From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sun Jul 31 18:06:19 2011 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 00:06:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <29270629.63268.1312149979267.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d22> Dear Renate Many thanks for your message and its useful information. I only regret that in the course of the WSIS follow-up process CS is becoming more and more "evanescent" or at least less visible. This is detrimental to any kind of progress especially in the field of development. I'd just remind you the Forum 2011 "high level"session intitled  "ICTs as an Enabler for Development of LDCs". The presentaion by the ITU and the contributions of the "high level" speakers" was simply pathetic, and their references quite questionable ! The 4th LDCs Summit in Istanbul didn't even mention ICTs as its main goals or tools in its debates and in its outcome documents ! LDCs needn't an advertizing campaign for Intel, M$, Cisco and consorts under the umbrella of the ITU, Unesco and UNDP, but applications they can afford and that are useful for first survive and second develop, following their own model and culture. And CS present in the room wasn't able to impose this fundamental idea, rather asking conventional questions -although some unconfortable ones- instead of questioning the market-driven and ICT focused approach of the "high level" speakers. I do hope that during the 2012 WSIS Forum, we won't once again listen to this neoliberal discourse in complete inadequacy with the actual issues faced by LDCs. Instead, CS must be able to impose a programme implementing ICTs in a holistic vision, considering actually vital priorities such as water, sanitation and electricity,and to implement telecoms and ICTs in a way directly linked to the needs of the population and the countries concerned, according to our Declarations in Geneva and Tunis. CONGO would be very useful for convening again CS plenaries that discuss these issues and raise other good questions to ask the "high level speakers". Only then can CS address the core issues and propose solutions for a better future for all DCs, especially for the most fragile ones : the LDCs. Let me just raise a final point before ending this mail. The Horn of Africa is home to an unprecedented and unbearable famine with thousands of human beings dying every day. The FAO is unable to collect 2 billion dollars for helping the population concerned to get at least basic food for them. But in Kigali in 2007, the "Connect Africa Summit" collected 55 Billions for adding mobile networks to the existing ones just for the sake of competition, the buzz of ITU and its "high level" WSIS speakers ! And Kenya who happened to find more than 100 Million dollars (more than 20 Million coming from the governement) for laying a third submarine cable from Mombasa to the Emirates two years ago (to date it is quasi empty) and earned the admiration of the WSIS attendance. But at the same time this country is still unable so give a minimum living standard to the million people crammed in "one of the largest slums in the world" (Amnesty International) at the outskirts of its capital. How long can CS involved in the WSIS be witnessing such criminal situations (yes : criminal because scarce public resources are diverted from vital purposes to ideological ones) without shouting to the UN Agencies and their sponsors from the "ICT sector" : Stop ! Enough is enough ! You see, dear Renate, there is a big job ahead and it is highest time. Friendly yours Jean-Louis fullsack CSDPTT, France     Message du 28/07/11 12:57 > De : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Jean-Louis FULLSACK'" , "'Philippe Blanchard'" > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > Dear Philippe and Jean-Louis,   Let me first thank Philippe for his kind words and his report. Just to add: South Africa, on behalf of India and Brazil, made a strong statement in calling for an intergovernmental mechanism for enhanced cooperation, separate from but in close cooperation with the IGF.   Otherwise ECOSOC adopted without vote all the decisions from its subsidiary body the CSTD, including “Participation on non-governmental organizations and civil society entities not accredited to WSIS in the work of CSTD”, taking down the last barrier for participation in the Commission.   However, participation in ECOSOC itself is still restricted to ECOSOC NGOs. But these 4 week long substantive sessions in July, alternating between NY and Geneva, are seen by many NGOs/CSOs just as rubberstamping exercises, apart from the High level segment at the beginning, and therefore not worth their attendance (I have a slightly different opinion) , except for Geneva or NY based entities for sections of their interest. Jean Louis, this may explain the low attendance of CSOs. But the relative high attendance of Governments at least indicates interest in the issues. NGOs are invited and can also take the floor on any item.   Best Renate            From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Sent: jeudi, 28. juillet 2011 10:45 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Philippe Blanchard > Subject: re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations   Dear members of the list > > > Philippe wrote : > < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).> > > I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence > < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.> > > Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a "biased attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I would like to know is how many true CS delegates attended these meetings and which organisatiions they represented. Additionnally it'd be interesting to know how DCs were represented in these meetings : governement, regional orgs, CS and private sector. > > Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could provide us these data. Many thanks in advance. > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT  >      > >    > > > > > > Message du 27/07/11 10:11 > > De : "Philippe Blanchard" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" > > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > > > Dear All, > > > > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. > > Kind regards, > > Philippe > > > > > > > > Data > > > > Author : Philippe Blanchard > > > > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on information society » and « internet governance forum » > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Referential documents > > > > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet activity related reports : > > > > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) > > > > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Points of interest > > > > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. > > > > > > > > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy,…) and the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing…) and on some risks (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no mention of key elements such as “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction”… I fear those elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be addressed once the e-governance principles have been set. > > > > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed in a co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential process. > > > > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. > > > > > > > > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce). > > > > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on his report. (seidler at isoc.org) > > > > > > > > > > > > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the fact it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being struck in some diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). > > > > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and e-life. Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global facility” from a State representative (Venezuela, I think) > > > > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” also appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. > > > > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the Working group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a “official platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or not. This platform would support more effectively the developing countries actions and would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Points of interest (cont’d) > > > > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably my “If you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). > > > > > > > > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I wasn’t listening carefully enough. > > > > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the political and economical stakes… but it is core. > > > > > > > > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conclusion > > > > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting room was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more politically sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign. > > > > > > > > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: > > > > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to spend 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 for a meeting starting at 10:00. > > > > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she brought challenging food for thought. > > > > > > > > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > > > Hi Philippe, > > > > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late > > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 > > Best > > Renate > > > > Renate Bloem > > Main Representative > > Civicus UN Geneva > > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > > Mobile : +41763462310 > > renate.bloem at civicus.org > > renate.bloem at gmail.com > > skype: Renate.Bloem > > > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > > www.civicus.org > > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society > > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) > > > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > > Of Philippe Blanchard > > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC > > > > Dear Roland > > > > thank you for the follow-up. > > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make > > it. > > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome > > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is > > not !!! > > > > I will follow the outcomes through the net. > > > > Kind regards, > > Philippe > > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on > > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > > > > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? > > > > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. > > > > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 > > > > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. > > > > > creditation.pdf> > > > > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still > > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. > > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. > > > > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf > > -- > > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 31 23:39:27 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:39:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4E361FEF.3070508@ciroap.org> On 01/08/11 00:31, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Just to complement and make my previous message more clear, what > Brazil has successfully advanced (after difficult diplomatic > negotiations with US and Iran) was a request for CSTD Secretariat to > make a list of CS organizations that wish to participate in CSTD, but > do not have accreditation with WSIS (text of the resolution quoted > below). In the meantime, the current unequal arrangement was extended > until 2015. > > In order to make sure that the list will indeed be made and in order > to ensure that the process of making the list will be transparent, CS > needs to act. What should CS do? The Dynamic Working Coalition for Internet Governance Mapping, of which I am a part, is about to launch a survey of civil society organisations to ascertain their interest in participating in bodies such as the CSTD that are currently closed to them. The outcome of this survey will be able to be used as an input for the CSTD Secretariat's list. Is there a deadline for the preparation of the list? -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jul 1 03:35:55 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:35:55 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody, I encourage senior members of the IGC to apply for the position of the IGF Executive Secretary (ES). Here are some first quick observations: 1. there is no mentoning of the MAG. The formulation is, that the ES "directs and manages the organization of meetings, seminars, etc., of the IGF and related advisory bodies and stakeholder networks." Interesting to see how those "advisory bodies" (plural!!!) and "stakeholder networks" (not "multistakeholder" networks) will be constituted and which role they will play. 2. the previous role of the "Chair of the MAG" (which was Nitin Desai) is abolished. The ES is at the same time also the adviser to the USG (Sha) and the Special Adviser on Internet Governance to the UN Secretary General, a position which had Nitin from 2002 to 2010. 3. the previous "independence" of the Geneva Secretariat is very limited now and the ES has strong obligations in reporting back to NY and even to write statements for Mr. Sha. 4. Milton will be probably not amused that they use the terminology "Internet Governance Project" in the call. Milton, isn´t this a nice new trademark case? Deeper analysis will produce more questions, I am sure. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Fouad Bajwa Gesendet: Do 30.06.2011 22:24 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations Dear all, This would be of interest to while at the same time it would be useful to forward the following link to potential people that may be interested in the position for Executive Coordinator of the IGF. The vacancy announcement for the post of Executive Coordinator has been posted in Inspira the UN Careers website: https://inspira.un.org/psc/UNCAREERS/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=19922 Closing date is 28 July 2011. United Nations Careers Job Opening Job Title: Executive Coordinator, D2 Department/ Office: DESA PROJECT PERSONNEL - SWITZERLAND, GENEVA Duty Station: GENEVA Posting Period: 28 June 2011-28 July 2011 Job Opening number: 11-PGM-desa pps swi geneva-19922-R-GENEVA United Nations Core Values: Integrity, Professionalism, Respect for Diversity Return to Previous Page Org. Setting and Reporting This position is located in the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The Executive Coordinator will be under the general guidance of the Director of the Division for Public Administration and Development Management in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DPADM/DESA) and the direct supervision of the Chief of the e-Government Branch, DPADM/DESA. Responsibilities Within delegated authority, formulates and implements the substantive work programme of the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Oversees the management of activities undertaken by the Secretariat, ensures that programmed activities are carried out in a timely fashion and co-ordinates efforts with the Division and Department, and with other organizations of the United Nations system, as appropriate. * Directs and manages the Internet Governance Project of the United Nations. * Contributes to the formulation of overall strategies and policies for the IGF by participating in various committees, preparing documents on policy issues, and acting, as required, in an advisory capacity to the USG/ASG and Special Adviser of the Secretary-General for Internet Governance. * Provides leadership in the development of innovative activities with a view to enhancing the participation of developing countries in the IGF and its preparatory meetings, exploring further voluntary options for financing the Forum and improving the modalities of the preparation process and the work and functioning of the IGF Secretariat. * Formulates and implements the work programme of the Internet Governance Project determining priorities and allocating resources for the completion of outputs and their timely delivery. * Directs and manages the organization of meetings, seminars, etc., of the IGF and related advisory bodies and stakeholder networks. * Represents the IGF Secretariat at international, regional or national meetings and provides programmatic and substantive expertise on the IGF. * Prepares draft reports of the Secretary-General on the IGF and related matters, as appropriate, and prepares draft papers, briefing notes, statements and other materials for the Under-Secretary-General of UNDESA and other senior officials. * Leads, supervises and carries out the work programme of the IGF Secretariat including preparation of budgets, reporting on budget and programme performance, evaluation of staff performance (PAS), interviews of candidates for job openings, evaluation of candidates and preparation of inputs for results-based budgeting. * Ensures that the outputs produced by the IGF Secretariat meet high-quality standards; that reports are clear, objective and based on comprehensive data, and that all outputs produced under his/her supervision comply with the relevant mandates. * Develops fundraising strategies, organizes and leads fundraising efforts. Work implies frequent interaction with the following Senior officials and other staff within the UN Secretariat and other UN offices, funds, programmes and specialized agencies; senior governmental representatives including ministers and heads of diplomatic mission; representatives of non-governmental organizations, private sector executives. Results expected Produces high-quality outputs pertaining to all aspects of the IGF. Effectively mobilizes human and financial resources and efficiently manages them to ensure the timely delivery of programmed outputs. Reports are clear and focused on the issue at hand and the meetings or seminars are well-organized meetings or seminars and address the topics covered in a comprehensive manner. Effectively develops staff under his/her supervision, including their ongoing learning and development. Effectively assists, guides and supports staff in meeting their objectives and preparing high-quality outputs. Competencies Competencies * Professionalism: Expert knowledge of the principles, commitments and actions taken in connection with the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in particular with Internet governance issues at international, regional and national levels and with questions of ICT for development. Knowledge of participatory processes and inter-organizational collaboration, specifically in relation to Internet governance issues and ICT for development. Proven ability to interact productively with high-level government and diplomatic officials, private sector companies and civil society, and to facilitate dialogue among a wide range of stakeholders from all segments of society. Proven ability to produce high-quality reports and papers on technical issues and to review and edit the work of others. Ability to apply UN rules, regulations, policies and guidelines in work situations. Shows pride in work and in achievements; demonstrates professional competence and mastery of subject matter; is conscientious and efficient in meeting commitments, observing deadlines and achieving results; is motivated by professional rather than personal concerns; shows persistence when faced with difficult problems or challenges; remains calm in stressful situations. * Communication: Speaks and writes clearly and effectively; listens to others, correctly interprets messages from others and responds appropriately; asks questions to clarify, and exhibits interest in having two-way communication; tailors language, tone, style and format to match audience; demonstrates openness in sharing information and keeping people informed. * Accountability: Takes ownership of all responsibilities and honours commitments; delivers outputs within prescribed time, cost and quality standards; operates in compliance with organizational regulations and rules; supports subordinates, provides oversight and takes responsibility for delegated assignments; takes personal responsibility for his/her own shortcomings and those of the work unit, where applicable. * Planning and organizing: Develops clear goals that are consistent with agreed strategies; identifies priority activities and assignments; adjusts priorities as required; allocates appropriate amount of time and resources for completing work; foresees risks and allows for contingencies when planning; monitors and adjusts plans and actions as necessary; uses time efficiently. * Technological awareness: Keeps abreast of available technology; understands applicability and limitation of technology to the work of the office; actively seeks to apply technology to appropriate tasks; shows willingness to learn new technology. Managerial abilities * Leadership: Serves as a role model that other people want to follow: empowers others to translate vision into results; is proactive in developing strategies to accomplish objectives; establishes and maintains relationships with a broad range of people to understand needs and gain support; anticipates and resolves conflicts by pursuing mutually agreeable solutions; drives for change and improvements; does not accept the status quo; shows the courage to take unpopular stands. Provides leadership and takes responsibility for incorporating gender perspectives and ensuring the equal participation of women and men in all areas of work; demonstrates knowledge of strategies and commitment to the goal of gender balance in staffing. * Managing performance: Delegates the appropriate responsibility, accountability and decision-making authority; makes sure that roles, responsibilities and reporting lines are clear to each staff member; accurately judges the amount of time and resources needed to accomplish a task and matches task to skills; monitors progress against milestones and deadlines; regularly discusses performance and provides feedback and coaching to staff; encourages risk-taking and supports creativity and initiative; actively supports the development and career aspirations of staff; appraises performance fairly. * Judgement and decision-making: Identifies the key issues in a complex situation, and comes to the heart of the problem quickly; gathers relevant information before making a decision; considers positive and negative impacts of decisions prior to making them; takes decisions with an eye to the impact on others and on the Organization; proposes a course of action or makes a recommendation based on all available information; checks assumptions against facts; determines that the actions proposed will satisfy the expressed and underlying needs for the decision; makes tough decisions when necessary. Education Advanced university degree (Master's degree or equivalent) in economics, international development, public administration, law, social sciences or related area. A first-level university degree in combination with qualifying experience may be accepted in lieu of the advanced university degree. Work Experience Over fifteen years of progressively responsible experience in international diplomacy, information and communications and technology policy, public administration or related field. Familiarization with issues related to Internet Governance that have been discussed at international, regional and national levels since 2005 is desirable. Languages English and French are the working languages of the United Nations Secretariat. For this post, fluency in oral and written English is required. Knowledge of another official United Nations language is desirable. United Nations Considerations The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs. (Charter of the United Nations - Chapter 3, article 8). The United Nations Secretariat is a non-smoking environment. Assessment Method An assessment and competency based interview may be conducted as part of the recruitment process for this position. Special Notice Extension of the appointment is subject to the availability of the funds. No Fee THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION ON APPLICANTS' BANK ACCOUNTS. -- 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 jpohle at vub.ac.be Fri Jul 1 04:49:51 2011 From: jpohle at vub.ac.be (Julia Pohle) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:49:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reminder: Call For Papers. Annual Symposium Global Internet Governance Academic Network (Giganet), Nairobi, Pre-IGF Symposium Message-ID: <4E0D8A2F.40208@vub.ac.be> *GIGANET* Global Internet Governance Academic Network in co-operation with Research ICT Africa *CALL FOR PAPERS* Sixth Annual Symposium 26 September 2011 Nairobi, Kenya The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GIGANET), in co-operation with the Research ICT Africa (RIA), is seeking submissions of research about Internet Governance to be presented at the Sixth GigaNet Annual Symposium, held on 26 September 2011, one day before the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Nairobi, Kenya. Since 2006, GigaNet has organized an Annual Symposium to showcase research about Internet Governance, focusing on an interdisciplinary approach. Prior successful symposia took place in Greece (2006), Brazil (2007), India (2008), Egypt (2009) and Lithuania (2010). In 2011, the Internet Governance Forum has entered its second phase, after having reached the end of its first 5-years mandate. This year’s event will provide room to discuss the challenges encountered and results achieved during the first five years of IGF. As in previous years the GigaNet Symposium will further discuss current and future questions of Global Internet Governance. *Organizers * *GigaNet*is a scholarly community that promotes the development of Internet Governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study and facilitates informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters between scholars and governments, international organizations, the private sector and civil society. http://giga-net.org/ *Research ICT Africa*is a network of researchers in 20 African countries conducting research on ICT policy and regulation and facilitating evidence-based and informed policy making for improved access, use and application of ICT for social development and economic growth.http://www.researchictafrica.net/ *Symposium Themes * GigaNet is interested in receiving abstracts related to Internet Governance themes, especially those containing innovative approaches and/or emerging research areas. We encourage submissions on the following topics: §The first 5 years of the IGF: Taking stock and the way forward §Developing countries perspectives on internet governance §New approaches to theorizing internet governance §Between global and local: the question of territory in internet governance §Freedom of Expression / Right to Information §New approaches to Human Rights on the Internet §Internet governance and political uprising §International relations and cyber-security §Online privacy and dataveillance §Cloud Governance Other proposals on more general questions of Global Internet Governance will also be considered. *Submissions * Interested scholars should submit abstracts of research paper not later 15 July 2011, through Easy Chair platform at: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=giganet2011. Paper proposals should be submitted following theses requirements: §An abstract of 800-1000 words, in English, where it is mandatory to describe the main research goal(s) and the methodological background of the paper §A one-page curriculum vitae focused on institutional affiliations, advanced degrees, scholarly publications and work in the field of Internet Governance and related issues (for example ICTs). *Evaluation Process * The Program Committee members will evaluate the abstracts submitted and decisions will be sent to applicants by email on August 1^st . Accepted papers for oral presentations should be followed by a full research paper, to be sent by September 15^th . Some quality papers submitted that are not accepted for oral presentations will be recommended for poster presentations. Accepted speakers and poster presenters’ submissions and final papers will be published on the GigaNet website. *Registration process * The GigaNet Annual Symposium is free of charge. However, a registration process will be required close to the event. Please continue visiting our website for further information about registration, venue and accommodation. *Financial Assistance * One outstanding accepted paper by an African researcher may be awarded financial support by the Research ICT Africa. This support includes a travel grant up to US $ 1.000,00 to facilitate the participation of (emerging) African scholars who otherwise would not be able to attend. If available, information regarding additional scholarship options will be available following notification of acceptance. *GigaNet 2011 Program Committee * §Leo Van Audenhove – PC Chair, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium §Roy Balleste – St. Thomas University, Miami, USA §William Drake - University of Zurich, Switzerland §Dmitry Epstein – Cornell University, USA §Marianne Franklin – Goldsmiths University London, UK §Raquel Gatto – Catholic University of São Paulo, Brazil §Alison Gillwald – Director Research ICT Africa §Nanette Levinson – American University, USA §Milton Mueller – Syracuse University, USA §Rolf H. Weber – University of Zurich, Switzerland *Schedule Summary * *July 15^th *: abstract submission deadline *August 1^st *: notification of acceptance *September 15^th *: submission deadline for complete papers *September 26^th *: Sixth Annual GigaNet Symposium If you have any question related to the submission or the symposium activities, please e-mail the Program Committee Chair: leo.van.audenhove at vub.ac.be ________________________________________________________________________ *Prof. dr. Leo Van Audenhove* SMIT, Studies on Media, Information and Telecommunication IBBT, Interdisciplinary institute for BroadBand Technology Vakgroep Communicatiewetenschap Vrije Universiteit Brussel | Pleinlaan 2 | 1050 Brussel | Belgium M: +32/479/75 32 36 | F: +32/2/629 28 61 E: Leo.Van.Audenhove at vub.ac.be http://www.vub.ac.be| http://smit.vub.ac.be| http://www.ibbt.be Program Director Master of Communication Studies - New Media and Society in Europe http://www.vub.ac.be/communicationstudies/ ________________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani at isd-rc.org Fri Jul 1 09:32:15 2011 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 18:32:15 +0500 Subject: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello Everyone, Yes, I support Wolfgang, idea that we should encourage senior members of the IGC to apply for the position of the Executive Coordinator, at IGF, Thanks for Fouad for sharing this news, I think Fouad, should apply we support. Thanks & Regards to all Friends at IGC Kabani 2011/7/1 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi everybody, > > I encourage senior members of the IGC to apply for the position of the IGF > Executive Secretary (ES). > > Here are some first quick observations: > > 1. there is no mentoning of the MAG. The formulation is, that the ES > "directs and manages the organization of meetings, seminars, etc., of the > IGF and related advisory bodies and stakeholder networks." Interesting to > see how those "advisory bodies" (plural!!!) and "stakeholder networks" (not > "multistakeholder" networks) will be constituted and which role they will > play. > > 2. the previous role of the "Chair of the MAG" (which was Nitin Desai) is > abolished. The ES is at the same time also the adviser to the USG (Sha) and > the Special Adviser on Internet Governance to the UN Secretary General, a > position which had Nitin from 2002 to 2010. > > 3. the previous "independence" of the Geneva Secretariat is very limited > now and the ES has strong obligations in reporting back to NY and even to > write statements for Mr. Sha. > > 4. Milton will be probably not amused that they use the terminology > "Internet Governance Project" in the call. Milton, isn´t this a nice new > trademark case? > > Deeper analysis will produce more questions, I am sure. > > Best regards > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Fouad Bajwa > Gesendet: Do 30.06.2011 22:24 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF > Secretariat advertised by the United Nations > > > > Dear all, > > This would be of interest to while at the same time it would be useful > to forward the following link to potential people that may be > interested in the position for Executive Coordinator of the IGF. > > The vacancy announcement for the post of Executive Coordinator has > been posted in Inspira the UN Careers website: > > > https://inspira.un.org/psc/UNCAREERS/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=19922 > > Closing date is 28 July 2011. > > United Nations Careers > > Job Opening > > Job Title: > Executive Coordinator, D2 > Department/ Office: > DESA PROJECT PERSONNEL - SWITZERLAND, GENEVA > Duty Station: GENEVA > Posting Period: > 28 June 2011-28 July 2011 > Job Opening number: > 11-PGM-desa pps swi geneva-19922-R-GENEVA > United Nations Core Values: Integrity, Professionalism, Respect for > Diversity > > Return to Previous Page > > Org. Setting and Reporting > > This position is located in the Secretariat of the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF). The Executive Coordinator will be under the general > guidance of the Director of the Division for Public Administration and > Development Management in the Department of Economic and Social > Affairs (DPADM/DESA) and the direct supervision of the Chief of the > e-Government Branch, DPADM/DESA. > > Responsibilities > > Within delegated authority, formulates and implements the substantive > work programme of the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF). Oversees the management of activities undertaken by the > Secretariat, ensures that programmed activities are carried out in a > timely fashion and co-ordinates efforts with the Division and > Department, and with other organizations of the United Nations system, > as appropriate. > > * Directs and manages the Internet Governance Project of the United > Nations. > * Contributes to the formulation of overall strategies and policies > for the IGF by participating in various committees, preparing > documents on policy issues, and acting, as required, in an advisory > capacity to the USG/ASG and Special Adviser of the Secretary-General > for Internet Governance. > * Provides leadership in the development of innovative activities > with > a view to enhancing the participation of developing countries in the > IGF and its preparatory meetings, exploring further voluntary options > for financing the Forum and improving the modalities of the > preparation process and the work and functioning of the IGF > Secretariat. > * Formulates and implements the work programme of the Internet > Governance Project determining priorities and allocating resources for > the completion of outputs and their timely delivery. > * Directs and manages the organization of meetings, seminars, etc., > of > the IGF and related advisory bodies and stakeholder networks. > * Represents the IGF Secretariat at international, regional or > national meetings and provides programmatic and substantive expertise > on the IGF. > * Prepares draft reports of the Secretary-General on the IGF and > related matters, as appropriate, and prepares draft papers, briefing > notes, statements and other materials for the Under-Secretary-General > of UNDESA and other senior officials. > * Leads, supervises and carries out the work programme of the IGF > Secretariat including preparation of budgets, reporting on budget and > programme performance, evaluation of staff performance (PAS), > interviews of candidates for job openings, evaluation of candidates > and preparation of inputs for results-based budgeting. > * Ensures that the outputs produced by the IGF Secretariat meet > high-quality standards; that reports are clear, objective and based on > comprehensive data, and that all outputs produced under his/her > supervision comply with the relevant mandates. > * Develops fundraising strategies, organizes and leads fundraising > efforts. > > Work implies frequent interaction with the following > > Senior officials and other staff within the UN Secretariat and other > UN offices, funds, programmes and specialized agencies; senior > governmental representatives including ministers and heads of > diplomatic mission; representatives of non-governmental organizations, > private sector executives. > > Results expected > > Produces high-quality outputs pertaining to all aspects of the IGF. > Effectively mobilizes human and financial resources and efficiently > manages them to ensure the timely delivery of programmed outputs. > Reports are clear and focused on the issue at hand and the meetings or > seminars are well-organized meetings or seminars and address the > topics covered in a comprehensive manner. Effectively develops staff > under his/her supervision, including their ongoing learning and > development. Effectively assists, guides and supports staff in meeting > their objectives and preparing high-quality outputs. > > Competencies > > Competencies > > * Professionalism: Expert knowledge of the principles, commitments > and > actions taken in connection with the outcomes of the World Summit on > the Information Society, in particular with Internet governance issues > at international, regional and national levels and with questions of > ICT for development. Knowledge of participatory processes and > inter-organizational collaboration, specifically in relation to > Internet governance issues and ICT for development. Proven ability to > interact productively with high-level government and diplomatic > officials, private sector companies and civil society, and to > facilitate dialogue among a wide range of stakeholders from all > segments of society. Proven ability to produce high-quality reports > and papers on technical issues and to review and edit the work of > others. Ability to apply UN rules, regulations, policies and > guidelines in work situations. Shows pride in work and in > achievements; demonstrates professional competence and mastery of > subject matter; is conscientious and efficient in meeting commitments, > observing deadlines and achieving results; is motivated by > professional rather than personal concerns; shows persistence when > faced with difficult problems or challenges; remains calm in stressful > situations. > > * Communication: Speaks and writes clearly and effectively; listens > to > others, correctly interprets messages from others and responds > appropriately; asks questions to clarify, and exhibits interest in > having two-way communication; tailors language, tone, style and format > to match audience; demonstrates openness in sharing information and > keeping people informed. > > * Accountability: Takes ownership of all responsibilities and honours > commitments; delivers outputs within prescribed time, cost and quality > standards; operates in compliance with organizational regulations and > rules; supports subordinates, provides oversight and takes > responsibility for delegated assignments; takes personal > responsibility for his/her own shortcomings and those of the work > unit, where applicable. > > * Planning and organizing: Develops clear goals that are consistent > with agreed strategies; identifies priority activities and > assignments; adjusts priorities as required; allocates appropriate > amount of time and resources for completing work; foresees risks and > allows for contingencies when planning; monitors and adjusts plans and > actions as necessary; uses time efficiently. > > * Technological awareness: Keeps abreast of available technology; > understands applicability and limitation of technology to the work of > the office; actively seeks to apply technology to appropriate tasks; > shows willingness to learn new technology. > > Managerial abilities > > * Leadership: Serves as a role model that other people want to > follow: > empowers others to translate vision into results; is proactive in > developing strategies to accomplish objectives; establishes and > maintains relationships with a broad range of people to understand > needs and gain support; anticipates and resolves conflicts by pursuing > mutually agreeable solutions; drives for change and improvements; does > not accept the status quo; shows the courage to take unpopular stands. > Provides leadership and takes responsibility for incorporating gender > perspectives and ensuring the equal participation of women and men in > all areas of work; demonstrates knowledge of strategies and commitment > to the goal of gender balance in staffing. > > * Managing performance: Delegates the appropriate responsibility, > accountability and decision-making authority; makes sure that roles, > responsibilities and reporting lines are clear to each staff member; > accurately judges the amount of time and resources needed to > accomplish a task and matches task to skills; monitors progress > against milestones and deadlines; regularly discusses performance and > provides feedback and coaching to staff; encourages risk-taking and > supports creativity and initiative; actively supports the development > and career aspirations of staff; appraises performance fairly. > > * Judgement and decision-making: Identifies the key issues in a > complex situation, and > comes to the heart of the problem quickly; gathers relevant > information before making a decision; considers positive and negative > impacts of decisions prior to making them; takes decisions with an eye > to the impact on others and on the Organization; proposes a course of > action or makes a recommendation based on all available information; > checks assumptions against facts; determines that the actions proposed > will satisfy the expressed and underlying needs for the decision; > makes tough decisions when necessary. > > Education > > Advanced university degree (Master's degree or equivalent) in > economics, international development, public administration, law, > social sciences or related area. A first-level university degree in > combination with qualifying experience may be accepted in lieu of the > advanced university degree. > > Work Experience > > Over fifteen years of progressively responsible experience in > international diplomacy, information and communications and technology > policy, public administration or related field. Familiarization with > issues related to Internet Governance that have been discussed at > international, regional and national levels since 2005 is desirable. > > Languages > > English and French are the working languages of the United Nations > Secretariat. For this post, fluency in oral and written English is > required. Knowledge of another official United Nations language is > desirable. > > United Nations Considerations > > The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of > men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of > equality in its principal and subsidiary organs. (Charter of the > United Nations - Chapter 3, article 8). The United Nations Secretariat > is a non-smoking environment. > > Assessment Method > > An assessment and competency based interview may be conducted as part > of the recruitment process for this position. > > Special Notice > > Extension of the appointment is subject to the availability of the funds. > > No Fee > > THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE > RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR > TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION > ON APPLICANTS' BANK ACCOUNTS. > > > -- > 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 > > > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Jul 2 03:23:41 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:23:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement Message-ID: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> IGC CS Members, Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN's Board resolution # 20 of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc). Reference context is the abstract from ICANN's following Resolution (#20) of Nairobi Meeting: "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs." Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pd f) and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were submitted from Africa. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that ".all of the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors, leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing country entrepreneurs.". Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report (Revised ver. 13 May 2011 http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11 -en.pdf), which deals with a very important issue: "How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?". The public comments period will be closed on 29th July 2011. Previous discussion thread title subject were "RE: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was." and "Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary?". This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other members. "With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN's end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched, fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic Diversity on Internet. (Imran)" . Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah Executive Member & Founder Urdu Internet Society/ Council Internet Governance of Pakistan -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary? In message < 700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria < avri at ella.com> writes >- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure. > Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD. I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75% discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jul 2 03:31:51 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 13:01:51 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4E0EC967.7060000@itforchange.net> On Friday 01 July 2011 01:05 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I encourage senior members of the IGC to apply for the position of the IGF Executive Secretary (ES). > > Here are some first quick observations: > > 1. there is no mentoning of the MAG. The formulation is, that the ES "directs and manages the organization of meetings, seminars, etc., of the IGF and related advisory bodies and stakeholder networks." Interesting to see how those "advisory bodies" (plural!!!) and "stakeholder networks" (not "multistakeholder" networks) will be constituted and which role they will play. > > 2. the previous role of the "Chair of the MAG" (which was Nitin Desai) is abolished. The ES is at the same time also the adviser to the USG (Sha) and the Special Adviser on Internet Governance to the UN Secretary General, a position which had Nitin from 2002 to 2010. I dont think this is what is meant by the para in the job posting * Contributes to the formulation of overall strategies and policies for the IGF by participating in various committees, preparing documents on policy issues, and acting, as required, in an advisory capacity to the USG/ASG and Special Adviser of the Secretary-General for Internet Governance. As per my understanding, what is meant here is that the Executive Coordinator will act in advisory capacity to the USG/ASG and to the (yet non existent) Special Advisor of the Sec General for Internet Governance. Parminder > > 3. the previous "independence" of the Geneva Secretariat is very limited now and the ES has strong obligations in reporting back to NY and even to write statements for Mr. Sha. > > 4. Milton will be probably not amused that they use the terminology "Internet Governance Project" in the call. Milton, isn´t this a nice new trademark case? > > Deeper analysis will produce more questions, I am sure. > > Best regards > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Fouad Bajwa > Gesendet: Do 30.06.2011 22:24 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations > > > > Dear all, > > This would be of interest to while at the same time it would be useful > to forward the following link to potential people that may be > interested in the position for Executive Coordinator of the IGF. > > The vacancy announcement for the post of Executive Coordinator has > been posted in Inspira the UN Careers website: > > https://inspira.un.org/psc/UNCAREERS/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=19922 > > Closing date is 28 July 2011. > > United Nations Careers > > Job Opening > > Job Title: > Executive Coordinator, D2 > Department/ Office: > DESA PROJECT PERSONNEL - SWITZERLAND, GENEVA > Duty Station: GENEVA > Posting Period: > 28 June 2011-28 July 2011 > Job Opening number: > 11-PGM-desa pps swi geneva-19922-R-GENEVA > United Nations Core Values: Integrity, Professionalism, Respect for Diversity > > Return to Previous Page > > Org. Setting and Reporting > > This position is located in the Secretariat of the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF). The Executive Coordinator will be under the general > guidance of the Director of the Division for Public Administration and > Development Management in the Department of Economic and Social > Affairs (DPADM/DESA) and the direct supervision of the Chief of the > e-Government Branch, DPADM/DESA. > > Responsibilities > > Within delegated authority, formulates and implements the substantive > work programme of the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF). Oversees the management of activities undertaken by the > Secretariat, ensures that programmed activities are carried out in a > timely fashion and co-ordinates efforts with the Division and > Department, and with other organizations of the United Nations system, > as appropriate. > > * Directs and manages the Internet Governance Project of the United Nations. > * Contributes to the formulation of overall strategies and policies > for the IGF by participating in various committees, preparing > documents on policy issues, and acting, as required, in an advisory > capacity to the USG/ASG and Special Adviser of the Secretary-General > for Internet Governance. > * Provides leadership in the development of innovative activities with > a view to enhancing the participation of developing countries in the > IGF and its preparatory meetings, exploring further voluntary options > for financing the Forum and improving the modalities of the > preparation process and the work and functioning of the IGF > Secretariat. > * Formulates and implements the work programme of the Internet > Governance Project determining priorities and allocating resources for > the completion of outputs and their timely delivery. > * Directs and manages the organization of meetings, seminars, etc., of > the IGF and related advisory bodies and stakeholder networks. > * Represents the IGF Secretariat at international, regional or > national meetings and provides programmatic and substantive expertise > on the IGF. > * Prepares draft reports of the Secretary-General on the IGF and > related matters, as appropriate, and prepares draft papers, briefing > notes, statements and other materials for the Under-Secretary-General > of UNDESA and other senior officials. > * Leads, supervises and carries out the work programme of the IGF > Secretariat including preparation of budgets, reporting on budget and > programme performance, evaluation of staff performance (PAS), > interviews of candidates for job openings, evaluation of candidates > and preparation of inputs for results-based budgeting. > * Ensures that the outputs produced by the IGF Secretariat meet > high-quality standards; that reports are clear, objective and based on > comprehensive data, and that all outputs produced under his/her > supervision comply with the relevant mandates. > * Develops fundraising strategies, organizes and leads fundraising efforts. > > Work implies frequent interaction with the following > > Senior officials and other staff within the UN Secretariat and other > UN offices, funds, programmes and specialized agencies; senior > governmental representatives including ministers and heads of > diplomatic mission; representatives of non-governmental organizations, > private sector executives. > > Results expected > > Produces high-quality outputs pertaining to all aspects of the IGF. > Effectively mobilizes human and financial resources and efficiently > manages them to ensure the timely delivery of programmed outputs. > Reports are clear and focused on the issue at hand and the meetings or > seminars are well-organized meetings or seminars and address the > topics covered in a comprehensive manner. Effectively develops staff > under his/her supervision, including their ongoing learning and > development. Effectively assists, guides and supports staff in meeting > their objectives and preparing high-quality outputs. > > Competencies > > Competencies > > * Professionalism: Expert knowledge of the principles, commitments and > actions taken in connection with the outcomes of the World Summit on > the Information Society, in particular with Internet governance issues > at international, regional and national levels and with questions of > ICT for development. Knowledge of participatory processes and > inter-organizational collaboration, specifically in relation to > Internet governance issues and ICT for development. Proven ability to > interact productively with high-level government and diplomatic > officials, private sector companies and civil society, and to > facilitate dialogue among a wide range of stakeholders from all > segments of society. Proven ability to produce high-quality reports > and papers on technical issues and to review and edit the work of > others. Ability to apply UN rules, regulations, policies and > guidelines in work situations. Shows pride in work and in > achievements; demonstrates professional competence and mastery of > subject matter; is conscientious and efficient in meeting commitments, > observing deadlines and achieving results; is motivated by > professional rather than personal concerns; shows persistence when > faced with difficult problems or challenges; remains calm in stressful > situations. > > * Communication: Speaks and writes clearly and effectively; listens to > others, correctly interprets messages from others and responds > appropriately; asks questions to clarify, and exhibits interest in > having two-way communication; tailors language, tone, style and format > to match audience; demonstrates openness in sharing information and > keeping people informed. > > * Accountability: Takes ownership of all responsibilities and honours > commitments; delivers outputs within prescribed time, cost and quality > standards; operates in compliance with organizational regulations and > rules; supports subordinates, provides oversight and takes > responsibility for delegated assignments; takes personal > responsibility for his/her own shortcomings and those of the work > unit, where applicable. > > * Planning and organizing: Develops clear goals that are consistent > with agreed strategies; identifies priority activities and > assignments; adjusts priorities as required; allocates appropriate > amount of time and resources for completing work; foresees risks and > allows for contingencies when planning; monitors and adjusts plans and > actions as necessary; uses time efficiently. > > * Technological awareness: Keeps abreast of available technology; > understands applicability and limitation of technology to the work of > the office; actively seeks to apply technology to appropriate tasks; > shows willingness to learn new technology. > > Managerial abilities > > * Leadership: Serves as a role model that other people want to follow: > empowers others to translate vision into results; is proactive in > developing strategies to accomplish objectives; establishes and > maintains relationships with a broad range of people to understand > needs and gain support; anticipates and resolves conflicts by pursuing > mutually agreeable solutions; drives for change and improvements; does > not accept the status quo; shows the courage to take unpopular stands. > Provides leadership and takes responsibility for incorporating gender > perspectives and ensuring the equal participation of women and men in > all areas of work; demonstrates knowledge of strategies and commitment > to the goal of gender balance in staffing. > > * Managing performance: Delegates the appropriate responsibility, > accountability and decision-making authority; makes sure that roles, > responsibilities and reporting lines are clear to each staff member; > accurately judges the amount of time and resources needed to > accomplish a task and matches task to skills; monitors progress > against milestones and deadlines; regularly discusses performance and > provides feedback and coaching to staff; encourages risk-taking and > supports creativity and initiative; actively supports the development > and career aspirations of staff; appraises performance fairly. > > * Judgement and decision-making: Identifies the key issues in a > complex situation, and > comes to the heart of the problem quickly; gathers relevant > information before making a decision; considers positive and negative > impacts of decisions prior to making them; takes decisions with an eye > to the impact on others and on the Organization; proposes a course of > action or makes a recommendation based on all available information; > checks assumptions against facts; determines that the actions proposed > will satisfy the expressed and underlying needs for the decision; > makes tough decisions when necessary. > > Education > > Advanced university degree (Master's degree or equivalent) in > economics, international development, public administration, law, > social sciences or related area. A first-level university degree in > combination with qualifying experience may be accepted in lieu of the > advanced university degree. > > Work Experience > > Over fifteen years of progressively responsible experience in > international diplomacy, information and communications and technology > policy, public administration or related field. Familiarization with > issues related to Internet Governance that have been discussed at > international, regional and national levels since 2005 is desirable. > > Languages > > English and French are the working languages of the United Nations > Secretariat. For this post, fluency in oral and written English is > required. Knowledge of another official United Nations language is > desirable. > > United Nations Considerations > > The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of > men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of > equality in its principal and subsidiary organs. (Charter of the > United Nations - Chapter 3, article 8). The United Nations Secretariat > is a non-smoking environment. > > Assessment Method > > An assessment and competency based interview may be conducted as part > of the recruitment process for this position. > > Special Notice > > Extension of the appointment is subject to the availability of the funds. > > No Fee > > THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE > RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR > TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION > ON APPLICANTS' BANK ACCOUNTS. > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Jul 2 05:55:20 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 10:55:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang's comments are relevant and should be Fouad thank for having the presence of mind to share this information. I support this proposal as suggested by Asif, Fouad why not! SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2011/7/1 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi everybody, > > I encourage senior members of the IGC to apply for the position of the IGF > Executive Secretary (ES). > > Here are some first quick observations: > > 1. there is no mentoning of the MAG. The formulation is, that the ES > "directs and manages the organization of meetings, seminars, etc., of the > IGF and related advisory bodies and stakeholder networks." Interesting to > see how those "advisory bodies" (plural!!!) and "stakeholder networks" (not > "multistakeholder" networks) will be constituted and which role they will > play. > > 2. the previous role of the "Chair of the MAG" (which was Nitin Desai) is > abolished. The ES is at the same time also the adviser to the USG (Sha) and > the Special Adviser on Internet Governance to the UN Secretary General, a > position which had Nitin from 2002 to 2010. > > 3. the previous "independence" of the Geneva Secretariat is very limited > now and the ES has strong obligations in reporting back to NY and even to > write statements for Mr. Sha. > > 4. Milton will be probably not amused that they use the terminology > "Internet Governance Project" in the call. Milton, isn´t this a nice new > trademark case? > > Deeper analysis will produce more questions, I am sure. > > Best regards > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Fouad Bajwa > Gesendet: Do 30.06.2011 22:24 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF > Secretariat advertised by the United Nations > > > > Dear all, > > This would be of interest to while at the same time it would be useful > to forward the following link to potential people that may be > interested in the position for Executive Coordinator of the IGF. > > The vacancy announcement for the post of Executive Coordinator has > been posted in Inspira the UN Careers website: > > > https://inspira.un.org/psc/UNCAREERS/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=19922 > > Closing date is 28 July 2011. > > United Nations Careers > > Job Opening > > Job Title: > Executive Coordinator, D2 > Department/ Office: > DESA PROJECT PERSONNEL - SWITZERLAND, GENEVA > Duty Station: GENEVA > Posting Period: > 28 June 2011-28 July 2011 > Job Opening number: > 11-PGM-desa pps swi geneva-19922-R-GENEVA > United Nations Core Values: Integrity, Professionalism, Respect for > Diversity > > Return to Previous Page > > Org. Setting and Reporting > > This position is located in the Secretariat of the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF). The Executive Coordinator will be under the general > guidance of the Director of the Division for Public Administration and > Development Management in the Department of Economic and Social > Affairs (DPADM/DESA) and the direct supervision of the Chief of the > e-Government Branch, DPADM/DESA. > > Responsibilities > > Within delegated authority, formulates and implements the substantive > work programme of the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF). Oversees the management of activities undertaken by the > Secretariat, ensures that programmed activities are carried out in a > timely fashion and co-ordinates efforts with the Division and > Department, and with other organizations of the United Nations system, > as appropriate. > > * Directs and manages the Internet Governance Project of the United > Nations. > * Contributes to the formulation of overall strategies and policies > for the IGF by participating in various committees, preparing > documents on policy issues, and acting, as required, in an advisory > capacity to the USG/ASG and Special Adviser of the Secretary-General > for Internet Governance. > * Provides leadership in the development of innovative activities > with > a view to enhancing the participation of developing countries in the > IGF and its preparatory meetings, exploring further voluntary options > for financing the Forum and improving the modalities of the > preparation process and the work and functioning of the IGF > Secretariat. > * Formulates and implements the work programme of the Internet > Governance Project determining priorities and allocating resources for > the completion of outputs and their timely delivery. > * Directs and manages the organization of meetings, seminars, etc., > of > the IGF and related advisory bodies and stakeholder networks. > * Represents the IGF Secretariat at international, regional or > national meetings and provides programmatic and substantive expertise > on the IGF. > * Prepares draft reports of the Secretary-General on the IGF and > related matters, as appropriate, and prepares draft papers, briefing > notes, statements and other materials for the Under-Secretary-General > of UNDESA and other senior officials. > * Leads, supervises and carries out the work programme of the IGF > Secretariat including preparation of budgets, reporting on budget and > programme performance, evaluation of staff performance (PAS), > interviews of candidates for job openings, evaluation of candidates > and preparation of inputs for results-based budgeting. > * Ensures that the outputs produced by the IGF Secretariat meet > high-quality standards; that reports are clear, objective and based on > comprehensive data, and that all outputs produced under his/her > supervision comply with the relevant mandates. > * Develops fundraising strategies, organizes and leads fundraising > efforts. > > Work implies frequent interaction with the following > > Senior officials and other staff within the UN Secretariat and other > UN offices, funds, programmes and specialized agencies; senior > governmental representatives including ministers and heads of > diplomatic mission; representatives of non-governmental organizations, > private sector executives. > > Results expected > > Produces high-quality outputs pertaining to all aspects of the IGF. > Effectively mobilizes human and financial resources and efficiently > manages them to ensure the timely delivery of programmed outputs. > Reports are clear and focused on the issue at hand and the meetings or > seminars are well-organized meetings or seminars and address the > topics covered in a comprehensive manner. Effectively develops staff > under his/her supervision, including their ongoing learning and > development. Effectively assists, guides and supports staff in meeting > their objectives and preparing high-quality outputs. > > Competencies > > Competencies > > * Professionalism: Expert knowledge of the principles, commitments > and > actions taken in connection with the outcomes of the World Summit on > the Information Society, in particular with Internet governance issues > at international, regional and national levels and with questions of > ICT for development. Knowledge of participatory processes and > inter-organizational collaboration, specifically in relation to > Internet governance issues and ICT for development. Proven ability to > interact productively with high-level government and diplomatic > officials, private sector companies and civil society, and to > facilitate dialogue among a wide range of stakeholders from all > segments of society. Proven ability to produce high-quality reports > and papers on technical issues and to review and edit the work of > others. Ability to apply UN rules, regulations, policies and > guidelines in work situations. Shows pride in work and in > achievements; demonstrates professional competence and mastery of > subject matter; is conscientious and efficient in meeting commitments, > observing deadlines and achieving results; is motivated by > professional rather than personal concerns; shows persistence when > faced with difficult problems or challenges; remains calm in stressful > situations. > > * Communication: Speaks and writes clearly and effectively; listens > to > others, correctly interprets messages from others and responds > appropriately; asks questions to clarify, and exhibits interest in > having two-way communication; tailors language, tone, style and format > to match audience; demonstrates openness in sharing information and > keeping people informed. > > * Accountability: Takes ownership of all responsibilities and honours > commitments; delivers outputs within prescribed time, cost and quality > standards; operates in compliance with organizational regulations and > rules; supports subordinates, provides oversight and takes > responsibility for delegated assignments; takes personal > responsibility for his/her own shortcomings and those of the work > unit, where applicable. > > * Planning and organizing: Develops clear goals that are consistent > with agreed strategies; identifies priority activities and > assignments; adjusts priorities as required; allocates appropriate > amount of time and resources for completing work; foresees risks and > allows for contingencies when planning; monitors and adjusts plans and > actions as necessary; uses time efficiently. > > * Technological awareness: Keeps abreast of available technology; > understands applicability and limitation of technology to the work of > the office; actively seeks to apply technology to appropriate tasks; > shows willingness to learn new technology. > > Managerial abilities > > * Leadership: Serves as a role model that other people want to > follow: > empowers others to translate vision into results; is proactive in > developing strategies to accomplish objectives; establishes and > maintains relationships with a broad range of people to understand > needs and gain support; anticipates and resolves conflicts by pursuing > mutually agreeable solutions; drives for change and improvements; does > not accept the status quo; shows the courage to take unpopular stands. > Provides leadership and takes responsibility for incorporating gender > perspectives and ensuring the equal participation of women and men in > all areas of work; demonstrates knowledge of strategies and commitment > to the goal of gender balance in staffing. > > * Managing performance: Delegates the appropriate responsibility, > accountability and decision-making authority; makes sure that roles, > responsibilities and reporting lines are clear to each staff member; > accurately judges the amount of time and resources needed to > accomplish a task and matches task to skills; monitors progress > against milestones and deadlines; regularly discusses performance and > provides feedback and coaching to staff; encourages risk-taking and > supports creativity and initiative; actively supports the development > and career aspirations of staff; appraises performance fairly. > > * Judgement and decision-making: Identifies the key issues in a > complex situation, and > comes to the heart of the problem quickly; gathers relevant > information before making a decision; considers positive and negative > impacts of decisions prior to making them; takes decisions with an eye > to the impact on others and on the Organization; proposes a course of > action or makes a recommendation based on all available information; > checks assumptions against facts; determines that the actions proposed > will satisfy the expressed and underlying needs for the decision; > makes tough decisions when necessary. > > Education > > Advanced university degree (Master's degree or equivalent) in > economics, international development, public administration, law, > social sciences or related area. A first-level university degree in > combination with qualifying experience may be accepted in lieu of the > advanced university degree. > > Work Experience > > Over fifteen years of progressively responsible experience in > international diplomacy, information and communications and technology > policy, public administration or related field. Familiarization with > issues related to Internet Governance that have been discussed at > international, regional and national levels since 2005 is desirable. > > Languages > > English and French are the working languages of the United Nations > Secretariat. For this post, fluency in oral and written English is > required. Knowledge of another official United Nations language is > desirable. > > United Nations Considerations > > The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of > men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of > equality in its principal and subsidiary organs. (Charter of the > United Nations - Chapter 3, article 8). The United Nations Secretariat > is a non-smoking environment. > > Assessment Method > > An assessment and competency based interview may be conducted as part > of the recruitment process for this position. > > Special Notice > > Extension of the appointment is subject to the availability of the funds. > > No Fee > > THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE > RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR > TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION > ON APPLICANTS' BANK ACCOUNTS. > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jul 2 07:31:54 2011 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 07:31:54 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 1 Jul 2011, at 03:35, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I encourage senior members of the IGC to apply for the position of the IGF Executive Secretary (ES). > > Here are some first quick observations: > > 1. there is no mentoning of the MAG. The formulation is, that the ES "directs and manages the organization of meetings, seminars, etc., of the IGF and related advisory bodies and stakeholder networks." Interesting to see how those "advisory bodies" (plural!!!) and "stakeholder networks" (not "multistakeholder" networks) will be constituted and which role they will play. > > 2. the previous role of the "Chair of the MAG" (which was Nitin Desai) is abolished. The ES is at the same time also the adviser to the USG (Sha) and the Special Adviser on Internet Governance to the UN Secretary General, a position which had Nitin from 2002 to 2010. > > 3. the previous "independence" of the Geneva Secretariat is very limited now and the ES has strong obligations in reporting back to NY and even to write statements for Mr. Sha. > > 4. Milton will be probably not amused that they use the terminology "Internet Governance Project" in the call. Milton, isn´t this a nice new trademark case? > > Deeper analysis will produce more questions, I am sure. > > Best regards > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Fouad Bajwa > Gesendet: Do 30.06.2011 22:24 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations > > > > Dear all, > > This would be of interest to while at the same time it would be useful > to forward the following link to potential people that may be > interested in the position for Executive Coordinator of the IGF. > > The vacancy announcement for the post of Executive Coordinator has > been posted in Inspira the UN Careers website: > > https://inspira.un.org/psc/UNCAREERS/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=19922 > > Closing date is 28 July 2011. > > United Nations Careers > > Job Opening > > Job Title: > Executive Coordinator, D2 > Department/ Office: > DESA PROJECT PERSONNEL - SWITZERLAND, GENEVA > Duty Station: GENEVA > Posting Period: > 28 June 2011-28 July 2011 > Job Opening number: > 11-PGM-desa pps swi geneva-19922-R-GENEVA > United Nations Core Values: Integrity, Professionalism, Respect for Diversity > > Return to Previous Page > > Org. Setting and Reporting > > This position is located in the Secretariat of the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF). The Executive Coordinator will be under the general > guidance of the Director of the Division for Public Administration and > Development Management in the Department of Economic and Social > Affairs (DPADM/DESA) and the direct supervision of the Chief of the > e-Government Branch, DPADM/DESA. > > Responsibilities > > Within delegated authority, formulates and implements the substantive > work programme of the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF). Oversees the management of activities undertaken by the > Secretariat, ensures that programmed activities are carried out in a > timely fashion and co-ordinates efforts with the Division and > Department, and with other organizations of the United Nations system, > as appropriate. > > * Directs and manages the Internet Governance Project of the United Nations. > * Contributes to the formulation of overall strategies and policies > for the IGF by participating in various committees, preparing > documents on policy issues, and acting, as required, in an advisory > capacity to the USG/ASG and Special Adviser of the Secretary-General > for Internet Governance. > * Provides leadership in the development of innovative activities with > a view to enhancing the participation of developing countries in the > IGF and its preparatory meetings, exploring further voluntary options > for financing the Forum and improving the modalities of the > preparation process and the work and functioning of the IGF > Secretariat. > * Formulates and implements the work programme of the Internet > Governance Project determining priorities and allocating resources for > the completion of outputs and their timely delivery. > * Directs and manages the organization of meetings, seminars, etc., of > the IGF and related advisory bodies and stakeholder networks. > * Represents the IGF Secretariat at international, regional or > national meetings and provides programmatic and substantive expertise > on the IGF. > * Prepares draft reports of the Secretary-General on the IGF and > related matters, as appropriate, and prepares draft papers, briefing > notes, statements and other materials for the Under-Secretary-General > of UNDESA and other senior officials. > * Leads, supervises and carries out the work programme of the IGF > Secretariat including preparation of budgets, reporting on budget and > programme performance, evaluation of staff performance (PAS), > interviews of candidates for job openings, evaluation of candidates > and preparation of inputs for results-based budgeting. > * Ensures that the outputs produced by the IGF Secretariat meet > high-quality standards; that reports are clear, objective and based on > comprehensive data, and that all outputs produced under his/her > supervision comply with the relevant mandates. > * Develops fundraising strategies, organizes and leads fundraising efforts. > > Work implies frequent interaction with the following > > Senior officials and other staff within the UN Secretariat and other > UN offices, funds, programmes and specialized agencies; senior > governmental representatives including ministers and heads of > diplomatic mission; representatives of non-governmental organizations, > private sector executives. > > Results expected > > Produces high-quality outputs pertaining to all aspects of the IGF. > Effectively mobilizes human and financial resources and efficiently > manages them to ensure the timely delivery of programmed outputs. > Reports are clear and focused on the issue at hand and the meetings or > seminars are well-organized meetings or seminars and address the > topics covered in a comprehensive manner. Effectively develops staff > under his/her supervision, including their ongoing learning and > development. Effectively assists, guides and supports staff in meeting > their objectives and preparing high-quality outputs. > > Competencies > > Competencies > > * Professionalism: Expert knowledge of the principles, commitments and > actions taken in connection with the outcomes of the World Summit on > the Information Society, in particular with Internet governance issues > at international, regional and national levels and with questions of > ICT for development. Knowledge of participatory processes and > inter-organizational collaboration, specifically in relation to > Internet governance issues and ICT for development. Proven ability to > interact productively with high-level government and diplomatic > officials, private sector companies and civil society, and to > facilitate dialogue among a wide range of stakeholders from all > segments of society. Proven ability to produce high-quality reports > and papers on technical issues and to review and edit the work of > others. Ability to apply UN rules, regulations, policies and > guidelines in work situations. Shows pride in work and in > achievements; demonstrates professional competence and mastery of > subject matter; is conscientious and efficient in meeting commitments, > observing deadlines and achieving results; is motivated by > professional rather than personal concerns; shows persistence when > faced with difficult problems or challenges; remains calm in stressful > situations. > > * Communication: Speaks and writes clearly and effectively; listens to > others, correctly interprets messages from others and responds > appropriately; asks questions to clarify, and exhibits interest in > having two-way communication; tailors language, tone, style and format > to match audience; demonstrates openness in sharing information and > keeping people informed. > > * Accountability: Takes ownership of all responsibilities and honours > commitments; delivers outputs within prescribed time, cost and quality > standards; operates in compliance with organizational regulations and > rules; supports subordinates, provides oversight and takes > responsibility for delegated assignments; takes personal > responsibility for his/her own shortcomings and those of the work > unit, where applicable. > > * Planning and organizing: Develops clear goals that are consistent > with agreed strategies; identifies priority activities and > assignments; adjusts priorities as required; allocates appropriate > amount of time and resources for completing work; foresees risks and > allows for contingencies when planning; monitors and adjusts plans and > actions as necessary; uses time efficiently. > > * Technological awareness: Keeps abreast of available technology; > understands applicability and limitation of technology to the work of > the office; actively seeks to apply technology to appropriate tasks; > shows willingness to learn new technology. > > Managerial abilities > > * Leadership: Serves as a role model that other people want to follow: > empowers others to translate vision into results; is proactive in > developing strategies to accomplish objectives; establishes and > maintains relationships with a broad range of people to understand > needs and gain support; anticipates and resolves conflicts by pursuing > mutually agreeable solutions; drives for change and improvements; does > not accept the status quo; shows the courage to take unpopular stands. > Provides leadership and takes responsibility for incorporating gender > perspectives and ensuring the equal participation of women and men in > all areas of work; demonstrates knowledge of strategies and commitment > to the goal of gender balance in staffing. > > * Managing performance: Delegates the appropriate responsibility, > accountability and decision-making authority; makes sure that roles, > responsibilities and reporting lines are clear to each staff member; > accurately judges the amount of time and resources needed to > accomplish a task and matches task to skills; monitors progress > against milestones and deadlines; regularly discusses performance and > provides feedback and coaching to staff; encourages risk-taking and > supports creativity and initiative; actively supports the development > and career aspirations of staff; appraises performance fairly. > > * Judgement and decision-making: Identifies the key issues in a > complex situation, and > comes to the heart of the problem quickly; gathers relevant > information before making a decision; considers positive and negative > impacts of decisions prior to making them; takes decisions with an eye > to the impact on others and on the Organization; proposes a course of > action or makes a recommendation based on all available information; > checks assumptions against facts; determines that the actions proposed > will satisfy the expressed and underlying needs for the decision; > makes tough decisions when necessary. > > Education > > Advanced university degree (Master's degree or equivalent) in > economics, international development, public administration, law, > social sciences or related area. A first-level university degree in > combination with qualifying experience may be accepted in lieu of the > advanced university degree. > > Work Experience > > Over fifteen years of progressively responsible experience in > international diplomacy, information and communications and technology > policy, public administration or related field. Familiarization with > issues related to Internet Governance that have been discussed at > international, regional and national levels since 2005 is desirable. > > Languages > > English and French are the working languages of the United Nations > Secretariat. For this post, fluency in oral and written English is > required. Knowledge of another official United Nations language is > desirable. > > United Nations Considerations > > The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of > men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of > equality in its principal and subsidiary organs. (Charter of the > United Nations - Chapter 3, article 8). The United Nations Secretariat > is a non-smoking environment. > > Assessment Method > > An assessment and competency based interview may be conducted as part > of the recruitment process for this position. > > Special Notice > > Extension of the appointment is subject to the availability of the funds. > > No Fee > > THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE > RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR > TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION > ON APPLICANTS' BANK ACCOUNTS. > > > -- > 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 > > ------ Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jul 2 07:33:33 2011 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 07:33:33 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <053BD329-5123-4859-92AC-9A2DF13B3DBE@ella.com> On 1 Jul 2011, at 03:35, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > 3. the previous "independence" of the Geneva Secretariat is very limited now and the ES has strong obligations in reporting back to NY and even to write statements for Mr. Sha. > nothing new in this one. always been the case. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jul 2 10:19:31 2011 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 23:19:31 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations In-Reply-To: <053BD329-5123-4859-92AC-9A2DF13B3DBE@ella.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <053BD329-5123-4859-92AC-9A2DF13B3DBE@ella.com> Message-ID: At 7:33 AM -0400 7/2/11, Avri Doria wrote: >On 1 Jul 2011, at 03:35, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >> >> 3. the previous "independence" of the Geneva >>Secretariat is very limited now and the ES has >>strong obligations in reporting back to NY and >>even to write statements for Mr. Sha. >> > >nothing new in this one. always been the case. Good to see the position's still high level. And interesting bit about funding: * Develops fundraising strategies, organizes and leads fundraising efforts. plus Extension of the appointment is subject to the availability of the funds. Adam >a. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jul 2 10:28:04 2011 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 10:28:04 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Position for the Executive Coordinator of the IGF Secretariat advertised by the United Nations In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C1C9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <053BD329-5123-4859-92AC-9A2DF13B3DBE@ella.com> Message-ID: On 2 Jul 2011, at 10:19, Adam Peake wrote: > At 7:33 AM -0400 7/2/11, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 1 Jul 2011, at 03:35, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> >>> >>> 3. the previous "independence" of the Geneva Secretariat is very limited now and the ES has strong obligations in reporting back to NY and even to write statements for Mr. Sha. >>> >> >> nothing new in this one. always been the case. > > > Good to see the position's still high level. And interesting bit about funding: > > * Develops fundraising strategies, organizes and leads fundraising efforts. > > plus > > Extension of the appointment is subject to the availability of the funds. > > Adam these have always been the case as well. a. ------ Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Jul 4 14:27:30 2011 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] How far have we deviated from Jon Postel's Dream? Message-ID: How far have we deviated from Jon Postel's Dream? Are we any closer to total social-inclusion today? Is the world we create in ballance with Nature? --- Deviance (sociology - Deviant behavior) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviant_behavior ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 4 18:18:20 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:18:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Message-ID: I'm not sure if there is a direct IG issue here (?) but this will potentially influence the overall policy/regulatory environment and attitudes toward international governance regimes I would have thought. If Internet delivered context of this kind is subject to domestic (municipal?) consumer protection laws then what about for example, Canada's laws concerning the requirement for bilingual packaging and so on? M -----Original Message----- From: David Sadoway [mailto:bigbluearth at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 9:40 PM To: michael gurstein Subject: Fwd: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period BTW this story in quite interesting in that the City Government (Taipei City) was recently being quite proactive on this e-governance matter. ~d Google pulls paid apps from Taiwan after being fined REFUND:：The US search giant, which was fined for not providing seven days of free trial, said it was discussing the issue with Taipei City officials By Jason Tan / Staff Reporter Tue, Jun 28, 2011 - Page 1 Taiwanese users of Google Inc’s Android Market were left in the dark yesterday as the search engine giant removed the paid app section from its online store. The removal of the paid app section came after the Taipei City Government slapped Google with a NT$1 million (US$345,500) fine for failing to offer Taiwanese consumers a seven-day free-trial mechanism as mandated by law. “We are suspending paid apps in Taiwan while we continue to discuss this issue with the Taipei City Government,” Google Taiwan said in a statement yesterday. 15-MINUTE REFUND “Android Market already provides a 15-minute refund window for all paid apps - which reflects the fact that apps are delivered over-the-air instantly and most users who request a refund [could] do so within minutes of their purchase,” the company said in the statement. This policy helps consumers make educated decisions about the apps they buy, while enabling Taiwanese developers to manage their businesses effectively, the statement read. The escalation in the row came after negotiation between Google - represented by a lawyer and teleconferencers from its US headquarters - and the city broke down yesterday morning. ‘COERCION’ The city government said the suspension was a move to “coerce Taiwanese consumers into giving up their rights” and it demanded Google submit an “improvisation plan” by Friday. The Mountain View, California-based company will be sending officials to Taipei on Thursday to continue talks with the city government, while city authorities said a second penalty might be imposed depending on the stance taken by the search engine giant. On Friday, the city government issued Google an ultimatum mandating that it introduce a seven-day free-trial mechanism for its Android Market. Yeh Ching-yuan (葉慶元), director of the city’s Law and Regulation Commission, then said a fine would be levied if the firm still refused to abide by the Consumer Protection Act (消保法). Users of Apple Inc’s iPhones or Android-equipped smartphones can purchase and download application software through Apple’s App Store or the Android Market respectively, but neither company offers an extensive free-trial mechanism that allows customers to return the programs or be refunded if they are dissatisfied or if the goods prove to be faulty. On June 4, the city government gave both companies a 15-day grace period to revise their app sales and service provisions to include a seven-day free-trial mechanism. While Apple complied with the request, Google did not. SIGHT UNSEEN The Consumer Protection Act requires a free-trial period of at least seven days for items purchased over the Web because consumers cannot feel or touch the goods before purchase. Previously, Web sites have said they were not covered by the law, but last year the government said an agreement was reached with Web site operators such as PChome Online (網路家庭) and -Yahoo-Kimo Inc (雅虎奇摩) that would see them adhere to the free-trial provision. APP STORES However, “app stores” were not included in last year’s deal. Yeh said this is because purchasing apps for mobile devices is a trend that has only recently emerged in Taiwan. The terms of service for the App Store and Android Market both state that the two companies are not liable for apps developed by third parties. HTC Corp (宏達電), the world’s No. 5 smartphone brand, yesterday said it did not expect the row to have “much impact” on the sales of its handsets because users could download free-trial versions of some apps, before finally making a purchase decision. HTC is the world’s largest producer of smartphones running on both Android and Windows operating systems and its first tablet PC - dubbed the HTC Flyer - as well as recent releases of smartphones all run on versions of Android. Published on Taipei Times : http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/06/28/2003506866 Copyright (c) 1999-2011 The Taipei Times . All rights reserved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 5 01:58:39 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 06:58:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 15:18:20 on Mon, 4 Jul 2011, michael gurstein writes >I'm not sure if there is a direct IG issue here (?) but this will >potentially influence the overall policy/regulatory environment and >attitudes toward international governance regimes I would have thought. > >If Internet delivered context of this kind is subject to domestic >(municipal?) consumer protection laws then what about for example, Canada's >laws concerning the requirement for bilingual packaging and so on? There has been a "Distance Selling" law in Europe for some time, which says that most items bought by mail order, over the telephone and Internet etc, must be refundable within seven days if the consumer doesn't like the goods when they arrive. Rather than being a piece of "Internet Governance", I think this ought to be looked upon as a classic case where ordinary law (designed for mail order catalogues and TV shopping channels) also applies to business conducted on the Internet. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jul 5 05:33:23 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:33:23 +0800 Subject: [governance] Update on IGC workshops at 2011 IGF Message-ID: <4E12DA63.6090101@ciroap.org> This is an update on the status of the IGC-sponsored workshops for the 2011 meeting of the IGF. 1. Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0 (coordinators Jeremy Malcolm and Marília Maciel). Workshop details: http://mini.me.my/10. Approved, and the competing proposals from ICC/BASIS and ISOC are now to be merged separately. Progress is good, but we are still waiting to nail down speakers from the Indian and/or Brazilian governments. 2. Mapping Internet Governance (coordinator Norbert Bollow). Workshop details: http://mini.me.my/16. Formerly "Pending", now "Approved". Norbert has set up a website and mailing list for development of a draft map to be discussed at this workshop, and Consumers International has provided some funding support. All systems go! See http://idgovmap.org/. 3. A possible framework for global Net Neutrality (coordinator Parminder Jeet Singh). Workshop details: http://mini.me.my/19. Not approved and currently in "Pending" state. The Secretariat stated that the grounds for not approving were lack of stakeholder balance (unfortunate that this couldn't have been related at an earlier stage!). This is being addressed and the workshop awaits reconsideration. Anyone who wishes to help with any of the above IGC-sponsored workshops, please make contact with the respective workshop coordinators. Thanks! -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jul 5 07:03:12 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 04:03:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On reflection I think that the rather more interesting issue is jurisdiction. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? The activity pointed to in Taipei (and even Roland's commentary below) seem to suggest that it does. If that is the case then these are interesting times indeed. M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 10:59 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In message , at 15:18:20 on Mon, 4 Jul 2011, michael gurstein writes >I'm not sure if there is a direct IG issue here (?) but this will >potentially influence the overall policy/regulatory environment and >attitudes toward international governance regimes I would have thought. > >If Internet delivered context of this kind is subject to domestic >(municipal?) consumer protection laws then what about for example, >Canada's laws concerning the requirement for bilingual packaging and so >on? There has been a "Distance Selling" law in Europe for some time, which says that most items bought by mail order, over the telephone and Internet etc, must be refundable within seven days if the consumer doesn't like the goods when they arrive. Rather than being a piece of "Internet Governance", I think this ought to be looked upon as a classic case where ordinary law (designed for mail order catalogues and TV shopping channels) also applies to business conducted on the Internet. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 5 07:12:49 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:42:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 05 July 2011 04:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > On reflection I think that the rather more interesting issue is > jurisdiction. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? And the question whether even if they have de jure jurisdiction do they have de facto jurisdiction? See how Google has withdrawn its application, and it can also withdraw its other services, and possibility of a local jurisdiction being able to hold up to the blackmail. This brings us to the issue of global policy frameworks for such (really) global Internet related issues. In any case, this came to my mind as well. I am not sure how tax jurisdictions apply for payments for Internet services, and even if jurisdictions do apply by the reading of the law, if and how taxes do get collected when people pay to foreign corporations online for purely Internet based transaction of Internet services . Will very much like to know about it. parminder > The activity pointed to in Taipei (and even Roland's commentary below) seem > to suggest that it does. If that is the case then these are interesting > times indeed. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Roland Perry > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 10:59 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > > In message, at 15:18:20 on > Mon, 4 Jul 2011, michael gurstein writes >> I'm not sure if there is a direct IG issue here (?) but this will >> potentially influence the overall policy/regulatory environment and >> attitudes toward international governance regimes I would have thought. >> >> If Internet delivered context of this kind is subject to domestic >> (municipal?) consumer protection laws then what about for example, >> Canada's laws concerning the requirement for bilingual packaging and so >> on? > There has been a "Distance Selling" law in Europe for some time, which > says that most items bought by mail order, over the telephone and > Internet etc, must be refundable within seven days if the consumer > doesn't like the goods when they arrive. > > Rather than being a piece of "Internet Governance", I think this ought > to be looked upon as a classic case where ordinary law (designed for > mail order catalogues and TV shopping channels) also applies to business > conducted on the Internet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 5 09:41:58 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 09:41:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Michael, Right it is all about jurisdiction. Specifically, this is a legal 'nexus' question, ie where exactly does an activity take place, where a company's servers are located, where it has employees, and/or where it processes sales? Legal treatment of these questions does indeed carry on from past court decisions and agreements on catalog sales. dating back 100 years or more. Amazon.com is the most notorious Internet tax scofflaw, pretending that it never needs to collect local taxes - because it can;t figure out who/where it's customers are. And yet somehow they manage to process our transctions with them, while otherwise being mystified by the complexity of the net. Right now they are bickering with the state of California over the interpretation of 'nexus,' as California passed a law just to get at them finally. But Bezos and Amazon have been fighting with various national and local governments over this issue since the company was founded, it is a core part of their low cost strategy to avoid collecting taxes, leaving the burden on the consumer to separately pay the 50 cents or whatever of taxes on purchased items. Anyway, in terms of Internet Governance, defining the the legal nexus of a globally distributed activity, and hence the locale to which one should be paying taxes, has been part of US-bilateral ecommerce and trade negotiations for more than a decade. Haven't been paying as much attention to WTO's actions on this, if any. Taxation, while not something we on the list talk about, much. But of course taxation with and without representation is always a governance issue, and hence perfectly legitimate issue for us....if only we had more tax lawyers on the list ; ). Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 7:03 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Roland Perry' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period On reflection I think that the rather more interesting issue is jurisdiction. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? The activity pointed to in Taipei (and even Roland's commentary below) seem to suggest that it does. If that is the case then these are interesting times indeed. M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 10:59 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In message , at 15:18:20 on Mon, 4 Jul 2011, michael gurstein writes >I'm not sure if there is a direct IG issue here (?) but this will >potentially influence the overall policy/regulatory environment and >attitudes toward international governance regimes I would have thought. > >If Internet delivered context of this kind is subject to domestic >(municipal?) consumer protection laws then what about for example, >Canada's laws concerning the requirement for bilingual packaging and so >on? There has been a "Distance Selling" law in Europe for some time, which says that most items bought by mail order, over the telephone and Internet etc, must be refundable within seven days if the consumer doesn't like the goods when they arrive. Rather than being a piece of "Internet Governance", I think this ought to be looked upon as a classic case where ordinary law (designed for mail order catalogues and TV shopping channels) also applies to business conducted on the Internet. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jul 5 10:36:16 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:36:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: What is interesting here of course, is that Google was able technically to shut down the service within the area of municipal jurisdiction. Since there seems to be no means for Taipei to similarly shut down Google's app service (or is there?), the problem here as with Amazon is an assymetry in the nature of the technology (and thus the power/influence that the technology provides--centralized control over local distribution). All of this strongly suggests again the need for some sort of global regulation to re-establish some sort of more symmetrical distribution of power otherwise governments great and small are going to have very severe problems and sooner rather than later. M -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:42 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein; 'Roland Perry' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Michael, Right it is all about jurisdiction. Specifically, this is a legal 'nexus' question, ie where exactly does an activity take place, where a company's servers are located, where it has employees, and/or where it processes sales? Legal treatment of these questions does indeed carry on from past court decisions and agreements on catalog sales. dating back 100 years or more. Amazon.com is the most notorious Internet tax scofflaw, pretending that it never needs to collect local taxes - because it can;t figure out who/where it's customers are. And yet somehow they manage to process our transctions with them, while otherwise being mystified by the complexity of the net. Right now they are bickering with the state of California over the interpretation of 'nexus,' as California passed a law just to get at them finally. But Bezos and Amazon have been fighting with various national and local governments over this issue since the company was founded, it is a core part of their low cost strategy to avoid collecting taxes, leaving the burden on the consumer to separately pay the 50 cents or whatever of taxes on purchased items. Anyway, in terms of Internet Governance, defining the the legal nexus of a globally distributed activity, and hence the locale to which one should be paying taxes, has been part of US-bilateral ecommerce and trade negotiations for more than a decade. Haven't been paying as much attention to WTO's actions on this, if any. Taxation, while not something we on the list talk about, much. But of course taxation with and without representation is always a governance issue, and hence perfectly legitimate issue for us....if only we had more tax lawyers on the list ; ). Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 7:03 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Roland Perry' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period On reflection I think that the rather more interesting issue is jurisdiction. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? The activity pointed to in Taipei (and even Roland's commentary below) seem to suggest that it does. If that is the case then these are interesting times indeed. M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 10:59 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In message , at 15:18:20 on Mon, 4 Jul 2011, michael gurstein writes >I'm not sure if there is a direct IG issue here (?) but this will >potentially influence the overall policy/regulatory environment and >attitudes toward international governance regimes I would have thought. > >If Internet delivered context of this kind is subject to domestic >(municipal?) consumer protection laws then what about for example, >Canada's laws concerning the requirement for bilingual packaging and so >on? There has been a "Distance Selling" law in Europe for some time, which says that most items bought by mail order, over the telephone and Internet etc, must be refundable within seven days if the consumer doesn't like the goods when they arrive. Rather than being a piece of "Internet Governance", I think this ought to be looked upon as a classic case where ordinary law (designed for mail order catalogues and TV shopping channels) also applies to business conducted on the Internet. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 5 10:50:02 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:50:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Not to give any lurking tax collectors heart palpitations, but with the growth of cloud services, this Taiwan case is just the tip of a virtual iceberg. But....us cs types coming out talking about global taxation authority/agreements is exactly the wrong thing to do. Better to frame in terms of seeking to defend legit local authorities against notorious cheats like Amazon starving the schoolkids of California, or Taiwan, as Google apparently is learning and now exploiting the same tricks. Lee ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:36 AM To: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Roland Perry' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period What is interesting here of course, is that Google was able technically to shut down the service within the area of municipal jurisdiction. Since there seems to be no means for Taipei to similarly shut down Google's app service (or is there?), the problem here as with Amazon is an assymetry in the nature of the technology (and thus the power/influence that the technology provides--centralized control over local distribution). All of this strongly suggests again the need for some sort of global regulation to re-establish some sort of more symmetrical distribution of power otherwise governments great and small are going to have very severe problems and sooner rather than later. M -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:42 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein; 'Roland Perry' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Michael, Right it is all about jurisdiction. Specifically, this is a legal 'nexus' question, ie where exactly does an activity take place, where a company's servers are located, where it has employees, and/or where it processes sales? Legal treatment of these questions does indeed carry on from past court decisions and agreements on catalog sales. dating back 100 years or more. Amazon.com is the most notorious Internet tax scofflaw, pretending that it never needs to collect local taxes - because it can;t figure out who/where it's customers are. And yet somehow they manage to process our transctions with them, while otherwise being mystified by the complexity of the net. Right now they are bickering with the state of California over the interpretation of 'nexus,' as California passed a law just to get at them finally. But Bezos and Amazon have been fighting with various national and local governments over this issue since the company was founded, it is a core part of their low cost strategy to avoid collecting taxes, leaving the burden on the consumer to separately pay the 50 cents or whatever of taxes on purchased items. Anyway, in terms of Internet Governance, defining the the legal nexus of a globally distributed activity, and hence the locale to which one should be paying taxes, has been part of US-bilateral ecommerce and trade negotiations for more than a decade. Haven't been paying as much attention to WTO's actions on this, if any. Taxation, while not something we on the list talk about, much. But of course taxation with and without representation is always a governance issue, and hence perfectly legitimate issue for us....if only we had more tax lawyers on the list ; ). Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 7:03 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Roland Perry' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period On reflection I think that the rather more interesting issue is jurisdiction. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? The activity pointed to in Taipei (and even Roland's commentary below) seem to suggest that it does. If that is the case then these are interesting times indeed. M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 10:59 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In message , at 15:18:20 on Mon, 4 Jul 2011, michael gurstein writes >I'm not sure if there is a direct IG issue here (?) but this will >potentially influence the overall policy/regulatory environment and >attitudes toward international governance regimes I would have thought. > >If Internet delivered context of this kind is subject to domestic >(municipal?) consumer protection laws then what about for example, >Canada's laws concerning the requirement for bilingual packaging and so >on? There has been a "Distance Selling" law in Europe for some time, which says that most items bought by mail order, over the telephone and Internet etc, must be refundable within seven days if the consumer doesn't like the goods when they arrive. Rather than being a piece of "Internet Governance", I think this ought to be looked upon as a classic case where ordinary law (designed for mail order catalogues and TV shopping channels) also applies to business conducted on the Internet. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 5 11:13:27 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 16:13:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D3 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 09:41:58 on Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Lee W McKnight writes >Amazon.com is the most notorious Internet tax scofflaw, pretending that it never needs to collect local taxes - because it can;t figure out >who/where it's customers are. And yet somehow they manage to process our transctions with them, while otherwise being mystified by the >complexity of the net. In Europe they raise invoices in Luxembourg, and ship from (eg) UK-UK, but they manage to charge UK sales tax to UK customers, which is OK for all parties. There are some "offshore" organisations which do mail order to the UK from the Channel Islands (which are outside the EU) and import/sales tax is waived (by postal customs agents) for all items below a value equivalent to about USD25. Typical products are DVDs. However, the UK government has recently reduced the rate to around USD20, and is threatening to withdraw the concession altogether if large retailers continue to exploit this loophole by shipping from these places. It's not just the money, there are fewer delays processing the goods at the border, and no need to have an expensive mechanism to collect the small amounts (per item) of tax from the customers. -- 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 Tue Jul 5 12:09:49 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:39:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E13374D.9000600@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 05 July 2011 08:20 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Not to give any lurking tax collectors heart palpitations, but with the growth of cloud services, this Taiwan case is just the tip of a virtual iceberg. > > But....us cs types coming out talking about global taxation authority/agreements is exactly the wrong thing to do. Not necessarily the wrong thing to do. If this means illegitimate economic flows from South to North and Southern public authorities being starved of legitimate tax receipts, this has direct and strong public interest implications, including of welfare expenditure, and thus it is an important civil society issue. parminder > Better to frame in terms of seeking to defend legit local authorities against notorious cheats like Amazon starving the schoolkids of California, or Taiwan, as Google apparently is learning and now exploiting the same tricks. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:36 AM > To: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Roland Perry' > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period > > What is interesting here of course, is that Google was able technically to > shut down the service within the area of municipal jurisdiction. Since > there seems to be no means for Taipei to similarly shut down Google's app > service (or is there?), the problem here as with Amazon is an assymetry in > the nature of the technology (and thus the power/influence that the > technology provides--centralized control over local distribution). > > All of this strongly suggests again the need for some sort of global > regulation to re-establish some sort of more symmetrical distribution of > power otherwise governments great and small are going to have very severe > problems and sooner rather than later. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:42 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein; 'Roland Perry' > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > > Michael, > > Right it is all about jurisdiction. > > Specifically, this is a legal 'nexus' question, ie where exactly does an > activity take place, where a company's servers are located, where it has > employees, and/or where it processes sales? > > Legal treatment of these questions does indeed carry on from past court > decisions and agreements on catalog sales. dating back 100 years or more. > > Amazon.com is the most notorious Internet tax scofflaw, pretending that it > never needs to collect local taxes - because it can;t figure out who/where > it's customers are. And yet somehow they manage to process our transctions > with them, while otherwise being mystified by the complexity of the net. > > Right now they are bickering with the state of California over the > interpretation of 'nexus,' as California passed a law just to get at them > finally. > > But Bezos and Amazon have been fighting with various national and local > governments over this issue since the company was founded, it is a core part > of their low cost strategy to avoid collecting taxes, leaving the burden on > the consumer to separately pay the 50 cents or whatever of taxes on > purchased items. > > Anyway, in terms of Internet Governance, defining the the legal nexus of a > globally distributed activity, and hence the locale to which one should be > paying taxes, has been part of US-bilateral ecommerce and trade negotiations > for more than a decade. Haven't been paying as much attention to WTO's > actions on this, if any. > > Taxation, while not something we on the list talk about, much. > > But of course taxation with and without representation is always a > governance issue, and hence perfectly legitimate issue for us....if only we > had more tax lawyers on the list ; ). > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of > michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 7:03 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Roland Perry' > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > On reflection I think that the rather more interesting issue is > jurisdiction. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? > > The activity pointed to in Taipei (and even Roland's commentary below) seem > to suggest that it does. If that is the case then these are interesting > times indeed. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Roland Perry > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 10:59 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > > In message, at 15:18:20 on Mon, 4 > Jul 2011, michael gurstein writes >> I'm not sure if there is a direct IG issue here (?) but this will >> potentially influence the overall policy/regulatory environment and >> attitudes toward international governance regimes I would have thought. >> >> If Internet delivered context of this kind is subject to domestic >> (municipal?) consumer protection laws then what about for example, >> Canada's laws concerning the requirement for bilingual packaging and so >> on? > There has been a "Distance Selling" law in Europe for some time, which says > that most items bought by mail order, over the telephone and Internet etc, > must be refundable within seven days if the consumer doesn't like the goods > when they arrive. > > Rather than being a piece of "Internet Governance", I think this ought to be > looked upon as a classic case where ordinary law (designed for mail order > catalogues and TV shopping channels) also applies to business conducted on > the Internet. > -- > Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 Tue Jul 5 12:17:10 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:17:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:12 AM, parminder wrote: > ** > > > On Tuesday 05 July 2011 04:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > On reflection I think that the rather more interesting issue is > jurisdiction. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? > > > And the question whether even if they have de jure jurisdiction do they > have de facto jurisdiction? See how Google has withdrawn its application, > and it can also withdraw its other services, and possibility of a local > jurisdiction being able to hold up to the blackmail. > If anyone is blackmailing anyone here it is the the Taiwanese blackmailing Google? Google is the one to pay the fine. If we were really serious about "intermediate liability" we would say that Google supplies the marketplace ONLY and that app developers are the ones who must figure out how to abide by local laws, no? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 5 12:33:01 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:03:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E133CBD.7020506@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 05 July 2011 09:47 PM, McTim wrote: > > If anyone is blackmailing anyone here it is the the Taiwanese > blackmailing Google? Google is the one to pay the fine. If we were > really serious about "intermediate liability" we would say that Google > supplies the marketplace ONLY and that app developers are the ones who > must figure out how to abide by local laws, no? From the news item "Android Market already provides a 15-minute refund window for all paid apps --- which reflects the fact that apps are delivered over-the-air instantly and most users who request a refund [could] do so within minutes of their purchase," the company said in the statement. It should be obvious that whoever controls the market and provides a 15 minute refund window must also be the one considered responsible for *not* providing a 7 day window as per the requirements of the local law. When Google is accepting that it is the responsible party I am not sure, McTim, why do you have to play being more loyal than the king. Parminder > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Jul 5 12:40:20 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 18:40:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E13374D.9000600@itforchange.net> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB277D6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4E13374D.9000600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6080818.15507.1309884020780.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h07> Dear Parminder and friends of the list > Not necessarily the wrong thing to do. If this means illegitimate economic flows from South to North and Southern public authorities being starved of legitimate tax receipts, this  has direct and strong public interest implications, including of welfare expenditure, and thus it is an important civil society issue. parminder > You are quite right, Parminder, except this "legitimacy" also applies to North-North economic flows. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 05/07/11 18:10 > De : "parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Lee W McKnight" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period > > > > On Tuesday 05 July 2011 08:20 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Not to give any lurking tax collectors heart palpitations, but with the growth of cloud services, this Taiwan case is just the tip of a virtual iceberg. But....us cs types coming out talking about global taxation authority/agreements is exactly the wrong thing to do. > Not necessarily the wrong thing to do. If this means illegitimate economic flows from South to North and Southern public authorities being starved of legitimate tax receipts, this  has direct and strong public interest implications, including of welfare expenditure, and thus it is an important civil society issue. parminder > Better to frame in terms of seeking to defend legit local authorities against notorious cheats like Amazon starving the schoolkids of California, or Taiwan, as Google apparently is learning and now exploiting the same tricks. Lee ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:36 AM To: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Roland Perry' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period What is interesting here of course, is that Google was able technically to shut down the service within the area of municipal jurisdiction. Since there seems to be no means for Taipei to similarly shut down Google's app service (or is there?), the problem here as with Amazon is an assymetry in the nature of the technology (and thus the power/influence that the technology provides--centralized control over local distribution). All of this strongly suggests again the need for some sort of global regulation to re-establish some sort of more symmetrical distribution of power otherwise governments great and small are going to have very severe problems and sooner rather than later. M -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:42 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein; 'Roland Perry' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Michael, Right it is all about jurisdiction. Specifically, this is a legal 'nexus' question, ie where exactly does an activity take place, where a company's servers are located, where it has employees, and/or where it processes sales? Legal treatment of these questions does indeed carry on from past court decisions and agreements on catalog sales. dating back 100 years or more. Amazon.com is the most notorious Internet tax scofflaw, pretending that it never needs to collect local taxes - because it can;t figure out who/where it's customers are. And yet somehow they manage to process our transctions with them, while otherwise being mystified by the complexity of the net. Right now they are bickering with the state of California over the interpretation of 'nexus,' as California passed a law just to get at them finally. But Bezos and Amazon have been fighting with various national and local governments over this issue since the company was founded, it is a core part of their low cost strategy to avoid collecting taxes, leaving the burden on the consumer to separately pay the 50 cents or whatever of taxes on purchased items. Anyway, in terms of Internet Governance, defining the the legal nexus of a globally distributed activity, and hence the locale to which one should be paying taxes, has been part of US-bilateral ecommerce and trade negotiations for more than a decade. Haven't been paying as much attention to WTO's actions on this, if any. Taxation, while not something we on the list talk about, much. But of course taxation with and without representation is always a governance issue, and hence perfectly legitimate issue for us....if only we had more tax lawyers on the list ; ). Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 7:03 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Roland Perry' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period On reflection I think that the rather more interesting issue is jurisdiction. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? The activity pointed to in Taipei (and even Roland's commentary below) seem to suggest that it does. If that is the case then these are interesting times indeed. M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 10:59 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In message , at 15:18:20 on Mon, 4 Jul 2011, michael gurstein writes I'm not sure if there is a direct IG issue here (?) but this will potentially influence the overall policy/regulatory environment and attitudes toward international governance regimes I would have thought. If Internet delivered context of this kind is subject to domestic (municipal?) consumer protection laws then what about for example, Canada's laws concerning the requirement for bilingual packaging and so on? There has been a "Distance Selling" law in Europe for some time, which says that most items bought by mail order, over the telephone and Internet etc, must be refundable within seven days if the consumer doesn't like the goods when they arrive. Rather than being a piece of "Internet Governance", I think this ought to be looked upon as a classic case where ordinary law (designed for mail order catalogues and TV shopping channels) also applies to business conducted on the Internet. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Tue Jul 5 20:54:07 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 20:54:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E133CBD.7020506@itforchange.net> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <4E133CBD.7020506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: hello, On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Tuesday 05 July 2011 09:47 PM, McTim wrote: > > If anyone is blackmailing anyone here it is the the Taiwanese blackmailing Google?  Google is the one to pay the fine.  If we were really serious about "intermediate liability" we would say that Google supplies the marketplace ONLY and that app developers are the ones who must figure out how to abide by local laws, no? > > From the news item > > “Android Market already provides a 15-minute refund window for all paid apps — which reflects the fact that apps are delivered over-the-air instantly and most users who request a refund [could] do so within minutes of their purchase,” the company said in the statement. > > It should be obvious that whoever controls the market and provides a 15 minute refund window must also be the one considered responsible for *not* providing a 7 day window as per the requirements of the local law. When Google is accepting that it is the responsible party I am not sure, McTim, why do you have to play being more loyal than the king. I prefer "more Catholic than the Pope" actually. ;-) Seriously, it's not blackmail, it's extortion by the Taiwanese. The bottom line is the CS just told the OECD "thanks, but no thanks" in re: intermediate liability.  Does IGC support the CSISAC? If so, then we should support Google in this case, or so it appears to me! Either Google is just aggregating content (apps) or they are a provider of content.  It seems to me they are just aggregating here. When you use the Android Market you agree to the ToS and Policies: http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-policies.html "Chargeback and Billing Disputes: Google is not responsible for billing disputes arising from purchases on Android Market. All billing issues should be directed to the Developer in question, the payment processor, or your credit card company as appropriate. Customer Support: Support for the use and operation of the Market (including how to find, purchase, download, return and remove Products) is provided by Google in the user interface of the Market application. Google does not provide customer support for Products distributed by Developers on Android Market. Each Developer is responsible for determining the level of customer support they provide and you should contact them directly." -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jul 6 00:29:27 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 16:29:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <4E133CBD.7020506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: All the issues in relation and many more are precisely why jurists need to emerge and rethink philosophy, jurisprudence as it stands to cater for the phenomena. We will find that we will always run into a brick wall if we try to address these issues from a policy and legal platform as the philosophy and jurisprudence is inadequate to deal with the issues. Sala On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:54 PM, McTim wrote: > hello, > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday 05 July 2011 09:47 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > If anyone is blackmailing anyone here it is the the Taiwanese > blackmailing Google? Google is the one to pay the fine. If we were really > serious about "intermediate liability" we would say that Google supplies the > marketplace ONLY and that app developers are the ones who must figure out > how to abide by local laws, no? > > > > From the news item > > > > “Android Market already provides a 15-minute refund window for all paid > apps — which reflects the fact that apps are delivered over-the-air > instantly and most users who request a refund [could] do so within minutes > of their purchase,” the company said in the statement. > > > > It should be obvious that whoever controls the market and provides a 15 > minute refund window must also be the one considered responsible for *not* > providing a 7 day window as per the requirements of the local law. When > Google is accepting that it is the responsible party I am not sure, McTim, > why do you have to play being more loyal than the king. > > I prefer "more Catholic than the Pope" actually. ;-) Seriously, it's > not blackmail, it's extortion by the Taiwanese. > > The bottom line is the CS just told the OECD "thanks, but no thanks" > in re: intermediate liability. Does IGC support the CSISAC? If so, > then we should support Google in this case, or so it appears to me! > > Either Google is just aggregating content (apps) or they are a > provider of content. It seems to me they are just aggregating here. > > > When you use the Android Market you agree to the ToS and Policies: > > http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-policies.html > > "Chargeback and Billing Disputes: Google is not responsible for > billing disputes arising from purchases on Android Market. All billing > issues should be directed to the Developer in question, the payment > processor, or your credit card company as appropriate. > > Customer Support: Support for the use and operation of the Market > (including how to find, purchase, download, return and remove > Products) is provided by Google in the user interface of the Market > application. Google does not provide customer support for Products > distributed by Developers on Android Market. Each Developer is > responsible for determining the level of customer support they provide > and you should contact them directly." > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jul 6 12:06:55 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:06:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Am I a Prey to Scammers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3AACE39BF543402CB32A0C8581CC101C@userPC> Aaron, You aren't being particularly targeted I think. I get two or three of those a week. M -----Original Message----- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:12 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Parminder; Lee W McKnight; Michael Gurstein Subject: Am I a Prey to Scammers Hi all I just received the mail mail below purpotedly from Gmail. What advise can you give me? Many thanks Aaron Dear Account User, We are currently upgrading our database storage facilities and account security which involves shutting down the old server to a new server. To ensuring that you do not experience service/Login interruption during this period; This service requires you to verify your Gmail account by providing the below details for account authentication. We are terminating all unused email accounts to create space for new accounts. To prevent your account from being terminated, you will have to update it by providing the information requested below: * Full name *User name: * Password: * Profession: *Country and Territory: *Alternative Email: *Telephone: Note: This email is only for Gmail users (Users should reply within 48 hours to avoid "Permanently Lockup" Account).Anyone who refuses to update his/her account will lose and face any circumstance that may arise. Please update your account to enable us track down the activities of scammers. This warning is from the law enforcement agency an affiliation with (FBI). As soon as the above information is verified, you will be sent a new confirmation alphanumerical password which will only be valid during this period.Apologies for inconveniences that this may cause you. Thank you for using Gmail ! The Gmail Team. -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper C/o P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 6 15:29:05 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:29:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Am I a Prey to Scammers In-Reply-To: <3AACE39BF543402CB32A0C8581CC101C@userPC> References: <3AACE39BF543402CB32A0C8581CC101C@userPC> Message-ID: <2TOEmaFBeLFOFAte@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <3AACE39BF543402CB32A0C8581CC101C at userPC>, at 09:06:55 on Wed, 6 Jul 2011, michael gurstein writes >Aaron, > >You aren't being particularly targeted I think. I get two or three of those >a week. Two or three a week!! I get about ten a day. (And that's the ones which have made it through several levels of anti-spam filter). There's a theory which says that the longer you've had an email address, the more you'll get, because the criminals are working from lists which are compiled by adding together older lists, and so on. >-----Original Message----- > >I just received the mail mail below purpotedly from Gmail. >What advise can you give me? Ignore 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jul 8 05:40:01 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:40:01 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF related Information Society Innovation Fund (ISIF) Award 2011 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:22:35 +1000 From: Sylvia Cadena Subject: [News] ISIF Award 2011: Nominations open until 5 August To: news at isif.asia The Information Society Innovation Fund (ISIF) Award 2011 seeks to acknowledge the important contributions ICT innovators have made with creative solutions to the social and economic development of the Asia Pacific (AP) region. With this award, ISIF aims to summarize the last three years' cycle of projects before it launches a revised framework for the provision of small grants in 2012. The new framework will focus on issues pertaining to the future of the Internet in the region. As the ISIF Secretariat, APNIC invites those who have made a significant contribution to the role of the Internet in social and economic development within their local communities to apply for this award. ISIF will accept nominations for projects developed since 2008 that address one or more of the following categories:     - Innovation and access provision     - Localization and capacity building     - Mobile services and applications     - Rights and freedom The award package comprises a cash prize of AUD 7,500 to support the continuation of the project or organization conducting the activities and a travel grant for a project representative to participate at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Nairobi, Kenya. Any initiative developed since 2008 that has significantly contributed to the role of the Internet in social and economic development may be nominated for the ISIF Award 2011. Nominations are open until 5 August 2011. For more information, please visit: http://isif.asia/groups/isif/wiki/123ad/Award_2011.html ______________________________________________________________________ Sylvia Cadena                                   |  Project Officer ISIF Information Society Innovation Fund        |  sylvia at isif.asia APNIC Resource Quality Assurance                |  sylvia at apnic.net ______________________________________________________________________ sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net                      |  skype: sylviacadena Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) |  Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia  |  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD          |  http://www.apnic.net ________________________________________________________________________  * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Jul 8 12:10:23 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:10:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Good god, let's hope not. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 8 14:19:31 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:19:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Well then who can/should tax/regulate these? M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:10 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Good god, let's hope not. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 9 03:08:06 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:38:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> On Friday 08 July 2011 09:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Good god, let's hope not. > shd we than dissolve local governments, and it is enough that the US collects most of the taxes from the world over because in any case it seems to be doing much of the governance.... (someone said recently, ironically of course, that everyone in the world should be allowed to vote for forming the US government!) > Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From philippe.blanchard at me.com Sat Jul 9 06:14:09 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:14:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An international agency... this is the only way to avoid tax competition between territories (or even worst, tax exemptions). Philippe On Jul 8, 2011, at 8:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Well then who can/should tax/regulate these? M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:10 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Good god, let’s hope not. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Jul 9 06:22:30 2011 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:22:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello everyone, Here is my current email: baudouin.schombe @ gmail.com DR Congo is not on the list google for online shopping and I can not buy storage space. I ask the coordinators to add email address below. It's really urgent and thank you for understanding. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) ACADEMIE DES TIC *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2011/7/8 michael gurstein > ** > Well then who can/should tax/regulate these? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On > Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2011 9:10 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; parminder > *Subject:* RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > Good god, let’s hope not.**** > > ** ** > > Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global**** > > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a**** > > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example?**** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 9 15:19:43 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 07:19:43 +1200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Multinationals exist to make a profit. It follows that to make this profit and keep the shareholders and the Directors happy, they will strategise to continuously making their profit. This impacts on the level of strategies that they deploy to thwart off competitors and to encourage innovation by guessing what the customers will demand. This drives innovation. In this environment, one is likely to see highly trained human resources that are strategically giving counsel on all fronts whether as engineers, tax lawyers, marketing etc. Part of reducing the operational expenses will be to reduce taxation. Whilst Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is not illegal and depends on the jurisdictions in play. This is why when companies choose location, they are looking holistically into the environment that makes it conducive for them to do business (cost of production, taxation etc etc). This is where Governments engage in Trade Negotiations and Tax Treaties, these schedules are negotiated. Because by its very nature, the world has diverse treatments and laws because countries are sovereign, it follows that it will have external implications. This is just a product of the different systems. *What sort of checks and balances are needed for this multinationals?* - Do they "self-regulate"? - Should there be checks and balances? *What are some considerations?* - Human Rights Concerns and Responsibilities - These include Economic Rights, Socio-cultural Rights, Civil and Political RIghts; - etc The reality is that it is going to be difficult as countries are sovereign and will regulate as they please. At the same time, multinationals also have the "freedom of choice" and they can wield at *their* will. I am not a fan of heavy handed regulation but think that dialogue helps people consider their "actions" or the impact thereof. A multinational would probably not want to put out "free apps" for fear of having it stolen and duplicated and sold. If IP protection is secured, then this could be an incentive to land it for "free" in Taiwan. Sala - Jul 9, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Philippe Blanchard wrote: An international agency... this is the only way to avoid tax competition > between territories (or even worst, tax exemptions). > Philippe > > On Jul 8, 2011, at 8:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Well then who can/should tax/regulate these? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On > Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2011 9:10 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; parminder > *Subject:* RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > Good god, let’s hope not.**** > ** ** > > Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global**** > > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a**** > > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example?**** > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Sun Jul 10 21:07:45 2011 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:07:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: why not? 2011/7/8 Milton L Mueller > Good god, let’s hope not.**** > > ** ** > > Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global**** > > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a**** > > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example?**** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 zwan.bourg at gmail.com Mon Jul 11 03:34:11 2011 From: zwan.bourg at gmail.com (Idrissa Martial BOURGOU) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:34:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Registration for West Africa IGF to be held in Lagos Message-ID: Hi all, Registration for West Africa Internet Governance Forum to be held in Lagos, Nigeria is open. The meeting is scheduled from 27th to 29th of July 2011 with the theme: "Promoting the Multi-stakeholder Model for further Internet Development in Africa" For more, visit the web site at http://www.waigf.org/ Thanks -- Idrissa Martial BOURGOU IT/IS Specialist Webdesign - Developer [http://twitter.com/zwanbourg | http://zwan.wordpress.com/ | http://www.avenue226.com/ ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jul 11 14:13:28 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:13:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Local governments have a lot to do with local things. Or have you forgotten about things like roads, schools, crime and law enforcement, etc.? Local govts that try to parasitize virtual businesses tend not to focus on what they need to be doing. From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 3:08 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period On Friday 08 July 2011 09:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Good god, let's hope not. shd we than dissolve local governments, and it is enough that the US collects most of the taxes from the world over because in any case it seems to be doing much of the governance.... (someone said recently, ironically of course, that everyone in the world should be allowed to vote for forming the US government!) Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 11 14:19:06 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:19:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Well, let's see, there are about 10,000 local jurisdictions in the United States alone. If someone has to contend with 10,000 X 220 (number of countries) differing and constantly changing laws and regulations and taxes, simply because it publishes an app on the Internet, then they will cease to exist as a viable business. I cannot imagine a better way to crush the internet economy. Now if an internet business owns real estate in a local jurisdiction, then of course it pays local property taxes, and if it employs in a local jurisdiction then of course that corporate entity conforms to local regulations pertaining to employment, etc. But not simply because someone in that jurisdiction uses the internet to purchase their goods. Really, the mere fact that we are asking these questions shows a certain level of innocence and lack of exposure to practical reality. From: Roxana Goldstein [mailto:goldstein.roxana at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period why not? 2011/7/8 Milton L Mueller > Good god, let's hope not. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Jul 11 14:29:20 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:29:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <251D6A1E270E437FB25867669787FE2D@userPC> No, I don't think so Milton. I think it is raising a very significant issue that someone somewhere has to be dealing with as a matter of urgency. If no one is currently dealing with it that is the problem not the fact that folks are raising it as an issue. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:19 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Well, let's see, there are about 10,000 local jurisdictions in the United States alone. If someone has to contend with 10,000 X 220 (number of countries) differing and constantly changing laws and regulations and taxes, simply because it publishes an app on the Internet, then they will cease to exist as a viable business. I cannot imagine a better way to crush the internet economy. Now if an internet business owns real estate in a local jurisdiction, then of course it pays local property taxes, and if it employs in a local jurisdiction then of course that corporate entity conforms to local regulations pertaining to employment, etc. But not simply because someone in that jurisdiction uses the internet to purchase their goods. Really, the mere fact that we are asking these questions shows a certain level of innocence and lack of exposure to practical reality. From: Roxana Goldstein [mailto:goldstein.roxana at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period why not? 2011/7/8 Milton L Mueller Good god, let's hope not. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 Jul 11 14:39:43 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:39:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <251D6A1E270E437FB25867669787FE2D@userPC> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<251D6A1E270E437FB25867669787FE2D@userPC> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB27850@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hey, As seems to happen on occasion, Milton and I take different positions on the significance and suitability of location mattering in online sales (taxes). For a paper on this topic; albeit written several years ago, see: Title: Sales Tax on the Internet: When and How to Tax? Author: Uzuner, Ozlem; McKnight, Lee Issue Date: 2002-07-22 Abstract: As a first attempt to tax electronic commerce, many countries applied the existing tax laws to Internet. However, applying these laws to border-spanning electronic commerce proved very inefficient and inappropriate. While some authorities claim not taxing the Internet is the best solution for encouraging the growth of electronic commerce, we believe that use and sales taxes in general are an important part of a government?s revenues and that their ban over the Internet is not feasible. Given the magnitude of potential revenues to be obtained from sales over the Internet, we need to consider when and how governments should tax electronic commerce. We focus on some proposals which try to answer this question and argue that a taxation scheme based on the location of the consumer is the best starting point for a global solution. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1508 Keywords: electronic commerce, Internet, sales tax Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:29 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period No, I don't think so Milton. I think it is raising a very significant issue that someone somewhere has to be dealing with as a matter of urgency. If no one is currently dealing with it that is the problem not the fact that folks are raising it as an issue. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:19 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Well, let’s see, there are about 10,000 local jurisdictions in the United States alone. If someone has to contend with 10,000 X 220 (number of countries) differing and constantly changing laws and regulations and taxes, simply because it publishes an app on the Internet, then they will cease to exist as a viable business. I cannot imagine a better way to crush the internet economy. Now if an internet business owns real estate in a local jurisdiction, then of course it pays local property taxes, and if it employs in a local jurisdiction then of course that corporate entity conforms to local regulations pertaining to employment, etc. But not simply because someone in that jurisdiction uses the internet to purchase their goods. Really, the mere fact that we are asking these questions shows a certain level of innocence and lack of exposure to practical reality. From: Roxana Goldstein [mailto:goldstein.roxana at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period why not? 2011/7/8 Milton L Mueller > Good god, let’s hope not. Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Jul 12 05:42:44 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:42:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF-Japan - July 21-22 in Kyoto Message-ID: Sorry for the very late news. IGF Japan will be held on July 21-22 this year in Kyoto. First time in Japan. Official language is Japanese and no interpretation is planned (so far). For those who could read Japanese , please see here: http://www.jaipa.or.jp/topics/?cat=35 best, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 12 06:56:18 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:26:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> On Monday 11 July 2011 11:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Local governments have a lot to do with local things. Or have you > forgotten about things like roads, schools, crime and law enforcement, > etc.? > I havent forgotten them, but maybe you have! All these things need taxes to be collected. And you seem to consider legitimate taxation as a parasitizing activity..... > Local govts that try to parasitize virtual businesses tend not to > focus on what they need to be doing. > that just your ideological gov-hatred coming through, or else do you have any basis for making such a sweeping statement? Milton, Either you accept local jurisdictions and their disparate tax systems or you work for some kind of a global regime which is fair to all. You cant run away from both, as you seem to do. Parminder > > *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Saturday, July 09, 2011 3:08 AM > *To:* Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' > *Subject:* Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy > on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / > trial period > > > > On Friday 08 July 2011 09:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Good god, let's hope not. > > > shd we than dissolve local governments, and it is enough that the US > collects most of the taxes from the world over because in any case it > seems to be doing much of the governance.... (someone said recently, > ironically of course, that everyone in the world should be allowed to > vote for forming the US government!) > > > > Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 07:12:11 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:12:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: It seems to be beyond question that taxes are the rent we must and should pay for civil and civilized society. While debatable at the margin in terms of how much taxation is desirable and in some cases for what purposes, there's no doubt that every individual and business needs and relies upon the roads, telecommunications infrastructures, fire and police services, legal infrastructure and so forth for their very livelihood and modern existence. To equate taxation with parasitism in a broad way is not a responsible position, though it is a common political attack designed mainly to put a downward pressure on the amount of taxation. Still, it "proves" or claims way too much, and is not a responsible or factually accurate position to take. I'm not saying this was Milton's intent in his expression (to equate all taxation with "parasitism") but this is the political bell that's rung in my mind and I believe the minds of others as well, whenever the idea of "parasitism" is attached to government taxation without careful restriction of the scope of that word to specific facts of specific cases of opportunistic over-taxation. Applied to the internet, the metaphor of parasitism can have more power than it deserves. When users get accustomed to "free" internet access they may start to erroneously believe that the internet happens without government services in the form of telecommunications infrastructure, legal infrastructure and so forth, and therefore mistakenly oppose proposals to secure continued support for these things to keep the internet well. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 7/12/11, parminder wrote: > > > On Monday 11 July 2011 11:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Local governments have a lot to do with local things. Or have you >> forgotten about things like roads, schools, crime and law enforcement, >> etc.? >> > I havent forgotten them, but maybe you have! All these things need taxes > to be collected. And you seem to consider legitimate taxation as a > parasitizing activity..... > >> Local govts that try to parasitize virtual businesses tend not to >> focus on what they need to be doing. >> > > that just your ideological gov-hatred coming through, or else do you > have any basis for making such a sweeping statement? > > Milton, Either you accept local jurisdictions and their disparate tax > systems or you work for some kind of a global regime which is fair to > all. You cant run away from both, as you seem to do. > > Parminder >> >> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> *Sent:* Saturday, July 09, 2011 3:08 AM >> *To:* Milton L Mueller >> *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy >> on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / >> trial period >> >> >> >> On Friday 08 July 2011 09:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Good god, let's hope not. >> >> >> shd we than dissolve local governments, and it is enough that the US >> collects most of the taxes from the world over because in any case it >> seems to be doing much of the governance.... (someone said recently, >> ironically of course, that everyone in the world should be allowed to >> vote for forming the US government!) >> >> >> >> Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global >> corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a >> municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Jul 12 07:35:38 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:35:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> On 12.07.11 14:12, Paul Lehto wrote: > Applied to the internet, the metaphor of parasitism can have more > power than it deserves. When users get accustomed to "free" internet > access they may start to erroneously believe that the internet happens > without government services in the form of telecommunications > infrastructure, legal infrastructure and so forth, and therefore > mistakenly oppose proposals to secure continued support for these > things to keep the internet well. > Internet has happened and was successful decades ago, only because it is the largest independently owned PRIVATE network of networks in the world. Nobody own the Internet. Many own small parts of it. Governments resisted Internet for many, many years, throwing large amounts of money and political pressure as a means to stop it's development. This world has seen enough failed 'telecomunications infrastructure' attempts. Internet is what it is because it is not that. The day it becomes part of the taxation scheme and therefore strictly regulated will be the day Internet will die and be replaces with the next multi-stakeholder private network. Internet by itself is free, because those who built it and operate it wish so. In most countries the government cannot steal private property with ease. If we talk about providing services based on Internet and taxing these services, that is something completely different. It is more related with trade practices (and taxation). The existing model is way outdated and needs replacement. The same could be said for the copyright practices etc. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 08:19:10 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:19:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On 7/12/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Internet has happened and was successful decades ago, only because it is > the largest independently owned PRIVATE network of networks in the > world. Nobody own the Internet. Many own small parts of it. Governments > resisted Internet for many, many years, throwing large amounts of money > and political pressure as a means to stop it's development. The internet originated in governmental efforts and could not exist without the robust legal infrastructure and some physical infrastructure provided by governments. Granted, the government physical infrastructure component is more limited than in many other areas, and governments have both been silent and/or had their further involvement in the internet resisted in some powerful quarters, but governmental silence or resistance to government does not mean government doesn't play a formative role, past and present. To give but one example: Who would deny that ICANN was started by the US government, or that even after "freeing" ICANN that the US government in particular does not retain some forms of actual or potential power or influence on ICANN? Many examples could be given of governmental roles and contributions (good or bad) beyond ICANN. Your CAPITALIZED assertion that the internet is PRIVATE combined with its attempt to give all credit for the internet to the private sector is a distortion of the facts, past and present. The internet is essentially "more private" than other sectors. But, what "private" really means in this area is that large corporate "stakeholders" in the internet directly and de facto make the law of the internet, via contracts and terms of service that are then enforced by governmental courts around the world. Functionally, this means that private corporations have stepped into governmental shoes to a large extent as law-makers, making the private laws of contract that nevertheless bind other users, and do so in court, if desired and necessary. But this takeover of the law-making function by private entities is not total (as you seem to imply), nor should it be. And, nor COULD the internet be entirely private, even in theory: Even the most radical libertarian "free" market theorists agree that a rather robust series of governmental involvement in the form of contract laws and so forth are necessary structures to support "free, private" markets. There's a great deal of choice in how those contract rules are drafted, and debate as to what rules best support "free markets" even among like-minded theorists. Thus, there's no getting around the necessity for government involvement at a material level. The real issue is to what extent, if any, government ought to abdicate or forego its traditional roles in the context of the internet. Paul Lehto, J.D. > > This world has seen enough failed 'telecomunications infrastructure' > attempts. Internet is what it is because it is not that. The day it > becomes part of the taxation scheme and therefore strictly regulated > will be the day Internet will die and be replaces with the next > multi-stakeholder private network. Internet by itself is free, because > those who built it and operate it wish so. In most countries the > government cannot steal private property with ease. > > If we talk about providing services based on Internet and taxing these > services, that is something completely different. It is more related > with trade practices (and taxation). The existing model is way outdated > and needs replacement. The same could be said for the copyright > practices etc. > > Daniel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Jul 12 09:38:47 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:38:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E1C4E67.2080701@digsys.bg> On 12.07.11 15:19, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 7/12/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >> Internet has happened and was successful decades ago, only because it is >> the largest independently owned PRIVATE network of networks in the >> world. Nobody own the Internet. Many own small parts of it. Governments >> resisted Internet for many, many years, throwing large amounts of money >> and political pressure as a means to stop it's development. > The internet originated in governmental efforts and could not exist > without the robust legal infrastructure and some physical > infrastructure provided by governments. Granted, the government > physical infrastructure component is more limited than in many other > areas, and governments have both been silent and/or had their further > involvement in the internet resisted in some powerful quarters, but > governmental silence or resistance to government does not mean > government doesn't play a formative role, past and present. This all is very complex and can be viewed very differently, depending on what you know about the history of Internet development and different scenarios in different parts of the world. Internet "originated" in the US, in a form of a USG initiative, or a project. That project however was severely limited to military and scientific usage. Then Internet came to Europe and the rest of the world and it is there where Internet developed into what we know it today. It was curious in say, 1992, when there was well developed Internet infrastructure outside the US, providing access to everyone, yet the "US part of the Internet" was strictly not available to individuals or companies and all government contract insisted on ISO protocol compliance - meaning, no TCP/IP protocols. Governments in most other countries were not much different. They were completely ignorant and if they did something, that was to try to protect the incumbent monopoly telecoms. Not surprisingly -- in most countries governments had big say in that 'businesses' operation -- or the other way around.. > To give but one example: Who would deny that ICANN was started by the > US government, or that even after "freeing" ICANN that the US > government in particular does not retain some forms of actual or > potential power or influence on ICANN? ICANN was created, because USG wanted to stop an outgoing attempt to "steal" the