral" platform, and > net neutrality is the principle that ensures that Internet > providers can't interfere with a user's ability to access any > content on the Web, whether it's a community blog, a YouTube > video, or a major news site. It's essentially the First Amendment > of the Internet. > > In late December, the Federal Communications Commission enacted > new rules on net neutrality—rules that are supposed to protect > Internet users from discrimination and to prevent Internet > providers like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon from acting as > gatekeepers on the Web. > > But the FCC missed the mark, and its rules not only fail to > protect Internet users, but bolster the big phone and cable > companies' ability to carve up the Internet among themselves. As > Net Neutrality champion Senator Al Franken said, the rules are > "simply inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and > open Internet." The limited protections leave the door open for > the phone and cable companies to favor their own content or > applications. > > During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama came out strongly > in favor of net neutrality, saying he would "take a back seat to > no one" on the issue. But in the end, Obama's FCC chairman, Julius > Genachowski, failed to deliver on the president's promise, instead > issuing ambiguous rules riddled with loopholes that corporate > lobbyists will easily undermine. > > Over the past several years, the phone and cable companies have > flooded Washington with millions of dollars and hundreds of > lobbyists to buy support in Congress and put pressure on the FCC. > Public interest groups and a few lawmakers have tried to fight > back, and more than two million people have urged the FCC to adopt > strong net neutrality rules, but Chairman Genachowski ultimately > caved to industry demands and turned a deaf ear to the public. What > > *Went Wrong: Real vs. Fake Net Neutrality* > > At its core, real net neutrality is a clear rule of > non-discrimination that governs all Internet providers. It means > that your provider can't slow down your service in order to speed > up someone else's. It means that your provider can't exploit legal > loopholes to slow down your access to Netflix while speeding up > Hulu because it happens to own Hulu. It means that there's one > Internet, whether you access it from your home computer or your > mobile phone. > > But the rules that the FCC passed in December are vague and weak. > The limited protections that were placed on wired connections, the > kind you access through your home computer, leave the door open > for the phone and cable companies to develop fast and slow lanes > on the Web and to favor their own content or applications. > > Worse, the rules also explicitly allow wireless carriers—mobile > phone companies like AT&T and Verizon—to block applications for > any reason and to degrade and de-prioritize websites you access > using your cell phone or a device like an iPad. That means these > companies could block something like the music service Pandora, > while offering unlimited access to its own preferred applications, > like VCast. > > Better Than Facebook?Better Than Facebook Photo courtesy of On the > Commons > > Fed up with Facebook's commercialism, four NYU students have > created an open source, peer-to-peer alternative: Diaspora. > > We're already seeing what a world without real Net Neutrality will > look like. Just weeks after the FCC's vote, MetroPCS, the nation's > fifth-largest wireless carrier, announced new plans that would > block popular applications like Skype and Netflix while favoring > YouTube > . > This is particularly egregious because MetroPCS serves a > lower-income audience that is increasingly moving toward the > mobile Web as their only way to get online. > > Some companies are already marketing "deep packet inspection" > technology that would allow carriers to nickel-and-dime you by > charging you every time you visit Facebook or try to stream a > Vimeo video. If MetroPCS gets away with its scheme—which appears > to violate even the FCC's weak rules—you can bet that AT&T and > Verizon will waste no time in unveiling their own plans, which > would mean higher bills and fewer choices on the mobile Web. > > Lastly, the FCC's short-sighted action failed to contend with a > series of drastic deregulatory decisions made during the Bush > administration that severely hamstrung the FCC's ability to > oversee the phone and cable companies. By failing to restore the > agency's authority over broadband, the FCC risks seeing even these > rules tossed out in court. > > The FCC rules were designed to appease the phone and cable > companies—but even that didn't work. Verizon has already filed > suit against the agency, showing that these gatekeepers will > settle for nothing less than total deregulation and a toothless > FCC. Undoing the Damage The FCC still has the opportunity to put > in place a solid framework that would put the public interest > above the profit motive of the phone and cable companies that it > is supposed to regulate. > > *Undoing the Damage* > > The FCC's new rules are certainly a setback in the quest to > protect the Web as an open platform and an integral piece of our > communications infrastructure and our democracy. In the absence of > clear FCC authority and oversight of the Internet and a strong Net > Neutrality framework that protects your right to go wherever you > want, whenever you want online, AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are > free to interfere with your Internet experience. > > The FCC still has the opportunity to put in place a solid > framework that would put the public interest above the profit > motive of the phone and cable companies that it is supposed to > regulate. And the FCC should take immediate steps to close the > loopholes it created, to strengthen its rules, and to include > wireless protections. The fight is far from over. We can work to > change the rules, demand better oversight and consumer protections > and make sure that the big companies can't pad their bottom lines > on the backs of their customers. > > /Jenn Ettinger author photoJenn Ettinger wrote this article for > YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses > powerful ideas with practical actions. Jenn is media coordinator > for Free Press, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to > reform the media. > / > > > -- > > *Krittika Vishwanath* > Research Associate > IT for Change > In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.net > Skype id: krittika85 > Tel:+91-80-2665 4134, 2653 6890. Fax:+91-80-4146 1055 > Mobile: +91 9945267341 > > Read our Teacher's Communities of Learning project's blogs, lesson > plans and discussions here: > http://bangalore.karnatakaeducation.org.in/ > > > > > > > -- > 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 > > > -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jan 31 07:18:21 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:18:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: The Not-So-Neutral Net] In-Reply-To: <4D4697B7.5060207@itforchange.net> References: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> <4D4697B7.5060207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <72ZXffWNiqRNFASs@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4D4697B7.5060207 at itforchange.net>, at 16:36:31 on Mon, 31 Jan 2011, parminder writes > Net neutrality is being violated wholesale on wireless networks. No >one is noticing much less complaining.  One top telecom rather >pointedly calls it 'pay per site' tariff plan. see >http://www.tatadocomo.com/pay-per-site.aspx That seems to be a "pay for volume of traffic" plan (eg 200MB for 10R's - approx $0.20), which I thought we'd agreed was acceptable. [And about a tenth of what you'd pay in Europe]. Although the normal rate is 2.5GB for 65R's, which is cheaper! Do they block the listed sites if you are on the normal rate - I agree that wouldn't be fair. -- 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 Mon Jan 31 08:43:34 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:13:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: The Not-So-Neutral Net] In-Reply-To: <72ZXffWNiqRNFASs@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> <4D4697B7.5060207@itforchange.net> <72ZXffWNiqRNFASs@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4D46BC86.40002@itforchange.net> Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4D4697B7.5060207 at itforchange.net>, at 16:36:31 on Mon, 31 > Jan 2011, parminder writes > >> Net neutrality is being violated wholesale on wireless networks. No >> one is noticing much less complaining. One top telecom rather >> pointedly calls it 'pay per site' tariff plan. see > >http://www.tatadocomo.com/pay-per-site.aspx > > That seems to be a "pay for volume of traffic" plan (eg 200MB for > 10R's - approx $0.20), which I thought we'd agreed was acceptable. > [And about a tenth of what you'd pay in Europe]. I am not at all able to understand how you see a pay-per-site plan as a 'pay -for-volume-of traffic' plan (volume being a site-neutral concept). This is moving towards a cable TV scenario - just many many more channels. An IGC member forwarded the enclosed graphic to me which is quite illustrative. It had come out in the US many years ago as a kind of dooms day prediction.... Now the doom looks so close by, almost already there. Parminder > > Although the normal rate is 2.5GB for 65R's, which is cheaper! Do they > block the listed sites if you are on the normal rate - I agree that > wouldn't be fair. -- PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: net-non-neutrality.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 121560 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jan 31 08:54:03 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:54:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D8E@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> References: <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch>,<70B8364FA75A4CADA109D1814C62E380@userPC> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109176@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D8E@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109180@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, A virtual round of applause for Lisa et al's ongoing diligent efforts to develop the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. The Charter is still in beta, and may well stay in beta for some time. But perhaps already a useful rallying point in these interesting times. 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: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:01 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.orgf more input Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance Hi all It's abhorrent that the Egyptian government is trying to stifle communication in this way. It just goes to show how powerful communication is. The continued activism of people on the streets in Egypt in these circumstances, and the ways in which information is still circulating inside and outside of the country, are testimony to people's dedication and commitment. I think the Charter that the IRP dynamic coalition is working on could be a useful, international campaigning document in circumstances like this..... We of course shouldn't overestimate the extent to which statements of principles, or even international law, impact on authoritarian, or even so-called democratic, states. I was asked recently by an activist from Gaza what impact the Charter could have in the contexts she's working in....in which governments wield power over private companies in arbitrary ways. But if we can build an authoritative document that has broad support from different communities, we can hopefully push norms in the right direction, we have a solid basis for our campaigning work, and can demonstrate the relevance (and necessity) of human rights as a framework for Internet governance. RE Access as a right....we've had extensive discussions on this for the Charter. At the moment, we've framed Internet access as a right because it's a constituent element of freedom of expression and other rights. Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, argues very strongly that access to the Internet is a fundamental component of freedom of expression in today's world. International law states that it is only permissible to place limitations or restrictions on expression in extremely narrow circumstances that are defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. National security and pubic order is included, but this doesn't mean that it can simply be used as an excuse. States must ensure that any limitation or restriction is provided for by clear and precise laws. They must demonstrate that the limitation or restriction is strictly necessary to meet the specific purpose. This means that any restriction must be carefully tailored to target the specific aim, must be narrowly defined, and must yield proportionately greater benefit to society than the harm that it causes to freedom of expression. Shutting down the Internet amidst popular protest in Egypt is clearly in violation of these principles. RE Rule of law....the Charter is pushing for rule of law on the Internet...it's too often ignored. So I agree with Ian...states have to have a court order to do anything that limits expression. Yes, states all over the world will continue to ignore this, and courts can act as mere rubber stampers. But that just means we should redouble our efforts to push for respect for established standards and procedures. In response to Sala's question, and for those unfamiliar with the Charter project...- the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet is an attempt to translate international human rights standards to apply to the Internet. It's a bit different from some similar initiatives in this area a number of ways: - Each article is firmly rooted in existing human rights standards. We're trying to harness the moral and legal weight of international human rights law to make sure that the document is as authoritative as possible. - To make the Charter useful for different groups, and also authoritative, the final Charter will consist of 3 documents: a) a set of overarching principles which set out the main standards that states should be adhering to; b) an explanatory document which explores the detail of each article - its roots in international law, whether it's a standard that is progressively realizable (e.g. universal accessibility) or immediate (absence of censorship). c) a matrix which breaks down the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, including private sector. Whilst human rights are only binding on states, John Ruggie's (the UN special representative on human rights and transnational corporations) framework giving companies responsibility to respect human rights is gaining increasing authority at the international level. We're trying to work out what that means in the context of the Internet. - We're trying to make it as comprehensive as possible - i.e. not just focusing on civil and political rights, but also upholding the principle