Internet. I myself, although participating in the agenda, could not claim I know all of the hidden agendas. But in any case, the idea of ICANN to create private entity with wide stakeholder participation. This was successful in some areas and not much in other, but there are still chances. > Your CAPITALIZED assertion that the internet is PRIVATE combined with > its attempt to give all credit for the internet to the private sector > is a distortion of the facts, past and present. The internet is > essentially "more private" than other sectors. English is not my native language. My usage of 'private' is to indicate non-governmental. For example, I view university networks, part of the Internet as 'private', although in many cases these are created with taxpayer money and in some countries might be considered government controlled. > But, what "private" really means in this area is that large corporate > "stakeholders" in the internet directly and de facto make the law of > the internet, via contracts and terms of service that are then > enforced by governmental courts around the world. This is true too. But again, my usage of 'private' does not envision the large corporations, that often share the same board of directors with a governments ministries and such. Internet is successful, because it is not controlled by governments and by large corporations. It is not so much about free trade, than for unrestricted (unlicensed etc) connectivity. The 'small' internet participants combined are more important than the few large players -- who, like governments, come and go. > And, nor COULD the internet be entirely private, even in theory: > Even the most radical libertarian "free" market theorists agree that a > rather robust series of governmental involvement in the form of > contract laws and so forth are necessary structures to support "free, > private" markets. There's a great deal of choice in how those > contract rules are drafted, and debate as to what rules best support > "free markets" even among like-minded theorists. There are several different issues here. One issue is with the government's role to create the framework for day to day life. This is primarily why governments exist and why they are granted so much power. This is also the reason people pay taxes, obey laws etc. The governments need to be careful with the Internet however, because it is so much different than other things they have to regulate. The other issue is the desire of large corporations for more power. They will do whatever it takes to lobby any government to pass laws that suit their goals. So far, this has been fruitless, because in a while they come to realize Internet is not reacting the way they expect -- it is so much different. If you realize that Internet is an voluntary interconnection of networks, each of which is independently (privately) owned and operated, that there are groupings for various reasons, common goals, even fights or wars -- you will see how similar this is to the society that consists of interconnected individuals. There have been many different models to manipulate individuals, with varying success. The Internet might have already passed the capitalist and proletariat era... But how all this relates to taxation is a different topic. :) Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 12 10:17:16 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:47:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1C4E67.2080701@digsys.bg> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> <4E1C4E67.2080701@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E1C576C.8060502@itforchange.net> Internet exceptionalism is a techie's uptopia. Sociologically and politically it has little meaning or relevance. All or most large insitutional systems are a network of, or join, private spaces or actions or initiatives or bodies. Market (as a space of legitimate trading) or media or health services or the education sector, aren't they too interconnected private spheres? But how does that exclude application of the concept of publicness (which in a good part means some kind of government-ness) to these institutions or institutional systems. Are they not regulated, are they not taxed..... Internet is just another one of them. Unique in its own way, as are also all others in their particular ways. Privateness or publicness is not the real issue in judging what is unique about the Internet. It is its globalness, represented in the phrase 'death of distance'. This features creates considerable challenges to its governance and we do need to grapple with them. However positing the Internet as intrinsically and uniquely 'private' and antithetical to any notions or institutions of public-ness is either naive or, if deliberate, a part of the neoliberal design of marketising all social institutions and relationships in a manner that benefits the already most powerful. Parminder On Tuesday 12 July 2011 07:08 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 12.07.11 15:19, Paul Lehto wrote: >> On 7/12/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >>> Internet has happened and was successful decades ago, only because >>> it is >>> the largest independently owned PRIVATE network of networks in the >>> world. Nobody own the Internet. Many own small parts of it. Governments >>> resisted Internet for many, many years, throwing large amounts of money >>> and political pressure as a means to stop it's development. >> The internet originated in governmental efforts and could not exist >> without the robust legal infrastructure and some physical >> infrastructure provided by governments. Granted, the government >> physical infrastructure component is more limited than in many other >> areas, and governments have both been silent and/or had their further >> involvement in the internet resisted in some powerful quarters, but >> governmental silence or resistance to government does not mean >> government doesn't play a formative role, past and present. > > This all is very complex and can be viewed very differently, depending > on what you know about the history of Internet development and > different scenarios in different parts of the world. > > Internet "originated" in the US, in a form of a USG initiative, or a > project. That project however was severely limited to military and > scientific usage. Then Internet came to Europe and the rest of the > world and it is there where Internet developed into what we know it > today. > > It was curious in say, 1992, when there was well developed Internet > infrastructure outside the US, providing access to everyone, yet the > "US part of the Internet" was strictly not available to individuals or > companies and all government contract insisted on ISO protocol > compliance - meaning, no TCP/IP protocols. > > Governments in most other countries were not much different. They were > completely ignorant and if they did something, that was to try to > protect the incumbent monopoly telecoms. Not surprisingly -- in most > countries governments had big say in that 'businesses' operation -- or > the other way around.. > > > >> To give but one example: Who would deny that ICANN was started by the >> US government, or that even after "freeing" ICANN that the US >> government in particular does not retain some forms of actual or >> potential power or influence on ICANN? > > ICANN was created, because USG wanted to stop an outgoing attempt to > "steal" the Internet. I myself, although participating in the agenda, > could not claim I know all of the hidden agendas. But in any case, the > idea of ICANN to create private entity with wide stakeholder > participation. This was successful in some areas and not much in > other, but there are still chances. > >> Your CAPITALIZED assertion that the internet is PRIVATE combined with >> its attempt to give all credit for the internet to the private sector >> is a distortion of the facts, past and present. The internet is >> essentially "more private" than other sectors. > > English is not my native language. My usage of 'private' is to > indicate non-governmental. For example, I view university networks, > part of the Internet as 'private', although in many cases these are > created with taxpayer money and in some countries might be considered > government controlled. > >> But, what "private" really means in this area is that large corporate >> "stakeholders" in the internet directly and de facto make the law of >> the internet, via contracts and terms of service that are then >> enforced by governmental courts around the world. > > This is true too. But again, my usage of 'private' does not envision > the large corporations, that often share the same board of directors > with a governments ministries and such. Internet is successful, > because it is not controlled by governments and by large corporations. > It is not so much about free trade, than for unrestricted (unlicensed > etc) connectivity. The 'small' internet participants combined are more > important than the few large players -- who, like governments, come > and go. > >> And, nor COULD the internet be entirely private, even in theory: >> Even the most radical libertarian "free" market theorists agree that a >> rather robust series of governmental involvement in the form of >> contract laws and so forth are necessary structures to support "free, >> private" markets. There's a great deal of choice in how those >> contract rules are drafted, and debate as to what rules best support >> "free markets" even among like-minded theorists. > > There are several different issues here. > > One issue is with the government's role to create the framework for > day to day life. This is primarily why governments exist and why they > are granted so much power. This is also the reason people pay taxes, > obey laws etc. The governments need to be careful with the Internet > however, because it is so much different than other things they have > to regulate. > > The other issue is the desire of large corporations for more power. > They will do whatever it takes to lobby any government to pass laws > that suit their goals. So far, this has been fruitless, because in a > while they come to realize Internet is not reacting the way they > expect -- it is so much different. > > If you realize that Internet is an voluntary interconnection of > networks, each of which is independently (privately) owned and > operated, that there are groupings for various reasons, common goals, > even fights or wars -- you will see how similar this is to the society > that consists of interconnected individuals. There have been many > different models to manipulate individuals, with varying success. The > Internet might have already passed the capitalist and proletariat era... > > But how all this relates to taxation is a different topic. :) > > Daniel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 11:06:47 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:06:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1C576C.8060502@itforchange.net> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> <4E1C4E67.2080701@digsys.bg> <4E1C576C.8060502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 7/12/11, parminder wrote: [snip] > Privateness or publicness is not the real issue in judging what is > unique about the Internet. [snip] > [P]ositing the Internet as intrinsically and uniquely 'private' > and antithetical to any notions or institutions of public-ness is either > naive or, if deliberate, a part of the neoliberal design of marketising > all social institutions and relationships in a manner that benefits the > already most powerful. Excellent point. It seems to me that there is a large super-majority world-wide that supports government setting the "neutral framework" laws for free participation and interaction on the internet, along with a basic notion of equality consistent with widely ratified human rights laws. At the same time, a majority would also, as they should, oppose heavy-handed governmental censorship or interference, like that seen with China. For this large majority I'm speaking of, having the government guarantee basic frameworks and rights of free participation on the internet -- and then stepping back except as necessary to police real abuses of the rights of others -- is a common sense plan of action that features all of the perceived goods of government and essentially empty of all the perceived bads of government. Because Daniel agrees with me that "private" actors on the internet, especially corporations, directly set and declare the "law of the internet" via contracts and terms of service which are then the law as between those private actors and all others, there is no getting around the reality that the Internet IS regulated. The only question is Who will set the law applicable to the internet? Will it be corporations via contract, or governmental entities of various types using a democratic value system that uses neutral framework laws along with protection of individual and some social rights? Personally, no matter how low my opinion or anyone else's opinion may be about their influence or say with government, that influence is even lower when it comes to one's ability to influence or have a say with Verizon or other internet corporations when it comes to what the law of their terms of service are, most especially when these "private" corporations have monopolies or quasi-monopolies on parts of the internet backbone. This same thing applies even to everyday services commonly provided over the internet such as Ticketmaster's near-monopoly on concert ticket sales in North America, especially the USA. Such corporations create law that is often very one-sided and oppressive and nobody outside those corporations really has any say whatsoever. Moreover, even when there isn't is some real corporate competition to give a fig leaf of illusion that there is "choice" in the marketplace there is no choice as to the private corporate laws being asserted via contracts and terms of service. This is because in the vast majority of examples the other corporate choice has the very same unfair contract terms that are the law at the original "choice". Thus, while "choice" may exist in the market for unhappy customers, there is rarely competition of any kind on the kind of oppressive terms of service that basically all lawyers will strongly advise their clients to push onto the customers. Give a lawyer a blank piece of paper (which is corporate terms of service), and basically 100% of all lawyers will instinctively draft the most one-sided terms that they know how to do. Differences between corporations in their terms of service are more often than not a function of the relative ignorance or the relative style of different lawyers or law firms, not any real competition to gain market share by having fairer terms of service. The occasional exceptions that maybe can be cited here simply prove the basic rule: One has a fighting chance of rights with government, and really no chance at all with corporations. Put another way, rights and duties will *always* be allocated. In a "private sector" model the corporate "service" providers simply allocate all the rights to themselves. THe internet has somewhat more "work-around" capability, but only a tech utopian believes these work-arounds are a magical solution to the otherwise eternal question of who will make the laws and who will allocate the rights and duties? A democratically elected governmental entity, or an aristocracy of monied corporations? Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Jul 12 11:28:08 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:28:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> <4E1C4E67.2080701@digsys.bg> <4E1C576C.8060502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E1C6808.7070204@digsys.bg> On 12.07.11 18:06, Paul Lehto wrote: > THe internet has somewhat more "work-around" capability, but only a > tech utopian believes these > work-arounds are a magical solution to the otherwise eternal question > of who will make the laws and who will allocate the rights and duties? > A democratically elected governmental entity, or an aristocracy of > monied corporations? > This is where we apparently disagree. You believe those two entities are different, I don't. No matter what the government is, it will behave well only if it is beyond any doubt that it has to be accountable. Same applies to any corporation. What is unique with Internet is, as it was mentioned that it is without borders. So much difficult to frame. In a world without borders, it does not help any government to try to regulate how you plant your farm, because, you can at any moment plant it at any other soil, anywhere else. The only way to control this is to create One World Government. Who knows, this may happen some day. Then a different form of Internet will happen. Replace 'government' with a 'corporation'. The situation would be the same. It is also utopian to believe humans can be kept under control. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jul 12 12:09:42 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:09:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB27850@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<251D6A1E270E437FB25867669787FE2D@userPC> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB27850@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F8D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Lee, Keep in mind that the original discussion was not about taxation per se, but about _regulation_. No one in their right mind would support the idea that mere publication of an app by an innovator in, say, Mexico City should make that publisher subject to the regulations of a Thai municipality (and 100,000 other jurisdictions) simply because someone in Thailand accessed it over the internet. That is almost a perfect reduction ad absurdum of territorial government. I reiterate my perhaps blunt and deliberatel;y strong but fundamentally accurate charge that anyone who advocates such a thing is anti-internet, anti-growth, anti-economy and/or has no clue regarding the practical consequences of what they are saying. Your ancient paper focuses on taxation, and doesn't really disagree that much, it proposes a "global solution" based on the location of the consumer. Thus it recognizes the inadequacy of trying to project the territorial status quo into the Internet space. One could pick apart the proposed solution pretty easily, but even if one accepts it, such a solution would require major institutional innovations regarding the collection and distribution of taxes. So it supports the argument, which I made more systematically in Networks and States, that Internet fosters new forms of governance that transcend traditional territorial forms of government. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:40 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > Hey, > > As seems to happen on occasion, Milton and I take different positions on the > significance and suitability of location mattering in online sales (taxes). > > For a paper on this topic; albeit written several years ago, see: > > Title: Sales Tax on the Internet: When and How to Tax? > Author: Uzuner, Ozlem; McKnight, Lee > Issue Date: 2002-07-22 > Abstract: As a first attempt to tax electronic commerce, many > countries applied the existing tax laws to Internet. However, applying these > laws to border-spanning electronic commerce proved very inefficient and > inappropriate. While some authorities claim not taxing the Internet is the > best solution for encouraging the growth of electronic commerce, we believe > that use and sales taxes in general are an important part of a government?s > revenues and that their ban over the Internet is not feasible. Given the > magnitude of potential revenues to be obtained from sales over the > Internet, we need to consider when and how governments should tax > electronic commerce. We focus on some proposals which try to answer this > question and argue that a taxation scheme based on the location of the > consumer is the best starting point for a global solution. > URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1508 > Keywords: electronic commerce, Internet, sales tax > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of > michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:29 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > No, I don't think so Milton. I think it is raising a very significant issue that > someone somewhere has to be dealing with as a matter of urgency. > > If no one is currently dealing with it that is the problem not the fact that folks > are raising it as an issue. > > MG > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:19 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > Well, let's see, there are about 10,000 local jurisdictions in the United States > alone. If someone has to contend with 10,000 X 220 (number of countries) > differing and constantly changing laws and regulations and taxes, simply > because it publishes an app on the Internet, then they will cease to exist as a > viable business. I cannot imagine a better way to crush the internet > economy. > > Now if an internet business owns real estate in a local jurisdiction, then of > course it pays local property taxes, and if it employs in a local jurisdiction then > of course that corporate entity conforms to local regulations pertaining to > employment, etc. But not simply because someone in that jurisdiction uses > the internet to purchase their goods. > > Really, the mere fact that we are asking these questions shows a certain level > of innocence and lack of exposure to practical reality. > > From: Roxana Goldstein [mailto:goldstein.roxana at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > why not? > 2011/7/8 Milton L Mueller > > Good god, let's hope not. > > > Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global > > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a > > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? > > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jul 12 12:12:02 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:12:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F8E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Local governments have a lot to do with local things. Or have you forgotten about things like roads, schools, crime and law enforcement, etc.? I havent forgotten them, Yes, you have. Local stakeholders, local beneficiaries, local accountability is fundamentally inimical to the idea of asserting authority and taking money from people who are not located there, have no physical presence there, etc. That is why I call it parasitical. And there are plenty of precedents for this. Apparently your government-love has blinded you to the fact that human greed works not only within commercial organizations and institutions but also, and especially, within political ones. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 12 12:24:26 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:24:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F8D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<251D6A1E270E437FB25867669787FE2D@userPC> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB27850@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F8D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB27865@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Milton, Right. Taxation is just part of - (multiple) governance regimes. Their intersection and overlay however, is very rarely fixed in and around the Internet. To say something is 'anti-Internet' because it applies a particular jurisdictions - regulations - in some form, for some defined subjects, who may be in a defined geography, in some sense, is divorced from reality indeed. As to: 'anyone who advocates such a thing is anti-internet, anti-growth, anti-economy and/or has no clue regarding the practical consequences of what they are saying.' But please tell me how you really feel? Please don;t hold back not to hurt my feelings over the conclusion one might draw from a ten year old paper. Seriously, things are far more complicated than you allude to, where we are heading is a world of governance challenges in which the Internet of Things (and people) intersect through virtual markets made by boundary-spanning virtual organizations, some fraction of which are corporations, most likely across wireless grids. The Internet is just a small part of that - governance challenge. So yes, worrying about networks and states is kind of old fashioned (Now I'm teasing, I'm teasing : ) And that future - of Virtual Markets and Wireless Grids - is the subject if my next couple books, which I pre-advertise here. ; ) Cough Imperial College Press/World Scientific Press, forthcoming. Cough. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:09 PM To: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Lee, Keep in mind that the original discussion was not about taxation per se, but about _regulation_. No one in their right mind would support the idea that mere publication of an app by an innovator in, say, Mexico City should make that publisher subject to the regulations of a Thai municipality (and 100,000 other jurisdictions) simply because someone in Thailand accessed it over the internet. That is almost a perfect reduction ad absurdum of territorial government. I reiterate my perhaps blunt and deliberatel;y strong but fundamentally accurate charge that anyone who advocates such a thing is anti-internet, anti-growth, anti-economy and/or has no clue regarding the practical consequences of what they are saying. Your ancient paper focuses on taxation, and doesn't really disagree that much, it proposes a "global solution" based on the location of the consumer. Thus it recognizes the inadequacy of trying to project the territorial status quo into the Internet space. One could pick apart the proposed solution pretty easily, but even if one accepts it, such a solution would require major institutional innovations regarding the collection and distribution of taxes. So it supports the argument, which I made more systematically in Networks and States, that Internet fosters new forms of governance that transcend traditional territorial forms of government. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:40 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > Hey, > > As seems to happen on occasion, Milton and I take different positions on the > significance and suitability of location mattering in online sales (taxes). > > For a paper on this topic; albeit written several years ago, see: > > Title: Sales Tax on the Internet: When and How to Tax? > Author: Uzuner, Ozlem; McKnight, Lee > Issue Date: 2002-07-22 > Abstract: As a first attempt to tax electronic commerce, many > countries applied the existing tax laws to Internet. However, applying these > laws to border-spanning electronic commerce proved very inefficient and > inappropriate. While some authorities claim not taxing the Internet is the > best solution for encouraging the growth of electronic commerce, we believe > that use and sales taxes in general are an important part of a government?s > revenues and that their ban over the Internet is not feasible. Given the > magnitude of potential revenues to be obtained from sales over the > Internet, we need to consider when and how governments should tax > electronic commerce. We focus on some proposals which try to answer this > question and argue that a taxation scheme based on the location of the > consumer is the best starting point for a global solution. > URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1508 > Keywords: electronic commerce, Internet, sales tax > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of > michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:29 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > No, I don't think so Milton. I think it is raising a very significant issue that > someone somewhere has to be dealing with as a matter of urgency. > > If no one is currently dealing with it that is the problem not the fact that folks > are raising it as an issue. > > MG > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:19 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > Well, let’s see, there are about 10,000 local jurisdictions in the United States > alone. If someone has to contend with 10,000 X 220 (number of countries) > differing and constantly changing laws and regulations and taxes, simply > because it publishes an app on the Internet, then they will cease to exist as a > viable business. I cannot imagine a better way to crush the internet > economy. > > Now if an internet business owns real estate in a local jurisdiction, then of > course it pays local property taxes, and if it employs in a local jurisdiction then > of course that corporate entity conforms to local regulations pertaining to > employment, etc. But not simply because someone in that jurisdiction uses > the internet to purchase their goods. > > Really, the mere fact that we are asking these questions shows a certain level > of innocence and lack of exposure to practical reality. > > From: Roxana Goldstein [mailto:goldstein.roxana at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:08 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > why not? > 2011/7/8 Milton L Mueller > > Good god, let’s hope not. > > > Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global > > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a > > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? > > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jul 12 12:22:42 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:22:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > > I'm not saying this was Milton's intent in his expression (to equate > all taxation with "parasitism") but this is the political bell that's > rung in my mind and I believe the minds of others as well, whenever > the idea of "parasitism" is attached to government taxation without > careful restriction of the scope of that word to specific facts of > specific cases of opportunistic over-taxation. This discussion is rapidly descending toward posturing and silliness. I did attach a very specific restriction on the scope of the word. I asserted that a government that tries to regulate a virtual business - basically, software downloaded from the internet - with no physical presence in its jurisdiction is being parasitical. Actually governments can and often are parasitical even when they confine their activities to entities in their own space. If you are not familiar with this phenomenon you haven't read much about some of the problems developing countries have had getting their economies going (including Western developing countries in the early stages of their development prior to hard-won battles over democracy and the rule of law). > Applied to the internet, the metaphor of parasitism can have more > power than it deserves. When users get accustomed to "free" internet > access they may start to erroneously believe that the internet happens > without government services in the form of telecommunications > infrastructure Most telecom infrastructure is no longer provided by government, indeed, we just went through three decades of the fastest growth in communications infra in human history precisely because we moved away from state-owned Post, Telephone and Telegraph monopolies. What people need from governments is stable rules, fair enforcement of rules that protect and liberate humans. Sometimes they get that, sometimes they don't. It would be uncontroversial on this list to say that private corporations can be greedy and exploitive. It ought to be equally uncontroversial to say that governments can be, too. > mistakenly oppose proposals to secure continued support for these > things to keep the internet well. Did you forget what we are talking about? Please tell me how 100,000 different local governments "exercising policy on Google applications" keeps the internet "well." You can start with that example, and perhaps move on to the Chinese GFW from there. Let's see how convincing a case you can make. Use facts, not generalities, for a change. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jul 12 12:29:01 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:29:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB27865@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<251D6A1E270E437FB25867669787FE2D@userPC> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB27850@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F8D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB27865@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F90@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Lee, I've lost sight of what point you are making. Do you or do you not believe that anyone who publishes an app ought in principle to be regulated by any and every jurisdiction that accesses it over the internet? Yes or no. > -----Original Message----- > Taxation is just part of - (multiple) governance regimes. Their intersection > and overlay however, is very rarely fixed in and around the Internet. > > To say something is 'anti-Internet' because it applies a particular jurisdictions > - regulations - in some form, for some defined subjects, who may be in a > defined geography, in some sense, is divorced from reality indeed. > > As to: 'anyone who advocates such a thing is anti-internet, anti-growth, anti- > economy and/or has no clue regarding the practical consequences of what > they are saying.' > > But please tell me how you really feel? Please don;t hold back not to hurt my > feelings over the conclusion one might draw from a ten year old paper. > > Seriously, things are far more complicated than you allude to, where we are > heading is a world of governance challenges in which the Internet of Things > (and people) intersect through virtual markets made by boundary-spanning > virtual organizations, some fraction of which are corporations, most likely > across wireless grids. The Internet is just a small part of that - governance > challenge. > > So yes, worrying about networks and states is kind of old fashioned (Now I'm > teasing, I'm teasing : ) > > And that future - of Virtual Markets and Wireless Grids - is the subject if my > next couple books, which I pre-advertise here. ; ) > Cough Imperial College Press/World Scientific Press, forthcoming. Cough. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: Milton L Mueller > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:09 PM > To: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > Lee, > Keep in mind that the original discussion was not about taxation per se, but > about _regulation_. No one in their right mind would support the idea that > mere publication of an app by an innovator in, say, Mexico City should make > that publisher subject to the regulations of a Thai municipality (and 100,000 > other jurisdictions) simply because someone in Thailand accessed it over the > internet. That is almost a perfect reduction ad absurdum of territorial > government. I reiterate my perhaps blunt and deliberatel;y strong but > fundamentally accurate charge that anyone who advocates such a thing is > anti-internet, anti-growth, anti-economy and/or has no clue regarding the > practical consequences of what they are saying. > > Your ancient paper focuses on taxation, and doesn't really disagree that > much, it proposes a "global solution" based on the location of the consumer. > Thus it recognizes the inadequacy of trying to project the territorial status > quo into the Internet space. One could pick apart the proposed solution > pretty easily, but even if one accepts it, such a solution would require major > institutional innovations regarding the collection and distribution of taxes. So > it supports the argument, which I made more systematically in Networks and > States, that Internet fosters new forms of governance that transcend > traditional territorial forms of government. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lee W McKnight > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:40 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein; Milton L Mueller > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > > period > > > > Hey, > > > > As seems to happen on occasion, Milton and I take different positions on > the > > significance and suitability of location mattering in online sales (taxes). > > > > For a paper on this topic; albeit written several years ago, see: > > > > Title: Sales Tax on the Internet: When and How to Tax? > > Author: Uzuner, Ozlem; McKnight, Lee > > Issue Date: 2002-07-22 > > Abstract: As a first attempt to tax electronic commerce, many > > countries applied the existing tax laws to Internet. However, applying > these > > laws to border-spanning electronic commerce proved very inefficient and > > inappropriate. While some authorities claim not taxing the Internet is the > > best solution for encouraging the growth of electronic commerce, we > believe > > that use and sales taxes in general are an important part of a government?s > > revenues and that their ban over the Internet is not feasible. Given the > > magnitude of potential revenues to be obtained from sales over the > > Internet, we need to consider when and how governments should tax > > electronic commerce. We focus on some proposals which try to answer this > > question and argue that a taxation scheme based on the location of the > > consumer is the best starting point for a global solution. > > URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1508 > > Keywords: electronic commerce, Internet, sales tax > > > > Lee > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of > > michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:29 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > > period > > > > No, I don't think so Milton. I think it is raising a very significant issue that > > someone somewhere has to be dealing with as a matter of urgency. > > > > If no one is currently dealing with it that is the problem not the fact that > folks > > are raising it as an issue. > > > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:19 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > > period > > > > Well, let's see, there are about 10,000 local jurisdictions in the United > States > > alone. If someone has to contend with 10,000 X 220 (number of countries) > > differing and constantly changing laws and regulations and taxes, simply > > because it publishes an app on the Internet, then they will cease to exist as > a > > viable business. I cannot imagine a better way to crush the internet > > economy. > > > > Now if an internet business owns real estate in a local jurisdiction, then of > > course it pays local property taxes, and if it employs in a local jurisdiction > then > > of course that corporate entity conforms to local regulations pertaining to > > employment, etc. But not simply because someone in that jurisdiction uses > > the internet to purchase their goods. > > > > Really, the mere fact that we are asking these questions shows a certain > level > > of innocence and lack of exposure to practical reality. > > > > From: Roxana Goldstein [mailto:goldstein.roxana at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:08 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > > period > > > > why not? > > 2011/7/8 Milton L Mueller > > > Good god, let's hope not. > > > > > > Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global > > > > corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a > > > > municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > __ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 12:37:33 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:37:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 7/12/11, Milton L Mueller wrote: [snip] I did > attach a very specific restriction on the scope of the word. I asserted that > a government that tries to regulate a virtual business - basically, software > downloaded from the internet - with no physical presence in its jurisdiction > is being parasitical. Actually governments can and often are parasitical > even when they confine their activities to entities in their own space. If > you are not familiar with this phenomenon you haven't read much about some > of the problems developing countries have had getting their economies going > (including Western developing countries in the early stages of their > development prior to hard-won battles over democracy and the rule of law). You've expanded your prior "specific" scope a substantial amount here, including physical presence, at least in developing countries. Governments routinely exercise non-physical jurisdiction in non-controversial ways outside their borders, such as nationals of country X being protected by government X. There's nothing magical about "non-physical" -- Why should government X not have jurisdiction of any kind because a "non-physical" cyber attack is launched against it? Or why should someone be able to stand in a different jurisidiction and make thousands of phone calls into country X and avoid country X's jurisdiction because the contact is "non-physical" because electronic? In a computerized world the classical physical non-physical distinction is basically erased, and even in the classical world governments exercised jurisdiction outside their borders when their own nationals were involved. > > What people need from governments is stable rules, fair enforcement of rules > that protect and liberate humans. Sometimes they get that, sometimes they > don't. It would be uncontroversial on this list to say that private > corporations can be greedy and exploitive. It ought to be equally > uncontroversial to say that governments can be, too. Agreed. But corporations are not accountable to people generally even in THEORY. At least governments, in theory and to have a claim for legitimacy, must be accountable or at least pretend to be accountable. Corporations, on the other hand, can be subjected to a derivative lawsuit for waste of corporate assets if they serve anyone except the shareholders' profit interest. This is a very significant difference. > > Did you forget what we are talking about? Please tell me how 100,000 > different local governments "exercising policy on Google applications" keeps > the internet "well." You can start with that example, and perhaps move on to > the Chinese GFW from there. Let's see how convincing a case you can make. > Use facts, not generalities, for a change. As a US Citizen, you are familiar with the advantages of federalism with our 50 states and the distribution of power between state and federal branches. The same arguments are made against 50 states having their freedom to make different business laws as are made with your "100,000 different local governments." Without necessarily defending the 100,000 angle, reasonable people can support distributed power such as federalist systems as well as centralized power (to avoid the problems of the 100,000). But centralized power (need I say more than this phrase?) has problems of its own. I'm arguing policy and law here, so you may perceive it as short on facts. In a policy debate, this is natural and not a deficiency. If you want to bring facts to bear on a policy principle of your own, or mine, you are welcome to do that. Paul R. Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jul 12 12:46:20 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:46:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F92@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > > The internet originated in governmental efforts Internet protocol (TCP/IP) was developed with governmental research funding, not "the Internet." "The Internet" infrastructure was developed, as Daniel correctly notes, by private network operators building things and interconnecting with it. And the reason it succeeded was because it was an open protocol, not owned. I.e., it was the ABSENCE of control, not its presence, that made it successful. > and could not exist > without the robust legal infrastructure and some physical > infrastructure provided by governments. Bollocks. This whole line of argument is just silly. Some local government provides a road for a truck to ride on and that means it has an unqualified right to regulate anything and everything that happens in global communications? What kind of an argument is this? Sure, insofar as governments secure basic property rights and contractual rights and administer justice, a "legal infrastructure" has been helpful. But just as often, govts overstep those bounds and try to obstruct, parasitize, over-regulate or overtax. We need to debate the merits of a specific intervention; this argument makes no sense in the abstract. So please, stay on point and tell me why a specific locality in Taiwan should be able to tax and assert regulatory power over an app provider in California;, tell me what benefit accrues and how such taxation without representation is consistent with democratic principles. And tell me - as Parminder, Lee, Michael and others keep ducking the issue - how it is practically feasible to have 100,000 different jurisdictions come bearing down on any and every virtual service provider? If you and the others continue to remain silent on the obvious practical issue associated with that, I won't take you seriously for another second. > Thus, there's no getting around the necessity for government > involvement at a material level. The real issue is to what extent, if > any, government ought to abdicate or forego its traditional roles in > the context of the internet. No, the real issue is that Internet _breaks_ the governments' traditional roles in communication and information, and we need to figure out how we can revise governmental functions to insert control where needed without killing the freedom and openness that makes the internet valuable. And that was the debate we were trying to have, until you detoured it into a general, philosophical and mostly useless debate on government per se. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jul 12 13:06:47 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:06:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E1C7F27.4010807@cafonso.ca> In BR, actually 5,565 municipal governments :) One interesting case is the old capital of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, which was a state-like structure (federal district) in the US sense of the word until Brasília was inaugurated in 1961, then became a real state (the short-lived state of Guanabara) which ended up by becoming the capital city of the larger state of Rio de Janeiro, with 92 municipalities, including Rio itself. Public services (and taxes) here are a funny or terrible (depending on the point of view) case study in conflicting jurisdictions among local, state and federal governments. --c.a. On 07/12/2011 01:22 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] >> >> I'm not saying this was Milton's intent in his expression (to equate >> all taxation with "parasitism") but this is the political bell that's >> rung in my mind and I believe the minds of others as well, whenever >> the idea of "parasitism" is attached to government taxation without >> careful restriction of the scope of that word to specific facts of >> specific cases of opportunistic over-taxation. > > This discussion is rapidly descending toward posturing and silliness. I did attach a very specific restriction on the scope of the word. I asserted that a government that tries to regulate a virtual business - basically, software downloaded from the internet - with no physical presence in its jurisdiction is being parasitical. Actually governments can and often are parasitical even when they confine their activities to entities in their own space. If you are not familiar with this phenomenon you haven't read much about some of the problems developing countries have had getting their economies going (including Western developing countries in the early stages of their development prior to hard-won battles over democracy and the rule of law). > >> Applied to the internet, the metaphor of parasitism can have more >> power than it deserves. When users get accustomed to "free" internet >> access they may start to erroneously believe that the internet happens >> without government services in the form of telecommunications >> infrastructure > > Most telecom infrastructure is no longer provided by government, indeed, we just went through three decades of the fastest growth in communications infra in human history precisely because we moved away from state-owned Post, Telephone and Telegraph monopolies. > > What people need from governments is stable rules, fair enforcement of rules that protect and liberate humans. Sometimes they get that, sometimes they don't. It would be uncontroversial on this list to say that private corporations can be greedy and exploitive. It ought to be equally uncontroversial to say that governments can be, too. > >> mistakenly oppose proposals to secure continued support for these >> things to keep the internet well. > > Did you forget what we are talking about? Please tell me how 100,000 different local governments "exercising policy on Google applications" keeps the internet "well." You can start with that example, and perhaps move on to the Chinese GFW from there. Let's see how convincing a case you can make. Use facts, not generalities, for a change. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jul 12 13:31:15 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:31:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1C576C.8060502@itforchange.net> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> <4E1C4E67.2080701@digsys.bg> <4E1C576C.8060502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F93@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder Internet exceptionalism... I reject the label. But I see how you need to hide behind it. Anti-exceptionalists fall into the mirror-image fallacy of the exceptionalists: they must contend "there is nothing new here." Well, sorry, but that's wrong. We wouldn't be having this debate if there wasn't something new, something structurally different about the internet. I suspect you agree: Internet creates new issues and problems in public governance. All or most large insitutional systems are a network of, or join, private spaces or actions or initiatives or bodies. Market (as a space of legitimate trading) or media or health services or the education sector, aren't they too interconnected private spheres? But how does that exclude application of the concept of publicness (which in a good part means some kind of government-ness) to these institutions or institutional systems. Are they not regulated, are they not taxed..... Internet is just another one of them. Unique in its own way, as are also all others in their particular ways. Earth to Parminder: No one said it DID exclude the concept of publicness. No one ever said that, no one could feasibly say that. Indeed, when it comes to access to information resources Internet vastly expands and transforms the notion of publicness - open source, peer production, file sharing, creative commons, etc. etc. We are instead having a debate about the proper role and scope for traditional territorial public authorities. We are talking about how it needs to change. Change is inevitable because the Internet IS different. Historically, it is not unheard of for coercive state authority to withdraw from some areas and realign its role. For example, we no longer tend to associate government with religion (although some countries still do this). Had you been around when old liberals posited the revolutionary idea that maybe we should separate church and state, I suppose you would have accused them of marketizing all social relationships and institutions... As stated above (repetition seems to be necessary here) Internet creates new issues and problems in governance. One new issue is it creates the threat (or for some, the opportunity) for a local jurisdiction to try to expand its scope globally). Some of us recognize this as a distortion and perversion of the concept of publicness / government. Others, apparently, don't. Either way, it is a new problem and it has to be dealt with. People like Daniel and I who believe that we need for states to pull back and allow a broader scope for private action are not trying to erase the notion of a public; we are trying to transform it and update it. This may be hard for you to grasp because you are so stuck in the 20th century social democracy mindset, in which there are big, bad "private" corporations (many of which turn out to be state-owned, but never mind), and we need wonderful, flawless democratic governments - national governments - to save us from them. And the more control and regulation and taxation those governments assert over private economic activity, the more "the people" win. I think that whole worldview is just wrong, but we can agree to disagree on that. Privateness or publicness is not the real issue in judging what is unique about the Internet. It is its globalness, represented in the phrase 'death of distance'. This features creates considerable challenges to its governance and we do need to grapple with them. No, privateness and publicness are at the core of the issue. The internet thrived on private, unlicensed initiative. Innovation without permission. And because the nature of a "public" is defined by a combination of institutional structures and communications media, this realignment of the private remakes the public. In the past, national-scale publics and national governments arose alongside territorial postal monopolies, territorially extended sovereigns and print mass media. New forms of publicity and new publics arise with the internet. Internet "globalness" facilitates "private" activity, both economic and social, that transcends borders, but it also facilitates a new polity, new publics, new problems in collective action. I've made a pretty systematic argument to that effect in my book. However positing the Internet as intrinsically and uniquely 'private' and antithetical to any notions or institutions of public-ness is either naive or, if deliberate, a part of the neoliberal design of marketising all social institutions and relationships in a manner that benefits the already most powerful. Like I said, stuck in the old 20th century mindset. If you should learn anything from the past 30 years of history it is that marketizing services that were needlessly state-controlled can be very beneficial to the public and can empower new actors. Conversely, keeping things under state control often locks into place dysfunctional and oppressive local power relations. (Or maybe you thought those Middle Eastern dictatorships shouldn't have been disturbed by neoliberalized communications.) And collectivizing too many decisions and processes, even with the best of intentions, can impose so many limits and restrictions on human activity that everyone loses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 13:36:34 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:36:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F92@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Since I started this most interesting discussion by forwarding the original message concerning the actions by the Taipei municipality I reserve the right to speak for myself (tks for your kindness in placing words in my mouth MM... I forwarded the original message not because I supported that Municipality, I don't know enough about the circumstances there to offer a useful opinion and certainly subjecting corporations or anyone to local ordinances etc.etc. is broadly an absurdity except for those directly resident or with a significant presence locally (vagueness in definition here deliberate); rather I sent it along as an example of the kind of dilemmas that the Internet presents in the context of governance regimes--local, national, and global. What should be clear to all sides of this discussion is that some sort of governance (including taxation) regime that responds to the unique charactetistics of the Internet is necessary and the success of the Internet makes that even more significant and the urgency even greater. If we start from there and avoid misattributions of words/opinions etc. we might even make a useful contribution to the overall discussion on this which regrettably has been very slow in developing, mixed up with national short term self-interests and corporate reluctance to have anyone have an overview let alone a position of authority where their super-growth and super-profits might come under direct scrutiny. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:46 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Paul Lehto'; Daniel Kalchev Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > > The internet originated in governmental efforts Internet protocol (TCP/IP) was developed with governmental research funding, not "the Internet." "The Internet" infrastructure was developed, as Daniel correctly notes, by private network operators building things and interconnecting with it. And the reason it succeeded was because it was an open protocol, not owned. I.e., it was the ABSENCE of control, not its presence, that made it successful. > and could not exist > without the robust legal infrastructure and some physical > infrastructure provided by governments. Bollocks. This whole line of argument is just silly. Some local government provides a road for a truck to ride on and that means it has an unqualified right to regulate anything and everything that happens in global communications? What kind of an argument is this? Sure, insofar as governments secure basic property rights and contractual rights and administer justice, a "legal infrastructure" has been helpful. But just as often, govts overstep those bounds and try to obstruct, parasitize, over-regulate or overtax. We need to debate the merits of a specific intervention; this argument makes no sense in the abstract. So please, stay on point and tell me why a specific locality in Taiwan should be able to tax and assert regulatory power over an app provider in California;, tell me what benefit accrues and how such taxation without representation is consistent with democratic principles. And tell me - as Parminder, Lee, Michael and others keep ducking the issue - how it is practically feasible to have 100,000 different jurisdictions come bearing down on any and every virtual service provider? If you and the others continue to remain silent on the obvious practical issue associated with that, I won't take you seriously for another second. > Thus, there's no getting around the necessity for government > involvement at a material level. The real issue is to what extent, if > any, government ought to abdicate or forego its traditional roles in > the context of the internet. No, the real issue is that Internet _breaks_ the governments' traditional roles in communication and information, and we need to figure out how we can revise governmental functions to insert control where needed without killing the freedom and openness that makes the internet valuable. And that was the debate we were trying to have, until you detoured it into a general, philosophical and mostly useless debate on government per se. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 15:10:37 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:10:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F92@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F92@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 7/12/11, Milton L Mueller wrote: > it was the ABSENCE of control, not its > presence, that made it successful. We seem to agree on freedom, or "free government" so to speak, but even free governments have fairly enormous numbers of laws. The "absence of control" in certain areas (only) is the hallmark of free governments. But free governments don't have "absence of control" in any remotely global sense of that word. Many people call that anarchy. > Some local government > provides a road for a truck to ride on and that means it has an unqualified > right to regulate anything and everything that happens in global > communications? What kind of an argument is this? It's an argument for self-government at a local level. To have free government necessarily requires that that the people of a given jurisdiction be free to make mistakes - to experiment with over-regulation for example. What Milton is arguing for is some kind of top down control that will prevent these rogue local governments from making the "mistake" of exercising its freedom to regulate, even if in a "dumb" way. Milton is right in one sense: without getting down to the nitty gritty of detail, it's not really possible to ascertain if a given "dumb" regulation really is dumb, or not. A good gauge of equity and fairness is to turn the argument around: What's so good and efficient and just about "100,000 corporations" each regulating their tiny part of the domain of the Internet with its own long terms of service document, with each corporation having freedom of contract to experiment with the legal regulation via contract law of its own tiny sphere of the internet. This is even more fragmentation and non-uniformity than having every local municipal *governmental* corporation each experimenting with regulation. If one wants to see really intense and comprehensive regulation of behavior, check out corporate franchising contracts, which insist on control of every little facet of human business behavior. Government by no means has a monopoly on intense regulation backed up by the force of law. Corporations do intense regulation routinely, and call it all good, and economically efficient and competitive, etc., in the franchising context to give just one example. Milton, I'd bet that the sum total of all pages of internet regulation via corporate contracts and terms of service exceeds the sum total of all pages of governmental internet regulation. Both are enforceable in courts of law. So what makes corporate regulation superior? It is more voluminous and detailed, and no user of the internet has any meaningful say or right to be heard in the creation of the corporate contract terms. How many contractual fine print consumer contract clauses have you reviewed lately? They are as aggravating as the craziest and stupidest government regulation, and people have essentially zero recourse with private corporations, which is worse than the attenuated kinds of recourse we have in functioning democratic governments. It's critical to keep in mind at all times, in my opinion, that Corporate regulation and control of the internet is precisely what we get in every sphere in which the government (whether for good reasons or bad) exercises the "absence of control" Milton Mueller is arguing for. This corporate regulation via detailed contractual fine print is progress? I think not. Paul Lehto, J.D. > > Sure, insofar as governments secure basic property rights and contractual > rights and administer justice, a "legal infrastructure" has been helpful. > But just as often, govts overstep those bounds and try to obstruct, > parasitize, over-regulate or overtax. We need to debate the merits of a > specific intervention; this argument makes no sense in the abstract. > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue Jul 12 15:32:42 2011 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:32:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9266F64C-430C-4660-ACE4-19E32F4AAFA8@ella.com> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:36, michael gurstein wrote: > I sent it along as an example of the kind of dilemmas that the > Internet presents in the context of governance regimes--local, national, and > global. I have been reading this exchange with interest. Lately I have been looking at government control of the Internet, not so much from a normative view as from a circumvention point of view. As governments put up all sorts of barriers and filters and 'kill-switchs' and such (helped by their handmaidens in industry - though sometimes it is tough to know who is the handmaiden and who is the mistress), how hard it is to circumvent government control has become a key issue for me. It is an interesting test of the Internet and its design as non-disruptable communications medium to see what efforts need to be taken to insure connectivity in the face of government policies of disruption. I admit that this is more a technical concern than a policy concern, but it has become interesting to view government's role/repsonsiblity in the Internet from that perspective. a. ------ Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 15:59:27 2011 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:59:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <9266F64C-430C-4660-ACE4-19E32F4AAFA8@ella.com> References: <9266F64C-430C-4660-ACE4-19E32F4AAFA8@ella.com> Message-ID: Great point. Government to take veiw regulations in terms of technicality than policy aspect. I strongly support Avri inputs. Warm wishes. Sea. On 12 Jul 2011 20:33, "Avri Doria" wrote: On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:36, michael gurstein wrote: > I sent it along as an example of the kind of d... I have been reading this exchange with interest. Lately I have been looking at government control of the Internet, not so much from a normative view as from a circumvention point of view. As governments put up all sorts of barriers and filters and 'kill-switchs' and such (helped by their handmaidens in industry - though sometimes it is tough to know who is the handmaiden and who is the mistress), how hard it is to circumvent government control has become a key issue for me. It is an interesting test of the Internet and its design as non-disruptable communications medium to see what efforts need to be taken to insure connectivity in the face of government policies of disruption. I admit that this is more a technical concern than a policy concern, but it has become interesting to view government's role/repsonsiblity in the Internet from that perspective. a. ------ Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subs... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 16:05:19 2011 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:05:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <9266F64C-430C-4660-ACE4-19E32F4AAFA8@ella.com> Message-ID: To veiw not 'to take veiw'. On 12 Jul 2011 20:59, "Sonigitu Ekpe" wrote: Great point. Government to take veiw regulations in terms of technicality than policy aspect. I strongly support Avri inputs. Warm wishes. Sea. > > On 12 Jul 2011 20:33, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > > On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:36, michael gurstein wrote: > > I sent it along as an example of the kind of d... > > I have been reading this exchange with interest. > > Lately I have been looking at government c... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subs... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jul 12 16:13:13 2011 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:13:13 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] IGF-Japan - July 21-22 in Kyoto In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <027601cc40d0$25e2d660$71a88320$@uol.com.br> Thank you! GOOD JOB! Having the regional IGF in Japan is a relevant goal!. 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 at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Izumi AIZU Enviada em: terça-feira, 12 de julho de 2011 06:43 Para: Governance List Assunto: [governance] IGF-Japan - July 21-22 in Kyoto Sorry for the very late news. IGF Japan will be held on July 21-22 this year in Kyoto. First time in Japan. Official language is Japanese and no interpretation is planned (so far). For those who could read Japanese , please see here: http://www.jaipa.or.jp/topics/?cat=35 best, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 12 17:47:08 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:47:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGF-Japan - July 21-22 in Kyoto In-Reply-To: <027601cc40d0$25e2d660$71a88320$@uol.com.br> References: <027601cc40d0$25e2d660$71a88320$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: Congratulations, I will try and alert the Embassy of Fiji in Tokyo to explore sending someone there or a representative? Congratulations to all those who are in Japan. Very exciting indeed. Sala On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Vanda UOL wrote: > Thank you! GOOD JOB! Having the regional IGF in Japan is a relevant > goal!. > > 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 at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome > de > Izumi AIZU > Enviada em: terça-feira, 12 de julho de 2011 06:43 > Para: Governance List > Assunto: [governance] IGF-Japan - July 21-22 in Kyoto > > Sorry for the very late news. > > IGF Japan will be held on July 21-22 this year in Kyoto. > First time in Japan. > > Official language is Japanese and no interpretation is planned (so far). > > For those who could read Japanese , please see here: > > http://www.jaipa.or.jp/topics/?cat=35 > > best, > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 18:32:56 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:32:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF-Japan - July 21-22 in Kyoto In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 幸運と多幸をお祈り :-) Deirdre On 12 July 2011 05:42, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Sorry for the very late news. > > IGF Japan will be held on July 21-22 this year in Kyoto. > First time in Japan. > > Official language is Japanese and no interpretation is planned > (so far). > > For those who could read Japanese , please see here: > > http://www.jaipa.or.jp/topics/?cat=35 > > best, > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From me at benakoh.com Tue Jul 12 18:34:19 2011 From: me at benakoh.com (Ben Akoh) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:34:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] West African IGF: July 27-29, 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <027601cc40d0$25e2d660$71a88320$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: Hi all, The West African IGF is holding this year from July 27-29 in Lagos, Nigeria. Registration is at: http://www.waigf.org/about-waigf/article/register-to-waigf-nigeria-meeting. Best, -- Ben Akoh e: me at benakoh.com skype: benakoh blog: http://benakoh.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jul 12 19:11:06 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:11:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <0e623a77-6a7e-43eb-9c98-af454c9c5a3c@blur> References: <0e623a77-6a7e-43eb-9c98-af454c9c5a3c@blur> Message-ID: <7270cc27-6b47-4cf1-a8ef-7d1155ae8d3c@blur> Wasn't aware I put words in your mouth, apologies if I did...open wide & I will take them right out [cid:BlurSMCIdWinking] Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies -----Original message----- From: michael gurstein To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 17:37:12 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Since I started this most interesting discussion by forwarding the original message concerning the actions by the Taipei municipality I reserve the right to speak for myself (tks for your kindness in placing words in my mouth MM... I forwarded the original message not because I supported that Municipality, I don't know enough about the circumstances there to offer a useful opinion and certainly subjecting corporations or anyone to local ordinances etc.etc. is broadly an absurdity except for those directly resident or with a significant presence locally (vagueness in definition here deliberate); rather I sent it along as an example of the kind of dilemmas that the Internet presents in the context of governance regimes--local, national, and global. What should be clear to all sides of this discussion is that some sort of governance (including taxation) regime that responds to the unique charactetistics of the Internet is necessary and the success of the Internet makes that even more significant and the urgency even greater. If we start from there and avoid misattributions of words/opinions etc. we might even make a useful contribution to the overall discussion on this which regrettably has been very slow in developing, mixed up with national short term self-interests and corporate reluctance to have anyone have an overview let alone a position of authority where their super-growth and super-profits might come under direct scrutiny. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:46 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Paul Lehto'; Daniel Kalchev Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > > The internet originated in governmental efforts Internet protocol (TCP/IP) was developed with governmental research funding, not "the Internet." "The Internet" infrastructure was developed, as Daniel correctly notes, by private network operators building things and interconnecting with it. And the reason it succeeded was because it was an open protocol, not owned. I.e., it was the ABSENCE of control, not its presence, that made it successful. > and could not exist > without the robust legal infrastructure and some physical > infrastructure provided by governments. Bollocks. This whole line of argument is just silly. Some local government provides a road for a truck to ride on and that means it has an unqualified right to regulate anything and everything that happens in global communications? What kind of an argument is this? Sure, insofar as governments secure basic property rights and contractual rights and administer justice, a "legal infrastructure" has been helpful. But just as often, govts overstep those bounds and try to obstruct, parasitize, over-regulate or overtax. We need to debate the merits of a specific intervention; this argument makes no sense in the abstract. So please, stay on point and tell me why a specific locality in Taiwan should be able to tax and assert regulatory power over an app provider in California;, tell me what benefit accrues and how such taxation without representation is consistent with democratic principles. And tell me - as Parminder, Lee, Michael and others keep ducking the issue - how it is practically feasible to have 100,000 different jurisdictions come bearing down on any and every virtual service provider? If you and the others continue to remain silent on the obvious practical issue associated with that, I won't take you seriously for another second. > Thus, there's no getting around the necessity for government > involvement at a material level. The real issue is to what extent, if > any, government ought to abdicate or forego its traditional roles in > the context of the internet. No, the real issue is that Internet _breaks_ the governments' traditional roles in communication and information, and we need to figure out how we can revise governmental functions to insert control where needed without killing the freedom and openness that makes the internet valuable. And that was the debate we were trying to have, until you detoured it into a general, philosophical and mostly useless debate on government per se. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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: ic_list_winking.png Type: image/png Size: 581 bytes Desc: ic_list_winking.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 12 19:22:06 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:22:06 +1200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <7270cc27-6b47-4cf1-a8ef-7d1155ae8d3c@blur> References: <0e623a77-6a7e-43eb-9c98-af454c9c5a3c@blur> <7270cc27-6b47-4cf1-a8ef-7d1155ae8d3c@blur> Message-ID: Just a thought: If there is no space at the IGF to discuss this, we could have a coffee discussion/debate around the table (informal) and live and in person in Nairobi or not. Sala On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Wasn't aware I put words in your mouth, apologies if I did...open wide & I > will take them right out [image: ;-)] > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > > -----Original message----- > > *From: *michael gurstein * > To: *"governance at lists.cpsr.org" * > Sent: *Tue, Jul 12, 2011 17:37:12 GMT+00:00* > Subject: *RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > Since I started this most interesting discussion by forwarding the > original > message concerning the actions by the Taipei municipality I reserve the > right to speak for myself (tks for your kindness in placing words in my > mouth MM... > > I forwarded the original message not because I supported that Municipality, > I don't know enough about the circumstances there to offer a useful opinion > and certainly subjecting corporations or anyone to local ordinances > etc.etc. > is broadly an absurdity except for those directly resident or with a > significant presence locally (vagueness in definition here deliberate); > rather I sent it along as an example of the kind of dilemmas that the > > Internet presents in the context of governance regimes--local, national, > and > global. > > What should be clear to all sides of this discussion is that some sort of > governance (including taxation) regime that responds to the unique > charactetistics of the Internet is necessary and the success of the > Internet > makes that even more significant and the urgency even greater. > > If we start from there and avoid misattributions of words/opinions etc. we > might even make a useful contribution to the overall discussion on this > which regrettably has been very slow in developing, mixed up with national > short term self-interests and corporate reluctance to have anyone have an > overview let alone a position of authority where their super-growth and > super-profits might come under direct scrutiny. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] > On Behalf > Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:46 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Paul Lehto'; Daniel Kalchev > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] > On > > > > The internet originated in governmental efforts > > Internet protocol (TCP/IP) was developed with governmental research > funding, > not "the Internet." "The Internet" infrastructure was developed, as Daniel > correctly notes, by private network operators building things and > interconnecting with it. And the reason it succeeded was because it was an > open protocol, not owned. I.e., it was the ABSENCE of control, not its > > presence, that made it successful. > > > and could not exist > > without the robust legal infrastructure and some physical > > infrastructure provided by governments. > > Bollocks. This whole line of argument is just silly. Some local government > > provides a road for a truck to ride on and that means it has an unqualified > right to regulate anything and everything that happens in global > communications? What kind of an argument is this? > > Sure, insofar as governments secure basic property rights and contractual > rights and administer justice, a "legal infrastructure" has been helpful. > But just as often, govts overstep those bounds and try to obstruct, > parasitize, over-regulate or overtax. We need to debate the merits of a > specific intervention; this argument makes no sense in the abstract. > > So please, stay on point and tell me why a specific locality in Taiwan > should be able to tax and assert regulatory power over an app provider in > California;, tell me what benefit accrues and how such taxation without > representation is consistent with democratic principles. And tell me - as > Parminder, Lee, Michael and others keep ducking the issue - how it is > practically feasible to have 100,000 different jurisdictions come bearing > down on any and every virtual service provider? If you and the others > continue to remain silent on the obvious practical issue associated with > that, I won't take you seriously for another second. > > > Thus, there's no getting around the necessity for government > > involvement at a material level. The real issue is to what extent, if > > any, government ought to abdicate or forego its traditional roles in > > the context of the internet. > > No, the real issue is that Internet _breaks_ the governments' traditional > roles in communication and information, and we need to figure out how we > can > revise governmental functions to insert control where needed without > killing > the freedom and openness that makes the internet valuable. And that was the > debate we were trying to have, until you detoured it into a general, > philosophical and mostly useless debate on government per se. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ic_list_winking.png Type: image/png Size: 581 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Jul 13 07:27:31 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:27:31 +0500 Subject: [governance] Open Government and Internet? Message-ID: I wonder if anyone has had the chance to go through the following reports on Open Government by the World Economic Forum and World Wide Web Foundation. I find the subject to be interesting for future IGF's: The Future of Government Lessons Learned from around the World http://www3.weforum.org/docs/EU11/WEF_EU11_FutureofGovernment_Report.pdf 1. Open Government Data Feasibility Study on Chile 2011. World Web Foundation, CTIC. http://public.webfoundation.org/2011/02/OGD_chile_PR.pdf 2. Open Government Data Feasibility Study on Ghana 2011. World Web Foundation, CTIC. http://public.webfoundation.org/2011/02/OGD_ghana_PR.pdf Your thoughts on the subject are welcome. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Jul 13 08:28:28 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:28:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Message-ID: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> Well answered Parmnder ! Yet Milton only reflects the official discourse of the WSIS since its very beginning. And this is far more serious and dangerous. Will the WSIS Forum 2012 change its neoconservative tune ? Let's try for it to happen in being active and proposing "another way" during the coming preparative meetings. especially as far as developing countries policies are concerned. friendly regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 12/07/11 12:56 > De : "parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Milton L Mueller" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period > > > > On Monday 11 July 2011 11:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:   Local governments have a lot to do with local things. Or have you forgotten about things like roads, schools, crime and law enforcement, etc.?   I havent forgotten them, but maybe you have! All these things need taxes to be collected. And you seem to consider legitimate taxation as a parasitizing activity..... > >   Local govts that try to parasitize virtual businesses tend not to focus on what they need to be doing.   > that just your ideological gov-hatred coming through, or else do you have any basis for making such a sweeping statement? > > Milton, Either you accept local jurisdictions and their disparate tax systems or you work for some kind of a global regime which is fair to all. You cant run away from both, as you seem to do. > >  Parminder >           From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 3:08 AM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period       > > On Friday 08 July 2011 09:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Good god, let’s hope not. > shd we than dissolve local governments, and it is enough that the US collects most of the taxes from the world over because in any case it seems to be doing much of the governance.... (someone said recently, ironically of course, that everyone in the world should be allowed to vote for forming the US government!) > > > >           Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example?             -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Jul 13 08:36:24 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:36:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <252771674.32659.1310560584946.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> Daniel Wrote : probably the best joke on this list since weeks ... Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 12/07/11 13:36 > De : "Daniel Kalchev" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period > > > > On 12.07.11 14:12, Paul Lehto wrote: > > Applied to the internet, the metaphor of parasitism can have more > > power than it deserves. When users get accustomed to "free" internet > > access they may start to erroneously believe that the internet happens > > without government services in the form of telecommunications > > infrastructure, legal infrastructure and so forth, and therefore > > mistakenly oppose proposals to secure continued support for these > > things to keep the internet well. > > > Internet has happened and was successful decades ago, only because it is > the largest independently owned PRIVATE network of networks in the > world. Nobody own the Internet. Many own small parts of it. Governments > resisted Internet for many, many years, throwing large amounts of money > and political pressure as a means to stop it's development. > > This world has seen enough failed 'telecomunications infrastructure' > attempts. Internet is what it is because it is not that. The day it > becomes part of the taxation scheme and therefore strictly regulated > will be the day Internet will die and be replaces with the next > multi-stakeholder private network. Internet by itself is free, because > those who built it and operate it wish so. In most countries the > government cannot steal private property with ease. > > If we talk about providing services based on Internet and taxing these > services, that is something completely different. It is more related > with trade practices (and taxation). The existing model is way outdated > and needs replacement. The same could be said for the copyright > practices etc. > > Daniel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Wed Jul 13 08:44:25 2011 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:44:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> References: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> Message-ID: <1310561065928872000@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Dear All, Parminder gave an assay on this discussion and Jean-Louis response has prove to Milton the need for a more realistic argument. Warm regards, -- Sonigitu Ekpe Executive Support Officer[Administration] Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Data + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Well answered Parmnder ! > > Yet Milton only reflects the official discourse of the WSIS since its very beginning. And this is far more serious and dangerous. Will the WSIS Forum 2012 change its neoconservative tune ? Let's try for it to happen in being active and proposing "another way" during the coming preparative meetings. especially as far as developing countries policies are concerned. > friendly regards > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT > > > > > > > Message du 12/07/11 12:56 > > De : "parminder" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Milton L Mueller" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period > > > > > > > > On Monday 11 July 2011 11:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Local governments have a lot to do with local things. Or have you forgotten about things like roads, schools, crime and law enforcement, etc.? > I havent forgotten them, but maybe you have! All these things need taxes to be collected. And you seem to consider legitimate taxation as a parasitizing activity..... > > > > Local govts that try to parasitize virtual businesses tend not to focus on what they need to be doing. > > that just your ideological gov-hatred coming through, or else do you have any basis for making such a sweeping statement? > > Milton, Either you accept local jurisdictions and their disparate tax systems or you work for some kind of a global regime which is fair to all. You cant run away from both, as you seem to do. > > Parminder > > > > > > > From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 3:08 AM > > To: Milton L Mueller > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim' > > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period > > > > > > > On Friday 08 July 2011 09:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Good god, let’s hope not. > > shd we than dissolve local governments, and it is enough that the US collects most of the taxes from the world over because in any case it seems to be doing much of the governance.... (someone said recently, ironically of course, that everyone in the world should be allowed to vote for forming the US government!) > > > > > > > > > > > > Do municipal statutes have jurisdiction over non-local global corporations with only a virtual presence/assets locally i.e. can a municipal tax apply to virtually supplied electronic apps for example? > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly destroy this message and notify the sender by replying the email in such instances. We do not accept responsibility for any changes made to this message after it was originally sent and any views, opinions, conclusions or other information in this message which do not relate to the business of this firm or are not authorized by us.The Cross River State Government is not liable neither for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Wed Jul 13 08:53:41 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:53:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> References: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> Message-ID: <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> Interesting discussion indeed. What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? Aren't you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes collected on rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the right, or the party that receives the right? Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my iPad flash storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put it in another physical place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the Internet cloud? What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, but I "use" it here? Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: Apple in California sold me the application. I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at the Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in Varna (Bulgaria). Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with 'physical' objects. Both these things are the foundation of the current taxation system. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From philippe.blanchard at me.com Wed Jul 13 09:11:43 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:11:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> References: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> Message-ID: I follow-up Daniel's analysis. In his example, he clearly demonstrates that we are in a situation for which the classical rules based on physical territory cannot apply. Eventhough those rules proved useful, they were designed more than 200 years ago (Beaumarchais- 24 January 1732 – 18 May 1799- worked on Intellectual property consideration and set the basis of main of our current IP laws). We all know that those rules cannot longer apply as is and the question is then to review what is the scope that can embrace the fact we are moving, we buy "stuff " in one country to be used in another country... and when those "stuff" are intangibles, their materiality (or lack of) clearly conflicts with the classical, material rules we used to abide by. I am afraid we cannot go further if we still try to cut&paste rules that were designed hundreds of years ago to the world we now live in. Internet governance and intangibles taxation require the creation (or the mobiilization) of a meta-structure, above the national levels... And for me, it needs to be a UN-type agency. Philippe On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: Interesting discussion indeed. What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? Aren't you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes collected on rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the right, or the party that receives the right? Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my iPad flash storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put it in another physical place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the Internet cloud? What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, but I "use" it here? Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: Apple in California sold me the application. I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at the Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in Varna (Bulgaria). Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with 'physical' objects. Both these things are the foundation of the current taxation system. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jul 13 10:10:49 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:10:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] Open Government and Internet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <53B414588A584147A4E9E84D7E008CD3@userPC> As a supplement to Fouad's suggestions could I point to the following which carry the discussion forwward in what I think are useful ways. A Data Divide? http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/a-data-divide-data-%E2%80%9Chaves%E 2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Chave-nots%E2%80%9D-and-open-government-data/ Wired article: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/st_essay_datafireworks/ A blogpost and very extensive and useful set of comments on Open Data/Open Government: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting -for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emergi ng-data-divide/ And more: On "empowering the empowered" with Open Data: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered- or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/ Comments are always appreciated. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 4:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Open Government and Internet? I wonder if anyone has had the chance to go through the following reports on Open Government by the World Economic Forum and World Wide Web Foundation. I find the subject to be interesting for future IGF's: The Future of Government Lessons Learned from around the World http://www3.weforum.org/docs/EU11/WEF_EU11_FutureofGovernment_Report.pdf 1. Open Government Data Feasibility Study on Chile 2011. World Web Foundation, CTIC. http://public.webfoundation.org/2011/02/OGD_chile_PR.pdf 2. Open Government Data Feasibility Study on Ghana 2011. World Web Foundation, CTIC. http://public.webfoundation.org/2011/02/OGD_ghana_PR.pdf Your thoughts on the subject are welcome. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 13 10:16:49 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:46:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> References: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E1DA8D1.7020600@itforchange.net> Daniel Taxes are collected on services, which has even less 'body' or location that an internet application. Who collects from whom, how etc get appropriately decided with regard to the nature of what is being taxed. As for your question on purchasing an application in Oslo and use it in Frankfurt and Varna, you may even buy a razor in Oslo and use it in Frankfurt and Varna. Tax regimes do not bother themselves with such trivialities for the obvious reason, which is not reason to not have them in the first place. Remember taxes are also the basis of governmental transfers to those whom the dominant system structurally disadvantages, so a position against taxes can, often, be seen as class interest based. Parminder On Wednesday 13 July 2011 06:23 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Interesting discussion indeed. > > What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? > Aren't you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes > collected on rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the > right, or the party that receives the right? > > Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my iPad > flash storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put it in > another physical place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the Internet > cloud? > > What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, > but I "use" it here? > > Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: > > Apple in California sold me the application. > I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at > the Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in > Varna (Bulgaria). > > Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with > 'physical' objects. Both these things are the foundation of the > current taxation system. > > Daniel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Wed Jul 13 10:20:29 2011 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:20:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F93@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> <4E1C4E67.2080701@digsys.bg> <4E1C576C.8060502@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F93@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E1DA9AD.3090902@panamo.eu> Hello everybody, I have been lurking this list for some monthes. Here is my first post. I'm a French Internet civil rights activist. Thank you very much for this very interesting discussion. Just a question, with a kind wink to Milton: don't you think that ICANN is working on trying to install itself as a sort of global government collecting taxes? Best regards, -- Dominique Lacroix dl at panamo.eu Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu/projet/ 15, rue de l'Ancienne Comédie 75006 Paris +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 13 10:22:01 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:52:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E1DAA09.4030404@itforchange.net> Phillipe (and Milton) Everyone agrees that there is a new situation and new forms of tax regimes need to be worked out (while obviously means that, as you say, old ones are difficult to work/ enforce) .... I did not see anyone claim otherwise in the present discussion. However, the newness of the situation and need for appropriate response should not be used as an excuse to declare some part of our social structure as out of bounds for taxes, polity and public systems. This is the sole point of contention in this debate. This is what Milton and Daniel seem to be trying to do. Milton says 10,000 jurisdictions cannot work. He wants to keep ignoring the fact that Michael, who initially raised the issue, lee and I, have said that we should therefore work towards some kind of global agreement to see that is most practical as well as fair to all. Milton however does not come out with any alternative system of taxation and legitimate regulation of Internet activity while he keeps saying it is silly (BTW, Milton, you have said it enough number of times now) that 10000 jurisdictions should apply. So, he, and apparently some others here, want to simple use this 'new situation' opportunity to declare an important and growing part of our social structure and systems simply out of bound for taxes, polity and public systems. Now, Milton, if this is not so, can you specially spell out what new arrangements do you propose that are fair and just to all (yes, including social and economic justice), instead of keeping on vaguely referring to new publics or whatever it is. You especially owe us your exact response to and recommendation for this new situation, including the appropriate tax and regulation regime, since you have been accusing Paul of abstractness, and saying that you will only engage if clear facts are referred to, and accusing some others, including me, of ducking real issues . So maybe it is your turn to de-abstract and mention the new governance regime that you propose. Parminder On Wednesday 13 July 2011 06:41 PM, Philippe Blanchard wrote: > I follow-up Daniel's analysis. > In his example, he clearly demonstrates that we are in a situation for which the classical rules based on physical territory cannot apply. Eventhough those rules proved useful, they were designed more than 200 years ago (Beaumarchais- 24 January 1732 – 18 May 1799- worked on Intellectual property consideration and set the basis of main of our current IP laws). > > We all know that those rules cannot longer apply as is and the question is then to review what is the scope that can embrace the fact we are moving, we buy "stuff " in one country to be used in another country... and when those "stuff" are intangibles, their materiality (or lack of) clearly conflicts with the classical, material rules we used to abide by. > > I am afraid we cannot go further if we still try to cut&paste rules that were designed hundreds of years ago to the world we now live in. Internet governance and intangibles taxation require the creation (or the mobiilization) of a meta-structure, above the national levels... And for me, it needs to be a UN-type agency. > > Philippe > > > > On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > Interesting discussion indeed. > > What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? Aren't you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes collected on rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the right, or the party that receives the right? > > Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my iPad flash storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put it in another physical place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the Internet cloud? > > What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, but I "use" it here? > > Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: > > Apple in California sold me the application. > I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at the Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in Varna (Bulgaria). > > Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with 'physical' objects. Both these things are the foundation of the current taxation system. > > Daniel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 13 10:38:18 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:08:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1DA9AD.3090902@panamo.eu> References: <4E12F1B1.30801@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F7A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E17FE56.8020904@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A57E4DC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1C2852.3010508@itforchange.net> <4E1C318A.9090405@digsys.bg> <4E1C4E67.2080701@digsys.bg> <4E1C576C.8060502@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7174A719F93@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E1DA9AD.3090902@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <4E1DADDA.2050308@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 13 July 2011 07:50 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I have been lurking this list for some monthes. Here is my first post. > I'm a French Internet civil rights activist. > Thank you very much for this very interesting discussion. > > Just a question, with a kind wink to Milton: > don't you think that ICANN is working on trying to install itself as a > sort of global government collecting taxes? A very pertinent remark. And this should be read along with Paul Lehto's excellent analysis of how (rather pernicious, and de facto monopolistic and thus inescapable) commercial contracts are replacing public or political governance on the Internet, which analysis is so good that I cut-paste it at the end of this email. So public taxes on Internet based services or applications are bad but taxes collected by private entities in the name of service fees is fine. This is the new private governance regime we are moving towards, and the dangers that it poses to our social fabric, especially to democracy, should be evident. This ideological divide between neoliberalism (that the propositions advocating marketisation even of governance indicate) and democracy is what is really behind the current discussion. Parminder Paul's analysis from his email earlier today If one wants to see really intense and comprehensive regulation of behavior, check out corporate franchising contracts, which insist on control of every little facet of human business behavior. Government by no means has a monopoly on intense regulation backed up by the force of law. Corporations do intense regulation routinely, and call it all good, and economically efficient and competitive, etc., in the franchising context to give just one example. Milton, I'd bet that the sum total of all pages of internet regulation via corporate contracts and terms of service exceeds the sum total of all pages of governmental internet regulation. Both are enforceable in courts of law. So what makes corporate regulation superior? It is more voluminous and detailed, and no user of the internet has any meaningful say or right to be heard in the creation of the corporate contract terms. How many contractual fine print consumer contract clauses have you reviewed lately? They are as aggravating as the craziest and stupidest government regulation, and people have essentially zero recourse with private corporations, which is worse than the attenuated kinds of recourse we have in functioning democratic governments. It's critical to keep in mind at all times, in my opinion, that Corporate regulation and control of the internet is precisely what we get in every sphere in which the government (whether for good reasons or bad) exercises the "absence of control" Milton Mueller is arguing for. This corporate regulation via detailed contractual fine print is progress? I think not. (ends) > > Best regards, > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > dl at panamo.eu > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu/projet/ > 15, rue de l'Ancienne Comédie > 75006 Paris > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Wed Jul 13 10:39:42 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:39:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> Message-ID: I've been lurking here for a while. This is my first post. This discussion is very interesting and Phillippe's post in particular. Phillippe: Do you really think a UN style agency that collects taxes and disperses the money collected to hundreds of thousands of competing jurisdictions could work? The same questions will still apply and we will have another layer of bureaucracy to deal with. First - How much of the money collected would simply go to the bureaucracy that would be created to administer this? Second - This would not solve the problem of each jurisdiction having different rules about what is taxed and what the tax rate is. Third - How would the agency determine who gets what portion of the money collected? There may be national, provincial, municipal, and other claims to the tax collected. There would be claims to the money from the jurisdictions where the vendor is located, where the goods are located (i.e. data center where the actual bits are located), where the bits physically end up, and where the buyer is located. You could potentially have a dozen or more jurisdictions claiming a portion of the money. How would you calculate the tax at the time of the transaction? Is each jurisdiction additive? The level of bureaucracy needed to administer this would cost more than the taxes collected. I think an agency like this would make the problem worse than it is now. I believe that in the long run it will prove impossible to tax the sale of IP. There will be competition between jurisdictions to get the tax revenue, either on their own or through the proposed agency. Some jurisdictions will make it advantageous to register or virtually locate the sale in their jurisdiction. This will drive the tax revenue down to a point where it is unprofitable for most jurisdictions to collect it. At that point they will want to revisit the paradigm. We will be right back where we are now. Jurisdictions that try to tax the sale of IP need to find other sources of tax revenue. The product is too ephemeral to successfully tax. If the sale is of physical goods then the existing tax system should work fine. Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Philippe Blanchard > Sent: July-13-11 6:12 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > I follow-up Daniel's analysis. > In his example, he clearly demonstrates that we are in a situation for which > the classical rules based on physical territory cannot apply. Eventhough those > rules proved useful, they were designed more than 200 years ago > (Beaumarchais- 24 January 1732 - 18 May 1799- worked on Intellectual > property consideration and set the basis of main of our current IP laws). > > We all know that those rules cannot longer apply as is and the question is > then to review what is the scope that can embrace the fact we are moving, > we buy "stuff " in one country to be used in another country... and when > those "stuff" are intangibles, their materiality (or lack of) clearly conflicts with > the classical, material rules we used to abide by. > > I am afraid we cannot go further if we still try to cut&paste rules that were > designed hundreds of years ago to the world we now live in. Internet > governance and intangibles taxation require the creation (or the > mobiilization) of a meta-structure, above the national levels... And for me, it > needs to be a UN-type agency. > > Philippe > > > > On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > Interesting discussion indeed. > > What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? Aren't > you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes collected on > rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the right, or the party that > receives the right? > > Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my iPad flash > storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put it in another physical > place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the Internet cloud? > > What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, but I > "use" it here? > > Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: > > Apple in California sold me the application. > I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at the > Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in Varna > (Bulgaria). > > Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with 'physical' > objects. Both these things are the foundation of the current taxation system. > > Daniel > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Wed Jul 13 10:44:07 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:44:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1DAA09.4030404@itforchange.net> References: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> <4E1DAA09.4030404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E1DAF37.4060107@digsys.bg> On 13.07.11 17:22, parminder wrote: > However, the newness of the situation and need for appropriate > response should not be used as an excuse to declare some part of our > social structure as out of bounds for taxes, polity and public > systems. This is the sole point of contention in this debate. This is > what Milton and Daniel seem to be trying to do. > Just for the record, I have never ever said taxes should be avoided. Also, for the record, I do not believe in the "one government" agenda. I am perfectly comfortable with a zillion different taxation systems. Choice is important. But so far I have not been convinced the current taxation system, based on the principle "I am the king and I tax anyone who is around me and subject to my powers" can work with the Internet -- because I can hardly see how (at the same time): - say the city of Taiwan can ask any company, based anywhere in the world pay taxes, especially as it may happens in some countries that particular company is prohibited to pay anyone outside it's country of residence (this may sound silly, but applied in Bulgaria not too long ago). - how does the city of Taiwan know I have purchased whatever from whomever online. - how can the city of Taiwan prevent the use of "Internet services" provided by anyone, located anywhere by residents of Taiwan? You example with the razor is flawed. In theory, if I live in Bulgaria and while visiting the US purchase an notebook, I am obliged to declare it at the customs on re-entering my home country and pay custom duties and VAT. I will not touch on the issue that very few people actually do this. But the notebook is still a material object and I could be eventually detected "smuggling" it. What about software? The customs might detect a physical medium it is stored on, but the days when diskettes, tapes etc were rare and easily spotted are long gone. Today, a software of significant value might reside on the flash storage of my MP3 player, or, of course somewhere in Internet. If I buy a razor and attempt to declare it and pay taxes and VAT they will luckily laugh at me. Why? Because it is of 'small value'? Or perhaps because it is 'apparently' for personal use? What about software? The software application I bought in App Store might be even lower value and it is very likely for personal use. Again, to not distract the topic. I am not against taxes or governments. I just see their problem in enforcing their "rights". It does not help telling me "they know how to do it" because apparently they no longer do. And this is not only with the Internet --- Internet merely makes these things extremely obvious. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 13 11:01:04 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:31:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1DAA09.4030404@itforchange.net> References: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> <4E1DAA09.4030404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E1DB330.3090205@itforchange.net> While at it, I must respond to two more issues raised by Milton One, about practicality of working 10000 tax jurisdictions. While we do believe that there is a possibility of better coordination through global treaties etc, a pat reply is: if global systems can so aggressively be built to trace and obtain private IP related entitlements vis a vis Internet based virtual flows/ exchanges of thousands of corporations, why cant public entitlements be traced and obtained. Second, Milton writes somewhere that his prime issue is with regulation which is what this thread started with. Milton, are you seriously against application of consumer protection law vis a vis Internet based commercial transactions (the Taiwanese instance that started this debate)? If not, who should make, apply and enforce such law if not the local jurisdictions to which you seem clearly opposed? I am completely unable to understand how someone can be arguing against the local government's right (indeed, obligation) to protect its citizens against economic or other injustices and offences that may be caused through the use of the Internet just because it is the Internet. Does this also extend to cyber crime? If someone over and through the Internet causes damage to my data and my laptop, or even its software, should I have no recourse? What exactly are you driving at? Parminder On Wednesday 13 July 2011 07:52 PM, parminder wrote: > Phillipe (and Milton) > > Everyone agrees that there is a new situation and new forms of tax > regimes need to be worked out (while obviously means that, as you say, > old ones are difficult to work/ enforce) .... I did not see anyone > claim otherwise in the present discussion. However, the newness of the > situation and need for appropriate response should not be used as an > excuse to declare some part of our social structure as out of bounds > for taxes, polity and public systems. This is the sole point of > contention in this debate. This is what Milton and Daniel seem to be > trying to do. > > Milton says 10,000 jurisdictions cannot work. He wants to keep > ignoring the fact that Michael, who initially raised the issue, lee > and I, have said that we should therefore work towards some kind of > global agreement to see that is most practical as well as fair to all. > Milton however does not come out with any alternative system of > taxation and legitimate regulation of Internet activity while he keeps > saying it is silly (BTW, Milton, you have said it enough number of > times now) that 10000 jurisdictions should apply. So, he, and > apparently some others here, want to simple use this 'new situation' > opportunity to declare an important and growing part of our social > structure and systems simply out of bound for taxes, polity and public > systems. Now, Milton, if this is not so, can you specially spell out > what new arrangements do you propose that are fair and just to all > (yes, including social and economic justice), instead of keeping on > vaguely referring to new publics or whatever it is. You especially owe > us your exact response to and recommendation for this new situation, > including the appropriate tax and regulation regime, since you have > been accusing Paul of abstractness, and saying that you will only > engage if clear facts are referred to, and accusing some others, > including me, of ducking real issues . So maybe it is your turn to > de-abstract and mention the new governance regime that you propose. > > Parminder > > > > On Wednesday 13 July 2011 06:41 PM, Philippe Blanchard wrote: >> I follow-up Daniel's analysis. >> In his example, he clearly demonstrates that we are in a situation for which the classical rules based on physical territory cannot apply. Eventhough those rules proved useful, they were designed more than 200 years ago (Beaumarchais- 24 January 1732 – 18 May 1799- worked on Intellectual property consideration and set the basis of main of our current IP laws). >> >> We all know that those rules cannot longer apply as is and the question is then to review what is the scope that can embrace the fact we are moving, we buy "stuff " in one country to be used in another country... and when those "stuff" are intangibles, their materiality (or lack of) clearly conflicts with the classical, material rules we used to abide by. >> >> I am afraid we cannot go further if we still try to cut&paste rules that were designed hundreds of years ago to the world we now live in. Internet governance and intangibles taxation require the creation (or the mobiilization) of a meta-structure, above the national levels... And for me, it needs to be a UN-type agency. >> >> Philippe >> >> >> >> On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >> Interesting discussion indeed. >> >> What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? Aren't you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes collected on rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the right, or the party that receives the right? >> >> Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my iPad flash storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put it in another physical place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the Internet cloud? >> >> What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, but I "use" it here? >> >> Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: >> >> Apple in California sold me the application. >> I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at the Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in Varna (Bulgaria). >> >> Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with 'physical' objects. Both these things are the foundation of the current taxation system. >> >> Daniel >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jul 13 11:25:48 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:25:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1DAF37.4060107@digsys.bg> (message from Daniel Kalchev on Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:44:07 +0300) References: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> <4E1DAA09.4030404@itforchange.net> <4E1DAF37.4060107@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20110713152548.F038C15C0E4@quill.bollow.ch> Daniel Kalchev wrote: > But so far I have not been convinced the current taxation system, based > on the principle "I am the king and I tax anyone who is around me and > subject to my powers" can work with the Internet One possible approach (with positive side benefits) would be to for governments to increasingly rely on taxing energy consumption in its various forms. That way, the internet would be automatically included. 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 Wed Jul 13 11:31:45 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 08:31:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <050EAF766A854BC697DF5ECFE2511FCC@userPC> Kerry, Interesting points and a good basis for a back and forth... -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Kerry Brown Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:40 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period I've been lurking here for a while. This is my first post. This discussion is very interesting and Phillippe's post in particular. Phillippe: Do you really think a UN style agency that collects taxes and disperses the money collected to hundreds of thousands of competing jurisdictions could work? The same questions will still apply and we will have another layer of bureaucracy to deal with. CLEARLY SUCH A DEVELOPMENT (I.E. AN AGENCY) WOULD BE THE OUTCOME OF SOME SORT OF BINDING INTERNATIONAL TREATY WHICH COVERED THIS ISSUE. THAT A STRUCTURE WOULD NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE TREATY IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. IT WILL BE MORE OR LESS EFFICIENT/EFFECTIVE DEPENDNG ON ITS GOVERNANCE IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS CURRENT SUCH STRUCTURES UNDER NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS. HOPEFULLY, SUCH A STRUCTURE WOULD BE BASED ON A CLEAR EYED ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT STRUCTURES AND AN IMPLEMENTATION USING THE MORE ADVANCED TOOLS FOR TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT (AND MONITORING) AS HAVE COME AVAILABLE THROUGH THE USE OF ICTS. First - How much of the money collected would simply go to the bureaucracy that would be created to administer this? SEE ABOVE... THIS IS A MATTER OF EFFICIENCY OF IMPLEMENTATION/OPERATION--SOME STRUCTURES ARE BETTER, SOME ARE WORSE -- HOPEFULLY THIS ONE WOULD A VERY GOOD AND EFFICIENT ONE. Second - This would not solve the problem of each jurisdiction having different rules about what is taxed and what the tax rate is. THIS WOULD OF COURSE, BE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TREATY ON WHICH THE STRUCTURE WAS BASED. Third - How would the agency determine who gets what portion of the money collected? There may be national, provincial, municipal, and other claims to the tax collected. There would be claims to the money from the jurisdictions where the vendor is located, where the goods are located (i.e. data center where the actual bits are located), where the bits physically end up, and where the buyer is located. You could potentially have a dozen or more jurisdictions claiming a portion of the money. How would you calculate the tax at the time of the transaction? Is each jurisdiction additive? THIS ALSO WOULD BE COVERED BY THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TREATY AND OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE AMBIGUITIES ETC.ETC. -- AS SOMEONE ALREADY SAID, IT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO BE A TAX LAWYER, I WOULD GUESS. The level of bureaucracy needed to administer this would cost more than the taxes collected. I think an agency like this would make the problem worse than it is now. I believe that in the long run it will prove impossible to tax the sale of IP. There will be competition between jurisdictions to get the tax revenue, either on their own or through the proposed agency. Some jurisdictions will make it advantageous to register or virtually locate the sale in their jurisdiction. This will drive the tax revenue down to a point where it is unprofitable for most jurisdictions to collect it. At that point they will want to revisit the paradigm. We will be right back where we are now. Jurisdictions that try to tax the sale of IP need to find other sources of tax revenue. The product is too ephemeral to successfully tax. SEE ABOVE... I WOULD HAZARD THE OPINION THAT THESE ARGUMENTS WERE MORE OR LESS EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS HAVE BEEN RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF ANY TAXATION STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME... If the sale is of physical goods then the existing tax system should work fine. BEST, MIKE Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Philippe Blanchard > Sent: July-13-11 6:12 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / > trial period > > I follow-up Daniel's analysis. > In his example, he clearly demonstrates that we are in a situation for > which the classical rules based on physical territory cannot apply. > Eventhough those rules proved useful, they were designed more than 200 > years ago > (Beaumarchais- 24 January 1732 - 18 May 1799- worked on Intellectual > property consideration and set the basis of main of our current IP laws). > > We all know that those rules cannot longer apply as is and the > question is then to review what is the scope that can embrace the > fact we are moving, we buy "stuff " in one country to be used in > another country... and when those "stuff" are intangibles, their > materiality (or lack of) clearly conflicts with the classical, > material rules we used to abide by. > > I am afraid we cannot go further if we still try to cut&paste rules > that were designed hundreds of years ago to the world we now live in. > Internet governance and intangibles taxation require the creation (or > the > mobiilization) of a meta-structure, above the national levels... And for me, it > needs to be a UN-type agency. > > Philippe > > > > On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > Interesting discussion indeed. > > What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? > Aren't you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes > collected on rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the > right, or the party that receives the right? > > Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my iPad > flash storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put it in > another physical place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the Internet > cloud? > > What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, > but I "use" it here? > > Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: > > Apple in California sold me the application. > I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at > the Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in > Varna (Bulgaria). > > Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with > 'physical' objects. Both these things are the foundation of the > current taxation system. > > Daniel __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From philippe.blanchard at me.com Wed Jul 13 11:27:09 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:27:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <780605930.32447.1310560108601.