of the indivisibility of rights - including economic, social and cultural rights too.The coalition is multi-stakeholder (or trying to be!!), with engagement in the process from individuals in the private, technical, government and civil society sectors. Unfortunately, the Charter isn't finished yet...we have a draft that we discussed in Vilnius, and plan to have a more finalized version for the next IGF. We're currently working out how we're going to finalise it over the coming months - consulting with relevant experts and different user communities etc. So please do join us if you'd like to get involved....we need your help! You can sign up to the IRP mailing list here: http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org Finally, there's also the Global Network Initiative (GNI) that has already developed a code of conduct for companies operating in countries with limited human rights protections. Their principles are a good place to start I think. Whilst companies do have to respect national law, the Initiative outlines steps they should take e.g. risk assessments when going into countries, challenging any requests to restrict expression and privacy, being transparent about their activities etc. Apologies for the length of the email! All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: 30 January 2011 19:35 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance Michael, I don't recall off-hand every last paragraph of the draft Charter of Internet Rights under discussion on the Internet Rights and Principles list...but wouldn't something along the lines you suggest be most easily promoted through that, perhaps by adding an additional paragraph or clause if needed? Which was already a topic for discussion at the next IGF right... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance I think that we need to see these as long term processes with multiple actors, influences, potential outcomes and so on. But there would clearly seem to be a need for a statement of principles/code of conduct with respect to access to/the opportunity to use the means of communication. That there will be opposition to such is hardly relevent to the articulation and civil society agitation in support of such a set of principles/code. That governments or whoever would insist that there were various kinds of clauses to ensure their ultimate authority in these areas is similarly irrelevant since as with Human Rights agreements/codes their presence acts as some sort of standard against which breaches can be measured and responded to and governments (and the private sector) can be held accountable. It is hard to see what in the area of Global Internet Governance could be of more importance than the setting in place of a process for the formulation and ratification of such an agreement. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 > on > Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind that > >incorporates this principle. > > Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process in the IGF context. Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal international treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, it would be policed only to the extent that of course nothing will stop the legislature of any country from adding the principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if following the "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, entirely voluntary, I would expect that the document could still have a very significant practical impact. Just like many of IETF's RFCs have very significant practical impact even without them having been formally adopted by any national legislature, or even by any standardization organization with the kind of formal international recognition that e.g. ISO has. And there's definitely to "internet police" to enforce the RFCs. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Jan 31 09:40:11 2011 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:40:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: The Not-So-Neutral Net] In-Reply-To: References: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Let's mean discrimination by the Norway guidelines: http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf One may notice [§ 3] that they do not preclude service differentiation (distinct from discrimination) by volume, bandwidth, QoS, time of day, wire/less, or other traffic characteristics. - - - On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message , > at 13:48:24 on Sun, 30 Jan 2011, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > writes > > Is MetroPCS (or AT&T, or Verizon, etc ..) operating in India ? Is India >> gov supporting NN ? If so the Indian telecom authority could rule that >> telecom operators in India may not discriminate services offered to Indian >> consumers, or else they would not be allowed to offer international services >> in India >> > > Is that "no discrimination by content type", or "no discrimination by > volume"? > > If a movie takes 1GB to deliver, would be allowed to say "sorry, no files > above 0.5GB"[1] which would be a disguised ban on movies. > > [1] Or perhaps "unless you pay extra". > -- > Roland Perry > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 09:56:27 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:56:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: Egypt, let your people go online! In-Reply-To: References: <952FFB6DC19B43748D05F0AA5FCC3C60@userPC> Message-ID: <4D46CD9B.4050304@apc.org> Hi all In September 2010 during food riots in Maputo all mobile service providers in Mozambique shut down SMS in response to "instruction". They first denied it, but then it came out in the end. This is not at all unusual. And as far as I know it did not even make the international press. http://allafrica.com/stories/201009131445.html Anriette On 31/01/11 06:18, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> No Telco in their right mind would willingly shut themselves down in my >> view, it would be like cutting off an arm or a leg. Any operator would >> benefit from movement of traffic or consumption of bandwidth or call traffic >> volumes. > > Exactly my point. The rhetoric in this petition is reflexively > anti-biz. Why not blame the bad guys in this case, instead of blaming > the victims. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jan 31 09:57:04 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:57:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: The Not-So-Neutral Net] In-Reply-To: <4D46BC86.40002@itforchange.net> References: <4D44F0F5.4090108@itforchange.net> <4D4697B7.5060207@itforchange.net> <72ZXffWNiqRNFASs@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D46BC86.40002@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4D46BC86.40002 at itforchange.net>, at 19:13:34 on Mon, 31 Jan 2011, parminder writes >>> Net neutrality is being violated wholesale on wireless networks. No >>>one is noticing much less complaining. One top telecom rather >>>pointedly calls it 'pay per site' tariff plan. see >> >http://www.tatadocomo.com/pay-per-site.aspx >> >> That seems to be a "pay for volume of traffic" plan (eg 200MB for >>10R's - approx $0.20), which I thought we'd agreed was acceptable. >>[And about a tenth of what you'd pay in Europe]. >I am not at all able to understand how you see a pay-per-site plan as a >'pay -for-volume-of traffic' plan (volume being a site-neutral >concept). It's only a "pay per site" plan if those sites are excluded from access when you buy the general connectivity package. It seems to me that these "pay per site" plans are a way for users to get cheaper access to their favourite sites, while not using up their monthly quota which can therefore be used for everywhere else. >This is moving towards a cable TV scenario - just many many more >channels. The cable TV plans I'm familiar with have one price for "everything", and cheaper plans if you don't want to pay for channels you'll never watch. >[ A MIME image / jpeg part was included here. ] I also fundamentally disagree with the marketing image that the Internet is just websites, and that websites are just like cable TV channels. On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember when you needed to have separate subscriptions to AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy etc. and different dial-up numbers to get to each. What's happened with the advent of the Internet, is that all these sites are available via one network, and almost by accident most of them are subscription free. Some websites (newspapers seem to be leading this) are now going behind paywalls. That's not the fault of access providers, it's not censorship and it's not a lack of network neutrality. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 09:22:43 2011 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:22:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tarek Kamel remains as Minister in Egypt Message-ID: Egypt's embattled President Hosni Mubarak unveiled a new cabinet on Monday with key ministers retaining their positions. Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit and Defense Minister General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi kept their jobs, as did the communications, justice, energy, information and oil ministers. Interior Minister Habib al-Adly was replaced by Gen. Mahmud Wagdi and Finance Minister Youssef Boutros-Ghali lost his position to Gawdat el-Malt. Egypt has been engulfed in violent protests since January 25 against Mubarak's 30-year regime, with demonstrators demanding economic and political reforms. Some 150 people have been killed and another 4,000 have been injured, the Al-Jazeera TV channel said. CAIRO, January 31 (RIA Novosti) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 10:33:25 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:33:25 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IX. Conclusions and recommendations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07779@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <650502F2-8CD6-42D3-A52C-7E19E541725F@gmail.com> "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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jan 31 10:51:33 2011 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:51:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109180@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch>,<70B8364FA75A4CADA109D1814C62E380@userPC> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109176@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D8E@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109180@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D94@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Thanks Lee, and I join the applause to all of the active coalition members who've been committed to the process... It is still in beta - it's a lot more complex a project that I think anyone thought it would be. But it's important to get it right, and the more support we have, the stronger it will be. All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: 31 January 2011 13:54 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance Hi, A virtual round of applause for Lisa et al's ongoing diligent efforts to develop the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. The Charter is still in beta, and may well stay in beta for some time. But perhaps already a useful rallying point in these interesting times. 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: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:01 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.orgf more input Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance Hi all It's abhorrent that the Egyptian government is trying to stifle communication in this way. It just goes to show how powerful communication is. The continued activism of people on the streets in Egypt in these circumstances, and the ways in which information is still circulating inside and outside of the country, are testimony to people's dedication and commitment. I think the Charter that the IRP dynamic coalition is working on could be a useful, international campaigning document in circumstances like this..... We of course shouldn't overestimate the extent to which statements of principles, or even international law, impact on authoritarian, or even so-called democratic, states. I was asked recently by an activist from Gaza what impact the Charter could have in the contexts she's working in....in which governments wield power over private companies in arbitrary ways. But if we can build an authoritative document that has broad support from different communities, we can hopefully push norms in the right direction, we have a solid basis for our campaigning work, and can demonstrate the relevance (and necessity) of human rights as a framework for Internet governance. RE Access as a right....we've had extensive discussions on this for the Charter. At the moment, we've framed Internet access as a right because it's a constituent element of freedom of expression and other rights. Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, argues very strongly that access to the Internet is a fundamental component of freedom of expression in today's world. International law states that it is only permissible to place limitations or restrictions on expression in extremely narrow circumstances that are defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. National security and pubic order is included, but this doesn't mean that it can simply be used as an excuse. States must ensure that any limitation or restriction is provided for by clear and precise laws. They must demonstrate that the limitation or restriction is strictly necessary to meet the specific purpose. This means that any restriction must be carefully tailored to target the specific aim, must be narrowly defined, and must yield proportionately greater benefit to society than the harm that it causes to freedom of expression. Shutting down the Internet amidst popular protest in Egypt is clearly in violation of these principles. RE Rule of law....the Charter is pushing for rule of law on the Internet...it's too often ignored. So I agree with Ian...states have to have a court order to do anything that limits expression. Yes, states all over the world will continue to ignore this, and courts can act as mere rubber stampers. But that just means we should redouble our efforts to push for respect for established standards and procedures. In response to Sala's question, and for those unfamiliar with the Charter project...- the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet is an attempt to translate international human rights standards to apply to the Internet. It's a bit different from some similar initiatives in this area a number of ways: - Each article is firmly rooted in existing human rights standards. We're trying to harness the moral and legal weight of international human rights law to make sure that the document is as authoritative as possible. - To make the Charter useful for different groups, and also authoritative, the final Charter will consist of 3 documents: a) a set of overarching principles which set out the main standards that states should be adhering to; b) an explanatory document which explores the detail of each article - its roots in international law, whether it's a standard that is progressively realizable (e.g. universal accessibility) or immediate (absence of censorship). c) a matrix which breaks down the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, including private sector. Whilst human rights are only binding on states, John Ruggie's (the UN special representative on human rights and transnational corporations) framework giving companies responsibility to respect human rights is gaining increasing authority at the international level. We're trying to work out what that means in the context of the Internet. - We're trying to make it as comprehensive as possible - i.e. not just focusing on civil and political rights, but also upholding the principle of the indivisibility of rights - including economic, social and cultural rights too.The coalition is multi-stakeholder (or trying to be!!), with engagement in the process from individuals in the private, technical, government and civil society sectors. Unfortunately, the Charter isn't finished yet...we have a draft that we discussed in Vilnius, and plan to have a more finalized version for the next IGF. We're currently working out how we're going to finalise it over the coming months - consulting with relevant experts and different user communities etc. So please do join us if you'd like to get involved....we need your help! You can sign up to the IRP mailing list here: http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org Finally, there's also the Global Network Initiative (GNI) that has already developed a code of conduct for companies operating in countries with limited human rights protections. Their principles are a good place to start I think. Whilst companies do have to respect national law, the Initiative outlines steps they should take e.g. risk assessments when going into countries, challenging any requests to restrict expression and privacy, being transparent about their activities etc. Apologies for the length of the email! All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: 30 January 2011 19:35 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance Michael, I don't recall off-hand every last paragraph of the draft Charter of Internet Rights under discussion on the Internet Rights and Principles list...but wouldn't something along the lines you suggest be most easily promoted through that, perhaps by adding an additional paragraph or clause if needed? Which was already a topic for discussion at the next IGF right... Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance I think that we need to see these as long term processes with multiple actors, influences, potential outcomes and so on. But there would clearly seem to be a need for a statement of principles/code of conduct with respect to access to/the opportunity to use the means of communication. That there will be opposition to such is hardly relevent to the articulation and civil society agitation in support of such a set of principles/code. That governments or whoever would insist that there were various kinds of clauses to ensure their ultimate authority in these areas is similarly irrelevant since as with Human Rights agreements/codes their presence acts as some sort of standard against which breaches can be measured and responded to and governments (and the private sector) can be held accountable. It is hard to see what in the area of Global Internet Governance could be of more importance than the setting in place of a process for the formulation and ratification of such an agreement. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 > on > Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind that > >incorporates this principle. > > Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process in the IGF context. Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal international treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, it would be policed only to the extent that of course nothing will stop the legislature of any country from adding the principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if following the "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, entirely voluntary, I would expect that the document could still have a very significant practical impact. Just like many of IETF's RFCs have very significant practical impact even without them having been formally adopted by any national legislature, or even by any standardization organization with the kind of formal international recognition that e.g. ISO has. And there's definitely to "internet police" to enforce the RFCs. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 11:14:12 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:14:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?http=3A//thelede=2Eblogs=2Enytimes=2E?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?com/2011/01/31/latest-updates-on-day-7-of-protests-in-egyp?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?t/=3Fhp?= Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109189@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Note that even with telecoms and net shutdown quite a bit of info is getting out of Egypt, albeit with time delay in some cases. This NYT blog is pretty good: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/latest-updates-on-day-7-of-protests-in-egypt/?hp My 'information policy' classes today and tomorrow will simulate - Thursday in Egypt; I'll let you know what the MS students conclude. 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 14:13:50 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:13:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] FW: Egypt, let your people go online! In-Reply-To: <4D46CD9B.4050304@apc.org> References: <952FFB6DC19B43748D05F0AA5FCC3C60@userPC> <4D46CD9B.4050304@apc.org> Message-ID: During the civillian coup d'etat in Fiji in 2000 all mobile operators and telcos had to shut down service in a particular zone for a few hours and this allowed for the necessary disruption that restored order. On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all > > In September 2010 during food riots in Maputo all mobile service > providers in Mozambique shut down SMS in response to "instruction". They > first denied it, but then it came out in the end. > > This is not at all unusual. And as far as I know it did not even make > the international press. > > http://allafrica.com/stories/201009131445.html > > Anriette > > > > > On 31/01/11 06:18, McTim wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > >> No Telco in their right mind would willingly shut themselves down in my > >> view, it would be like cutting off an arm or a leg. Any operator would > >> benefit from movement of traffic or consumption of bandwidth or call > traffic > >> volumes. > > > > Exactly my point. The rhetoric in this petition is reflexively > > anti-biz. Why not blame the bad guys in this case, instead of blaming > > the victims. > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 Jan 31 14:53:19 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:53:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D94@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> References: <20110130122727.C4FB915C195@quill.bollow.ch> <70B8364FA75A4CADA109D1814C62E380@userPC> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109176@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D8E@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109180@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C97563D94@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Message-ID: Thanks Lisa for the explanation and please don't apologise for the length of the email, it was a clear descriptive overview of the development so far. I liked your email. Thank you. *I think the Charter that the IRP dynamic coalition is working on could be a useful, international campaigning document in circumstances like this..... We of course shouldn't overestimate the extent to which statements of principles, or even international law, impact on authoritarian, or even so-called democratic, states.* *(Lisa Horner 2011)* I agree and think that jurisprudence, and philosophy has to evolve and I particularly find interesting that whilst Hobbes, Montesqiueue and Locke all agreed that there should be checks and balances, they all had different governance structures (political structures in mind) that in their view would be best models for the checks and balances that were necessary for the rule of law to prevail. I will sign up to the mailing list you sent. I can understand if access becomes construed as acceptable by virtue of customary international law but for all countries to accept "access" as a human right, it places a huge burden and demand for the philosophers today to start deveoping jurisprudence and philosophy that will address things like Benedict Andersen (1936) where nations have "imaginary boundaries". The reality with the way the internet has like an avalanche invaded our world as we knew it, e commerce, trade, communication, health, security has changed and whilst the Internet Superhighway is in literally every country in the world where some are guarded/filtered/censored analagous to having watchmen and others are free to run their traffic, quite similar to "countries" really and with the extraterritorial implications, it makes us wonder what sort of philosophy should we create to deal with these social gaps. We know that it is literally proven that broadband is an enabler for economic growth but in some developing countries, the growth of a GNP can mean the growth of a few people's income bracket and that reflects in the GNP and does not necessarily mean that the nation itself has benefitted. Although, at the same time that we do know ICT is an enabler and allows for improved sectors within the national economy - communication, health, trade etc. We also know that different countries have different political framework and will and the result has translated into the manner in which they filter or censor or rule their ISPs. These and many more issues, including network neutrality and its impact on other countries development. The real question that lies beneath the clutter is whether as far as the internet is concerned are the imaginary boundaries within the nation state connecting to another nation state or is it an alliance of networks etc. I am not a "techie" so I don't claim to have the answer to that. The other question is who should licence an ISP, should it be licensed by the country that it operates in or externally? Or alternatively, should the same arrangements be in place but the rules change. Even if the Internet were declared as a right, my guess would be it would be through a Declaration and as far as members of the General Assembly concerned, most of them would worry about the capacity to ratify and comply. How are these questions and concerns going to be addressed and what would the permanent members react? *A virtual round of applause for Lisa et al's ongoing diligent efforts to develop the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. The Charter is still in beta, and may well stay in beta for some time. But perhaps already a useful rallying point in these interesting times.* *(Lee W McKnight 2011)* ** Having said all that, I agree with Lee, a virtual round of applause for the work that your Team is doing and at least someone is doing something about it even if it stays in beta for some time but as we know from history, even before the Magna Carta, huge sacrifices has to be made to see the Magna Carta come to pass. All the best Lisa! Sala On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks Lee, and I join the applause to all of the active coalition members > who've been committed to the process... It is still in beta - it's a lot > more complex a project that I think anyone thought it would be. But it's > important to get it right, and the more support we have, the stronger it > will be. > > All the best, > Lisa > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: 31 January 2011 13:54 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > Hi, > > A virtual round of applause for Lisa et al's ongoing diligent efforts to > develop the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. > > The Charter is still in beta, and may well stay in beta for some time. > > But perhaps already a useful rallying point in these interesting times. > > 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: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:01 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.orgf more input > Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > Hi all > > It's abhorrent that the Egyptian government is trying to stifle > communication in this way. It just goes to show how powerful communication > is. The continued activism of people on the streets in Egypt in these > circumstances, and the ways in which information is still circulating inside > and outside of the country, are testimony to people's dedication and > commitment. > > I think the Charter that the IRP dynamic coalition is working on could be a > useful, international campaigning document in circumstances like this..... > We of course shouldn't overestimate the extent to which statements of > principles, or even international law, impact on authoritarian, or even > so-called democratic, states. I was asked recently by an activist from Gaza > what impact the Charter could have in the contexts she's working in....in > which governments wield power over private companies in arbitrary ways. But > if we can build an authoritative document that has broad support from > different communities, we can hopefully push norms in the right direction, > we have a solid basis for our campaigning work, and can demonstrate the > relevance (and necessity) of human rights as a framework for Internet > governance. > > RE Access as a right....we've had extensive discussions on this for the > Charter. At the moment, we've framed Internet access as a right because > it's a constituent element of freedom of expression and other rights. Frank > La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, > argues very strongly that access to the Internet is a fundamental component > of freedom of expression in today's world. > > International law states that it is only permissible to place limitations > or restrictions on expression in extremely narrow circumstances that are > defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. > National security and pubic order is included, but this doesn't mean that > it can simply be used as an excuse. States must ensure that any limitation > or restriction is provided for by clear and precise laws. They must > demonstrate that the limitation or restriction is strictly necessary to meet > the specific purpose. This means that any restriction must be carefully > tailored to target the specific aim, must be narrowly defined, and must > yield proportionately greater benefit to society than the harm that it > causes to freedom of expression. Shutting down the Internet amidst popular > protest in Egypt is clearly in violation of these principles. > > RE Rule of law....the Charter is pushing for rule of law on the > Internet...it's too often ignored. So I agree with Ian...states have to > have a court order to do anything that limits expression. Yes, states all > over the world will continue to ignore this, and courts can act as mere > rubber stampers. But that just means we should redouble our efforts to push > for respect for established standards and procedures. > > In response to Sala's question, and for those unfamiliar with the Charter > project...- the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet is > an attempt to translate international human rights standards to apply to the > Internet. It's a bit different from some similar initiatives in this area a > number of ways: > > - Each article is firmly rooted in existing human rights standards. We're > trying to harness the moral and legal weight of international human rights > law to make sure that the document is as authoritative as possible. > > - To make the Charter useful for different groups, and also authoritative, > the final Charter will consist of 3 documents: > a) a set of overarching principles which set out the main standards that > states should be adhering to; > b) an explanatory document which explores the detail of each article - its > roots in international law, whether it's a standard that is progressively > realizable (e.g. universal accessibility) or immediate (absence of > censorship). > c) a matrix which breaks down the roles and responsibilities of different > stakeholders, including private sector. Whilst human rights are only > binding on states, John Ruggie's (the UN special representative on human > rights and transnational corporations) framework giving companies > responsibility to respect human rights is gaining increasing authority at > the international level. We're trying to work out what that means in the > context of the Internet. > > - We're trying to make it as comprehensive as possible - i.e. not just > focusing on civil and political rights, but also upholding the principle of > the indivisibility of rights - including economic, social and cultural > rights too.The coalition is multi-stakeholder (or trying to be!!), with > engagement in the process from individuals in the private, technical, > government and civil society sectors. > > Unfortunately, the Charter isn't finished yet...we have a draft that we > discussed in Vilnius, and plan to have a more finalized version for the next > IGF. We're currently working out how we're going to finalise it over the > coming months - consulting with relevant experts and different user > communities etc. So please do join us if you'd like to get involved....we > need your help! You can sign up to the IRP mailing list here: > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org > > Finally, there's also the Global Network Initiative (GNI) that has already > developed a code of conduct for companies operating in countries with > limited human rights protections. Their principles are a good place to > start I think. Whilst companies do have to respect national law, the > Initiative outlines steps they should take e.g. risk assessments when going > into countries, challenging any requests to restrict expression and privacy, > being transparent about their activities etc. > > Apologies for the length of the email! > > All the best, > Lisa > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight > Sent: 30 January 2011 19:35 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > Michael, > > I don't recall off-hand every last paragraph of the draft Charter of > Internet Rights under discussion on the Internet Rights and Principles > list...but wouldn't something along the lines you suggest be most easily > promoted through that, perhaps by adding an additional paragraph or clause > if needed? > > Which was already a topic for discussion at the next IGF right... > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] > On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:09 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > I think that we need to see these as long term processes with multiple > actors, influences, potential outcomes and so on. > > But there would clearly seem to be a need for a statement of > principles/code > of conduct with respect to access to/the opportunity to use the means of > communication. That there will be opposition to such is hardly relevent to > the articulation and civil society agitation in support of such a set of > principles/code. > > That governments or whoever would insist that there were various kinds of > clauses to ensure their ultimate authority in these areas is similarly > irrelevant since as with Human Rights agreements/codes their presence acts > as some sort of standard against which breaches can be measured and > responded to and governments (and the private sector) can be held > accountable. > > It is hard to see what in the area of Global Internet Governance could be > of > more importance than the setting in place of a process for the formulation > and ratification of such an agreement. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:27 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Egypt and Internet Governance > > > > In message <20110130113619.A00C915C195 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 12:36:19 > > on > > Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Norbert Bollow writes > > > > >I strongly support pushing for a "code of conduct" of some kind that > > >incorporates this principle. > > > > Who drafts it, who signs up, and who polices it? > > It could be drafted by some kind of "dynamic coalition" process in the IGF > context. > > Unless some countries are interested in creating a formal international > treaty with some kind of enforcement provisions, it would be policed only > to > the extent that of course nothing will stop the legislature of any country > from adding the principles of the "code of conduct" to the national laws. > > But even if this doesn't happen in any single country, even if following > the > "code of conduct" remains, from a legal perspective, entirely voluntary, I > would expect that the document could still have a very significant > practical > impact. > > Just like many of IETF's RFCs have very significant practical impact even > without them having been formally adopted by any national legislature, or > even by any standardization organization with the kind of formal > international recognition that e.g. ISO has. And there's definitely to > "internet police" to enforce the RFCs. > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Jan 31 15:11:04 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:11:04 +1200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?http=3A//thelede=2Eblogs=2Enytime?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?s=2Ecom/2011/01/31/latest-updates-on-day-7-of-protests-in-?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?egypt/=3Fhp?= In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109189@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0336109189@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Interesting Article: Source: http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=47211&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&utm_campaign=DailyNews310110asegyptbeginsto&utm_medium=email&utm_source=TTV-Daily-News-Alert As Egypt begins to reinstate mobile services, Mubarak wants his mummy Posted By TelecomTV One, 31 January 2011 | 0 Comments| (0) Tags: *Internet * *mobile * * Politics * *Technology * Mobile comms services in Egypt are slowly returning to some sort of normality this morning after being shut down on Friday either on the orders of, or because of direct technical intervention by, the beleaguered Mubarak administration. Whether this is because the regime is on the point of collapse or is now more confident in its ability to survive is not yet clear and remains to be seen. Martyn Warwick reports. The situation in Egypt is being monitored closely by Renesys, an internet security firm headquartered in Manchester, New Hampshire, in the US. The company's co-founder and CTO, Jim Cowie, says Egypt has been able to cut-off most of the links to the outside world because the Mubarak regime has ensured over the years that almost all comms networks are routed via government servers or systems. It also exercises huge control over Egypt's Internet Service Providers and is thus able, whenever it feels the need, to kill Internet access, take down wireless and wireline networks and isolate the bulk of the population from the rest of the virtual world. Jim Cowie says that at about 17h00 East Coast US time on Thursday last, (midnight in Egypt) nearly all of the routes to Egypt were simultaneously closed. He said, "Approximately 3,500 individual BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) routes were withdrawn leaving no valid paths by which the rest of the world could continue to exchange Internet traffic with Egypt's service providers." Mr. Cowie adds that such actions are "completely unprecedented" and that "the Egyptian government's actions essentially wiped their country from the global map. This is a completely different situation from the modest internet manipulation that took place in Tunisia, where specific routes were blocked, or Iran, where the internet stayed up in a rate-limited form designed to make Internet connectivity painfully slow.” Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, the 83 live routes run and managed by the Noor Group, which holds the IP addresses for the Egyptian Stock Exchange, stayed up and running even s everything else was turned-off. Meanwhile, BGPmon, a company and website devoted to the monitoring of BGP communications and analysing, on behalf of clients, what it calls "interesting" path changes says that on January 21 there were 2,903 Egyptian networks originated from 52 ISPs. By last Friday (Jan 28) that had fallen to 327 (primarily government) networks and just 26 ISPs. Over the course of a week some 88 per cent of Egyptian networks were rendered unreachable. The wholesale closing-down of BGP routes in this way means the Egyptian state must have access to and control over all international internet connections in the country as well as the actual physical locations where the connections are made to the country's national network. In a statement, BGPmon wrote,“The BGP is built into routers, so to shut off those connections the state would have to either shut off the router entirely or shut down the BGP server. This is something that they would have to do on a router-by-router basis.” And of course, even those ISP and connections not closed off are being monitored by shadowy government agencies who are ready to shut them down the instant they are deemed to have transgressed the unwritten and unfathomable parameters of a paranoid government's erratic censorship system. In essence, the simpler a country's comms topology is, and the fewer ISPs a country has, the easier it is for a regime (or a national operator) to control a nation's telecoms infrastructure. Advertisement [image: Take the Survey Now and win an iPad!] That's why, in September 2007, the military junta in Burma was so easily able to sever all access to the outside world as its citizen's protested against a hated government. Egypt's meshed networks are rather more advanced that those of Burma, but, in the face of ongoing events in Cairo, Alexandria, Luxor and Suez, Mubarak and his henchmen have demonstrated that they still have their hands on the levers of communications power. However, the uprising has serious implications for the owners of Egypt's mobile networks. Even as mobile connectivity is being partially restored, people are beginning to question the seemingly compliant and complicit relationship between the political regime and the mobile companies. Many believe they were far too quick to give in to government demands that they turn-off services. Vodafone, Mobinil and Etisalat Misr were told to block their networks in several geographical areas and quickly did so. In a statement Vodafone Egypt says the authorities have the technical ability to shut down its network, and, had that happened, it would have taken the company "much longer to restore services to customers" than if Vodafone hadn't caved-in with little demur to peremptory government demands. As for the ramifications this may have for the future, Angel Dobardziev, an Ovum analyst says, “Press reports that internet connectivity has been shut down in Egypt, and that mobile operators have been ordered to shut down services have several broad implications for the wider telecoms industry, and the Middle East in particular. At a most basic level it underlines the political risk of operating in the emerging markets for players as diverse as Vodafone, Blackberry, and Google, which has to be weighted against the undoubted growth opportunity." He continues, “More importantly, it is clear that the growth of mobile and internet services, while bringing massive productivity and social benefits to the region, has also brought a whole new level of social connectness, openness, information access, and aspiration. Particularly in the younger generation that goes against the more conservative and authoritarian tradition that has been the norm hitherto. In this context, the telecoms boom in the region accelerated the clash between tradition and modernity, the open versus closed society, which we are now witnessing in the Middle East, and other places and which regimes are trying to contain." Dobardziev concludes, "The genie is out of the bottle, and while some regimes may try, there is no way of reversing the impact communications have made on the emerging markets and their people. But as events in Egypt show, the road ahead may be rocky for all, including telcos and the people they serve.” Meanwhile rich Egyptians have been leaving the country as quickly and as quietly as they can. Over the weekend at least 19 private/corporate jets flew off with people and their bags of money. It seems most were headed for Dubai. Last week Bloomberg interviewed Naguib Sawiris, the billionaire executive chairman of the mobile operator Orascom. Asked if he planned to flee the unrest, he said, "I am an Egyptian from top to bottom. I would never leave this country whatever happens. Unless there is a fundamentalist terrorist regime, I would never leave." That's as maybe, but it is reported that his family fled the country by private jet over the weekend, heading for an undisclosed destination. It is not known if Mr. Sawiris is still in Egypt. And, as the unrest continues, the ratings agency Moody's has cut its debt rating for Egypt, downgrading it from Ba1 to Ba2. On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Note that even with telecoms and net shutdown quite a bit of info is > getting out of Egypt, albeit with time delay in some cases. > > This NYT blog is pretty good: > > > http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/latest-updates-on-day-7-of-protests-in-egypt/?hp > > My 'information policy' classes today and tomorrow will simulate - Thursday > in Egypt; I'll let you know what the MS students conclude. > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t