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> <4E1D9555.2020806@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Dear Kerry, Thank you for pushing this discussion a bit further. I know there are many constraints. Not only for pure internet players but even more for "click and mortar" players... and on I am clearly aware I am on a rather simplistic, Manichean, approach. I fully agree that setting a structure whose responsibility would be to collect the money and then redistribute it to the national jurisdiction would be tedious, expensive and... irrelevant. The state level is no more relevant and I am not sure the question is about redistributing any money back to the national government.... but to diminish the level of funding currently required by the UN and their agencies. This international responsibility would be linked to an international legitimacy to collect taxes. The question of the several national jurisdiction would then be solved by the fact there would be only one, international, rule applying to all. Then, regarding the "additional layer of bureaucracy", I do not see it as an "additional" layer since this international jurisdiction would supersede the national ones. We all remember the TOBIN tax proposal (a taxation on international financial transactions)... Most of the international transactions are already monitored and consolidating the information should not require armies of public officers but an international collaboration framework with a common taxonomy and interconnexion of the databases. Government might consider that having another player would decrease their own national revenues. We need to remember that there are already several cases where this happen : VAT for instance. I know this is a tiny portion of international commerce but I take it as an illustration. The general public buying goods abroad can be reimbursed of the VAT they paid to the country they are leaving. Governements keep the taxes on the benefits made by the sales agent on their territory but they do not collect the VAT of purchases made on their territories. (The funny thing however is that those collaboration between the national customs agencies gave birth to international VAT reimbursement players who keep a share for their own administrative costs. And that is clearly detrimental to the final buyer) There are already intergovernmental collaboration with electronic data interchange (Interpol)... On the question of the amount of money to be collected, this is clearly something that should be decided by the Nations representatives... and the implementation would be then on the agency agenda... Regarding your analyses that "in the long run it will prove impossible to tax the sale of IP", I have mixed feelings. I think that IP rights will be reconsidered thoroughly and that if Gutenberg and his press gave birth to IP, internet and hypertext will review drastically the notion of IP and the value of content.... and hitherto related taxes... But as long as content will have a price.. there will be taxes ;-) Kind regards Ph On Jul 13, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: I've been lurking here for a while. This is my first post. This discussion is very interesting and Phillippe's post in particular. Phillippe: Do you really think a UN style agency that collects taxes and disperses the money collected to hundreds of thousands of competing jurisdictions could work? The same questions will still apply and we will have another layer of bureaucracy to deal with. First - How much of the money collected would simply go to the bureaucracy that would be created to administer this? Second - This would not solve the problem of each jurisdiction having different rules about what is taxed and what the tax rate is. Third - How would the agency determine who gets what portion of the money collected? There may be national, provincial, municipal, and other claims to the tax collected. There would be claims to the money from the jurisdictions where the vendor is located, where the goods are located (i.e. data center where the actual bits are located), where the bits physically end up, and where the buyer is located. You could potentially have a dozen or more jurisdictions claiming a portion of the money. How would you calculate the tax at the time of the transaction? Is each jurisdiction additive? The level of bureaucracy needed to administer this would cost more than the taxes collected. I think an agency like this would make the problem worse than it is now. I believe that in the long run it will prove impossible to tax the sale of IP. There will be competition between jurisdictions to get the tax revenue, either on their own or through the proposed agency. Some jurisdictions will make it advantageous to register or virtually locate the sale in their jurisdiction. This will drive the tax revenue down to a point where it is unprofitable for most jurisdictions to collect it. At that point they will want to revisit the paradigm. We will be right back where we are now. Jurisdictions that try to tax the sale of IP need to find other sources of tax revenue. The product is too ephemeral to successfully tax. If the sale is of physical goods then the existing tax system should work fine. Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Philippe Blanchard > Sent: July-13-11 6:12 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > I follow-up Daniel's analysis. > In his example, he clearly demonstrates that we are in a situation for which > the classical rules based on physical territory cannot apply. Eventhough those > rules proved useful, they were designed more than 200 years ago > (Beaumarchais- 24 January 1732 - 18 May 1799- worked on Intellectual > property consideration and set the basis of main of our current IP laws). > > We all know that those rules cannot longer apply as is and the question is > then to review what is the scope that can embrace the fact we are moving, > we buy "stuff " in one country to be used in another country... and when > those "stuff" are intangibles, their materiality (or lack of) clearly conflicts with > the classical, material rules we used to abide by. > > I am afraid we cannot go further if we still try to cut&paste rules that were > designed hundreds of years ago to the world we now live in. Internet > governance and intangibles taxation require the creation (or the > mobiilization) of a meta-structure, above the national levels... And for me, it > needs to be a UN-type agency. > > Philippe > > > > On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > Interesting discussion indeed. > > What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? Aren't > you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes collected on > rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the right, or the party that > receives the right? > > Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my iPad flash > storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put it in another physical > place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the Internet cloud? > > What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, but I > "use" it here? > > Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: > > Apple in California sold me the application. > I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at the > Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in Varna > (Bulgaria). > > Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with 'physical' > objects. Both these things are the foundation of the current taxation system. > > Daniel > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Wed Jul 13 14:31:36 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:31:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phillippe Thanks for the thoughtful response, You are more optimistic than I on how bureaucracies work. I don't think we can work past that point so I'm not going to pursue it further. It may that you are correct that such a treaty could be worked out. My objections to going forward with such a treaty are more philosophical than the details of how such a treaty would work. In general for such a treaty to work there would need to be a mechanism to identify and track each and every user on the Internet. I am philosophically opposed to that. Such a mechanism could too easily be subverted for other uses. This will probably happen anyway but I will oppose it wherever I can. Regarding your last paragraph we are in agreement. The Internet is fundamentally changing the way we think of IP. My belief is eventually there will be no such thing as IP. We will be back to a time where ideas are freely passed between people as in a stranger shows up at the campfire and shows the locals how to make a better arrowhead or a new hunting chant. Trying to control the flow of ideas on the Internet without severe intrusion by governments will be about as effective as the person that invented a better arrowhead trying to get compensated for the idea or even figuring out who is using the idea. How this will work in a modern setting will take many years to settle out and will be very disruptive to existing industries and governing bodies. And yes, I agree, as long as money is changing hands someone will be trying to tax it. If that tax will be accepted by the constituents is a different matter. Look what happened when the British tried to tax tea when the constituents of one jurisdiction thought the tax shouldn't apply to them. As an aside the jurisdiction I live in, Canada, has some proposed legislation that will allow the government to track users that use Canadian ISPs to the level needed that allows treaties like this to function. This to me is far scarier and more important than the tax issues we are discussing. The tax issues are important but to my mind the fact that a country that professes to be one of the freest countries in the world is considering this is a far more important issue. My fear is that governments will use issues like taxation to justify loss of freedom on the Internet. Kerry Brown From: Philippe Blanchard > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:27:09 +0200 To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >, Kerry Brown > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Dear Kerry, Thank you for pushing this discussion a bit further. I know there are many constraints. Not only for pure internet players but even more for "click and mortar" players... and on I am clearly aware I am on a rather simplistic, Manichean, approach. * I fully agree that setting a structure whose responsibility would be to collect the money and then redistribute it to the national jurisdiction would be tedious, expensive and... irrelevant. The state level is no more relevant and I am not sure the question is about redistributing any money back to the national government.... but to diminish the level of funding currently required by the UN and their agencies. This international responsibility would be linked to an international legitimacy to collect taxes. The question of the several national jurisdiction would then be solved by the fact there would be only one, international, rule applying to all. * Then, regarding the "additional layer of bureaucracy", I do not see it as an "additional" layer since this international jurisdiction would supersede the national ones. We all remember the TOBIN tax proposal (a taxation on international financial transactions)... * Most of the international transactions are already monitored and consolidating the information should not require armies of public officers but an international collaboration framework with a common taxonomy and interconnexion of the databases. * Government might consider that having another player would decrease their own national revenues. We need to remember that there are already several cases where this happen : VAT for instance. * I know this is a tiny portion of international commerce but I take it as an illustration. The general public buying goods abroad can be reimbursed of the VAT they paid to the country they are leaving. * Governements keep the taxes on the benefits made by the sales agent on their territory but they do not collect the VAT of purchases made on their territories. * (The funny thing however is that those collaboration between the national customs agencies gave birth to international VAT reimbursement players who keep a share for their own administrative costs. And that is clearly detrimental to the final buyer) * There are already intergovernmental collaboration with electronic data interchange (Interpol)... * On the question of the amount of money to be collected, this is clearly something that should be decided by the Nations representatives... and the implementation would be then on the agency agenda... Regarding your analyses that "in the long run it will prove impossible to tax the sale of IP", I have mixed feelings. I think that IP rights will be reconsidered thoroughly and that if Gutenberg and his press gave birth to IP, internet and hypertext will review drastically the notion of IP and the value of content.... and hitherto related taxes... But as long as content will have a price.. there will be taxes ;-) Kind regards Ph On Jul 13, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: I've been lurking here for a while. This is my first post. This discussion is very interesting and Phillippe's post in particular. Phillippe: Do you really think a UN style agency that collects taxes and disperses the money collected to hundreds of thousands of competing jurisdictions could work? The same questions will still apply and we will have another layer of bureaucracy to deal with. First - How much of the money collected would simply go to the bureaucracy that would be created to administer this? Second - This would not solve the problem of each jurisdiction having different rules about what is taxed and what the tax rate is. Third - How would the agency determine who gets what portion of the money collected? There may be national, provincial, municipal, and other claims to the tax collected. There would be claims to the money from the jurisdictions where the vendor is located, where the goods are located (i.e. data center where the actual bits are located), where the bits physically end up, and where the buyer is located. You could potentially have a dozen or more jurisdictions claiming a portion of the money. How would you calculate the tax at the time of the transaction? Is each jurisdiction additive? The level of bureaucracy needed to administer this would cost more than the taxes collected. I think an agency like this would make the problem worse than it is now. I believe that in the long run it will prove impossible to tax the sale of IP. There will be competition between jurisdictions to get the tax revenue, either on their own or through the proposed agency. Some jurisdictions will make it advantageous to register or virtually locate the sale in their jurisdiction. This will drive the tax revenue down to a point where it is unprofitable for most jurisdictions to collect it. At that point they will want to revisit the paradigm. We will be right back where we are now. Jurisdictions that try to tax the sale of IP need to find other sources of tax revenue. The product is too ephemeral to successfully tax. If the sale is of physical goods then the existing tax system should work fine. Kerry Brown -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Blanchard Sent: July-13-11 6:12 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period I follow-up Daniel's analysis. In his example, he clearly demonstrates that we are in a situation for which the classical rules based on physical territory cannot apply. Eventhough those rules proved useful, they were designed more than 200 years ago (Beaumarchais- 24 January 1732 - 18 May 1799- worked on Intellectual property consideration and set the basis of main of our current IP laws). We all know that those rules cannot longer apply as is and the question is then to review what is the scope that can embrace the fact we are moving, we buy "stuff " in one country to be used in another country... and when those "stuff" are intangibles, their materiality (or lack of) clearly conflicts with the classical, material rules we used to abide by. I am afraid we cannot go further if we still try to cut&paste rules that were designed hundreds of years ago to the world we now live in. Internet governance and intangibles taxation require the creation (or the mobiilization) of a meta-structure, above the national levels... And for me, it needs to be a UN-type agency. Philippe On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: Interesting discussion indeed. What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? Aren't you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes collected on rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the right, or the party that receives the right? Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my iPad flash storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put it in another physical place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the Internet cloud? What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, but I "use" it here? Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: Apple in California sold me the application. I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at the Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in Varna (Bulgaria). Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with 'physical' objects. Both these things are the foundation of the current taxation system. Daniel __________________________________________________________ __ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t __________________________________________________________ __ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Wed Jul 13 14:40:39 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:40:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <050EAF766A854BC697DF5ECFE2511FCC@userPC> Message-ID: Hello Mike I've posted a response to Phillippe that covers some of the points you raise. In essence I am philosophically opposed to governments having a mechanism that allows them to track Internet users. I believe that the taxation issues are one strategy of many that they are using to erode individual user rights and get control of the Internet. I understand and respect that many people don't share my beliefs on this. I'm also something of a pessimist regarding the effectiveness of international bureaucracies. Kerry Brown On 11-07-13 8:31 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: >Kerry, > >Interesting points and a good basis for a back and forth... > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >Behalf >Of Kerry Brown >Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:40 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on >Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial >period > >I've been lurking here for a while. This is my first post. This discussion >is very interesting and Phillippe's post in particular. > >Phillippe: > >Do you really think a UN style agency that collects taxes and disperses >the >money collected to hundreds of thousands of competing jurisdictions could >work? The same questions will still apply and we will have another layer >of >bureaucracy to deal with. > >CLEARLY SUCH A DEVELOPMENT (I.E. AN AGENCY) WOULD BE THE OUTCOME OF SOME >SORT OF BINDING INTERNATIONAL TREATY WHICH COVERED THIS ISSUE. > >THAT A STRUCTURE WOULD NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE EXECUTION AND >ENFORCEMENT OF THE TREATY IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. IT WILL BE MORE OR >LESS EFFICIENT/EFFECTIVE DEPENDNG ON ITS GOVERNANCE IN EXACTLY THE SAME >MANNER AS CURRENT SUCH STRUCTURES UNDER NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS. >HOPEFULLY, >SUCH A STRUCTURE WOULD BE BASED ON A CLEAR EYED ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT >STRUCTURES AND AN IMPLEMENTATION USING THE MORE ADVANCED TOOLS FOR >TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT (AND MONITORING) AS HAVE COME AVAILABLE THROUGH THE >USE OF ICTS. > > >First - How much of the money collected would simply go to the bureaucracy >that would be created to administer this? > >SEE ABOVE... THIS IS A MATTER OF EFFICIENCY OF >IMPLEMENTATION/OPERATION--SOME STRUCTURES ARE BETTER, SOME ARE WORSE -- >HOPEFULLY THIS ONE WOULD A VERY GOOD AND EFFICIENT ONE. > > >Second - This would not solve the problem of each jurisdiction having >different rules about what is taxed and what the tax rate is. > >THIS WOULD OF COURSE, BE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TREATY ON WHICH THE >STRUCTURE >WAS BASED. > > >Third - How would the agency determine who gets what portion of the money >collected? There may be national, provincial, municipal, and other claims >to >the tax collected. There would be claims to the money from the >jurisdictions where the vendor is located, where the goods are located >(i.e. >data center where the actual bits are located), where the bits physically >end up, and where the buyer is located. You could potentially have a dozen >or more jurisdictions claiming a portion of the money. How would you >calculate the tax at the time of the transaction? Is each jurisdiction >additive? > >THIS ALSO WOULD BE COVERED BY THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TREATY AND OF COURSE >THERE WOULD BE AMBIGUITIES ETC.ETC. -- AS SOMEONE ALREADY SAID, IT WOULD >BE >A GOOD TIME TO BE A TAX LAWYER, I WOULD GUESS. > > >The level of bureaucracy needed to administer this would cost more than >the >taxes collected. I think an agency like this would make the problem worse >than it is now. I believe that in the long run it will prove impossible to >tax the sale of IP. There will be competition between jurisdictions to get >the tax revenue, either on their own or through the proposed agency. Some >jurisdictions will make it advantageous to register or virtually locate >the >sale in their jurisdiction. This will drive the tax revenue down to a >point >where it is unprofitable for most jurisdictions to collect it. At that >point >they will want to revisit the paradigm. We will be right back where we are >now. Jurisdictions that try to tax the sale of IP need to find other >sources >of tax revenue. The product is too ephemeral to successfully tax. > >SEE ABOVE... I WOULD HAZARD THE OPINION THAT THESE ARGUMENTS WERE MORE OR >LESS EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS HAVE BEEN RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE >CREATION OF ANY TAXATION STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION SINCE THE BEGINNING >OF >TIME... > > >If the sale is of physical goods then the existing tax system should work >fine. > >BEST, > >MIKE > >Kerry Brown > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> Behalf Of Philippe Blanchard >> Sent: July-13-11 6:12 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on >> Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / >> trial period >> >> I follow-up Daniel's analysis. >> In his example, he clearly demonstrates that we are in a situation for >> which the classical rules based on physical territory cannot apply. >> Eventhough those rules proved useful, they were designed more than 200 >> years ago >> (Beaumarchais- 24 January 1732 - 18 May 1799- worked on Intellectual >> property consideration and set the basis of main of our current IP >>laws). >> >> We all know that those rules cannot longer apply as is and the >> question is then to review what is the scope that can embrace the >> fact we are moving, we buy "stuff " in one country to be used in >> another country... and when those "stuff" are intangibles, their >> materiality (or lack of) clearly conflicts with the classical, >> material rules we used to abide by. >> >> I am afraid we cannot go further if we still try to cut&paste rules >> that were designed hundreds of years ago to the world we now live in. >> Internet governance and intangibles taxation require the creation (or >> the >> mobiilization) of a meta-structure, above the national levels... And for >me, it >> needs to be a UN-type agency. >> >> Philippe >> >> >> >> On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >> Interesting discussion indeed. >> >> What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? >> Aren't you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes >> collected on rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the >> right, or the party that receives the right? >> >> Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my iPad >> flash storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put it in >> another physical place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the Internet >> cloud? >> >> What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, >> but I "use" it here? >> >> Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: >> >> Apple in California sold me the application. >> I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at >> the Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in >> Varna (Bulgaria). >> >> Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with >> 'physical' objects. Both these things are the foundation of the >> current taxation system. >> >> Daniel __________________________________________________________ >> __ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> __ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 13 15:21:50 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:21:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1C902DEA54564A18B7CEF9336C51101B@userPC> Kerry, I'm not sure why you think that a mechanism for global governance to allow for some sort of regulation/taxation would necessarily require tracking of Internet users anymore than they are already trackable/traceable for the purposes of e-commerce which is the point of the exercise. M -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Kerry Brown Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:41 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period Hello Mike I've posted a response to Phillippe that covers some of the points you raise. In essence I am philosophically opposed to governments having a mechanism that allows them to track Internet users. I believe that the taxation issues are one strategy of many that they are using to erode individual user rights and get control of the Internet. I understand and respect that many people don't share my beliefs on this. I'm also something of a pessimist regarding the effectiveness of international bureaucracies. Kerry Brown On 11-07-13 8:31 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: >Kerry, > >Interesting points and a good basis for a back and forth... > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >Behalf Of Kerry Brown >Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:40 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on >Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial >period > >I've been lurking here for a while. This is my first post. This >discussion is very interesting and Phillippe's post in particular. > >Phillippe: > >Do you really think a UN style agency that collects taxes and disperses >the money collected to hundreds of thousands of competing jurisdictions >could work? The same questions will still apply and we will have >another layer of >bureaucracy to deal with. > >CLEARLY SUCH A DEVELOPMENT (I.E. AN AGENCY) WOULD BE THE OUTCOME OF >SOME SORT OF BINDING INTERNATIONAL TREATY WHICH COVERED THIS ISSUE. > >THAT A STRUCTURE WOULD NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE EXECUTION AND >ENFORCEMENT OF THE TREATY IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. IT WILL BE MORE >OR LESS EFFICIENT/EFFECTIVE DEPENDNG ON ITS GOVERNANCE IN EXACTLY THE >SAME MANNER AS CURRENT SUCH STRUCTURES UNDER NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS. >HOPEFULLY, SUCH A STRUCTURE WOULD BE BASED ON A CLEAR EYED ASSESSMENT >OF CURRENT STRUCTURES AND AN IMPLEMENTATION USING THE MORE ADVANCED >TOOLS FOR TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT (AND MONITORING) AS HAVE COME >AVAILABLE THROUGH THE USE OF ICTS. > > >First - How much of the money collected would simply go to the >bureaucracy that would be created to administer this? > >SEE ABOVE... THIS IS A MATTER OF EFFICIENCY OF >IMPLEMENTATION/OPERATION--SOME STRUCTURES ARE BETTER, SOME ARE WORSE -- >HOPEFULLY THIS ONE WOULD A VERY GOOD AND EFFICIENT ONE. > > >Second - This would not solve the problem of each jurisdiction having >different rules about what is taxed and what the tax rate is. > >THIS WOULD OF COURSE, BE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TREATY ON WHICH THE >STRUCTURE WAS BASED. > > >Third - How would the agency determine who gets what portion of the >money collected? There may be national, provincial, municipal, and >other claims to the tax collected. There would be claims to the money >from the jurisdictions where the vendor is located, where the goods are >located (i.e. >data center where the actual bits are located), where the bits physically >end up, and where the buyer is located. You could potentially have a dozen >or more jurisdictions claiming a portion of the money. How would you >calculate the tax at the time of the transaction? Is each jurisdiction >additive? > >THIS ALSO WOULD BE COVERED BY THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TREATY AND OF COURSE >THERE WOULD BE AMBIGUITIES ETC.ETC. -- AS SOMEONE ALREADY SAID, IT >WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO BE A TAX LAWYER, I WOULD GUESS. > > >The level of bureaucracy needed to administer this would cost more than >the taxes collected. I think an agency like this would make the problem >worse than it is now. I believe that in the long run it will prove >impossible to tax the sale of IP. There will be competition between >jurisdictions to get the tax revenue, either on their own or through >the proposed agency. Some jurisdictions will make it advantageous to >register or virtually locate the >sale in their jurisdiction. This will drive the tax revenue down to a >point >where it is unprofitable for most jurisdictions to collect it. At that >point >they will want to revisit the paradigm. We will be right back where we are >now. Jurisdictions that try to tax the sale of IP need to find other >sources >of tax revenue. The product is too ephemeral to successfully tax. > >SEE ABOVE... I WOULD HAZARD THE OPINION THAT THESE ARGUMENTS WERE MORE >OR LESS EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS HAVE BEEN RAISED WITH RESPECT TO >THE CREATION OF ANY TAXATION STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION SINCE THE >BEGINNING OF TIME... > > >If the sale is of physical goods then the existing tax system should >work fine. > >BEST, > >MIKE > >Kerry Brown > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> Behalf Of Philippe Blanchard >> Sent: July-13-11 6:12 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy >> on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / >> trial period >> >> I follow-up Daniel's analysis. >> In his example, he clearly demonstrates that we are in a situation >>for which the classical rules based on physical territory cannot >>apply. Eventhough those rules proved useful, they were designed more >>than 200 years ago >> (Beaumarchais- 24 January 1732 - 18 May 1799- worked on Intellectual >>property consideration and set the basis of main of our current IP >>laws). >> >> We all know that those rules cannot longer apply as is and the >> question is then to review what is the scope that can embrace the >> fact we are moving, we buy "stuff " in one country to be used in >> another country... and when those "stuff" are intangibles, their >> materiality (or lack of) clearly conflicts with the classical, >> material rules we used to abide by. >> >> I am afraid we cannot go further if we still try to cut&paste rules >> that were designed hundreds of years ago to the world we now live in. >> Internet governance and intangibles taxation require the creation (or >> the >> mobiilization) of a meta-structure, above the national levels... And >> for >me, it >> needs to be a UN-type agency. >> >> Philippe >> >> >> >> On Jul 13, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >> Interesting discussion indeed. >> >> What is an application? What you pay for, when you buy software? >> Aren't you paying for the right to use the application? How are taxes >> collected on rights to use? Who is taxed -- the party that gives the >> right, or the party that receives the right? >> >> Does the application have physical location? Does it reside on my >> iPad flash storage and if it does, can I take it from there and put >> it in another physical place? Or does it reside "somewhere" in the >> Internet cloud? >> >> What if the application is web based, "resides" and "runs" somewhere, >> but I "use" it here? >> >> Could you also explain to me who collects taxes when: >> >> Apple in California sold me the application. >> I purchased it while in Oslo (Norvay), then used it while staying at >> the Frankfurt (Germany) airport and continued to use it back home in >> Varna (Bulgaria). >> >> Internet does not have 'place' and it also does not do anything with >> 'physical' objects. Both these things are the foundation of the >> current taxation system. >> >> Daniel __________________________________________________________ >> __ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> __ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Jul 13 23:34:55 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:34:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/13/11, Kerry Brown wrote: > Phillippe > > Thanks for the thoughtful response, You are more optimistic than I on how > bureaucracies work. Kerry, according to your company's website, you are appointed to a private bureaucracy called CIRA, the Canadian Internal Regulation Authority (CIRA). CIRA took over Canadian domain name registration from the University of British Columbia in 2000, and operates as a private nonprofit corporation. CIRA has its own judicial system via arbitration, and when a complaint is filed with one of the providers selected by CIRA the Registrant of the domain "must submit" to the CIRA-authorized arbitration process. Anyone owing a CIRA provider money from a past arbitration is barred from filing any actions until paid no matter how meritorious the action may be, a policy that doesn't apply in any governmental court system that I know of. Regarding any CIRA arbitration, the Provider may not supplement the rules set forth by CIRA ( ), and neither the Complainant nor the Respondent will be allowed to argue that any foreign or domestic laws or legislation should be considered in a CIRA-authorized arbitration, and even the Provider, Complainant and Respondent combined lack the power to amend or waive a CIRA rule: only the written express permission of CIRA can do that. See para. 1.2 & 1.7 at http://www.cira.ca/assets/Documents/Legal/Dispute/CDRPrules.pdf CIRA rules state that no in-person hearing is allowed, not even a telephone conference or a chat room, unless the Provider alone finds it necessary. While appeal from a CIRA arbitration to a court may be allowed, it nevertheless appears clear from the above that CIRA has set up its own private bureaucratic judicial system with panels of arbitrators so that parties have to pay not only for lawyers but for the judges (arbitrators) as well (Three of them, often), and as regards procedural rights, CIRA has specified that democratically-based laws simply do not apply, whether they be foreign laws or domestic laws. My question is this: When you say that bureaucracies don't work, are you referring to the private bureaucracy of CIRA in its judicial (or other) capacity, or do you see CIRA as a competitor with governments in terms of providing dispute resolution rules and forums related to internet domain names? > My objections to going forward with such a treaty are more philosophical > than the details of how such a treaty would work. In general for such a > treaty to work there would need to be a mechanism to identify and track each > and every user on the Internet. I am philosophically opposed to that. Does CIRA track the whereabouts of all 1.5 million .ca registrants? Does it require an up to date admin contact and physical address so you can track the whereabouts of all 1.5 million canadian registrants? Have you made a record of your philosophical opposition to CIRA tracking internet users in this way? > Such a > mechanism could too easily be subverted for other uses. This will probably > happen anyway but I will oppose it wherever I can. Alas, CIRA uses admin contacts to provider for valid service of CIRA-authorized lawsuit arbitrations. I'll bet domain name registrants providing admin contact information didn't expect in their wildest dreams that that information would be used to perfect service of process on them before an arbitral court system that they "must submit" to, and be stripped of all procedural rights, foreign or domestic, in their submission. Thus, I agree you are correct that information, once obtained, can be used or subverted for collateral purposes. > The Internet is > fundamentally changing the way we think of IP. My belief is eventually there > will be no such thing as IP. We will be back to a time where ideas are > freely passed between people as in a stranger shows up at the campfire and > shows the locals how to make a better arrowhead or a new hunting chant. Patents are a form of IP and as of late they are widely described as a new form of currency or money. Many information-based corporations claim balance sheets in which IP is 50% or more of the company's value. For a couple decades we've been heading quickly into a world in which IP is money itself, so I have to admit to a strong degree of skepticism that we are heading toward a world in which IP is as free as a caveman showing how to make a better arrowhead. Those with all the money simply won't allow that to happen. > And yes, I agree, as long as money is changing hands someone will be trying > to tax it. If that tax will be accepted by the constituents is a different > matter. The CIRA arbitration providers are authorized by CIRA to tax costs against any party, which if unpaid is both a legally enforceable debt as well as a bar against filing any CIRA arbitrations no matter how justified. (Unscrupulous domain holders can take advantage here if their victim doesn't have enough money to pay CIRA's provider and thus can't file for a domain name arbitration.) > The tax issues are important but to my mind the fact that a country that > professes to be one of the freest countries in the world is considering this > is a far more important issue. My fear is that governments will use issues > like taxation to justify loss of freedom on the Internet. Canada may do such a thing, but more likely will not. In contrast, CIRA arbitrations have already created, in reality, a private judicial arbitration system whereby (1) anybody hauled into such an arbitration loses all of their procedural rights, foreign or domestic, (see para 1.7 at http://www.cira.ca/assets/Documents/CDRPpolicy.pdf ) and (2) has to pay for the judge-arbitrators as well as for any costs taxed to them or any damages awarded in a CIRA-enabled arbitration system, not to mention their own lawyer, if they can afford one. Anybody who has a problem with any of these brave-new-legal-world rules can't change them, even if their litigation opponent agrees, without "the express written consent of CIRA." Personally, I'm much more worried about what is forced upon people TODAY by private ("nonprofit") corporations, than what might someday possibly be done by an elected democratic legislature in Canada or anywhere else. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jul 14 02:45:46 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 06:45:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Paul I'd like to clear up a few possible misconceptions. I am not against all bureaucracies. They are sometimes necessary. My belief is that bureaucracies often become inefficient over time. We should avoid creating new ones whenever possible. Elected officials should have a close oversight role to ensure bureaucracies do not become inefficient fiefdoms that are a law unto themselves. I am indeed a director at the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. I was elected to the board three years ago. My term will be up in September and I intend to run again. I originally ran for the board because I wanted to reduce the amount of bureaucracy involved with running the dot-ca ccTLD. When I was elected I was pleasantly surprised to find most of the existing directors shared my concerns. The board was already working on plans to reduce the bureaucracy. Since that time CIRA has implemented new registry software and policies that have made it much easier for Canadians to register and manage their dot-ca domains. CIRA has also recognised some of the problems you have pointed out with the CDRP policy. We undertook a public review of the policy and are in the final stages of updating the policy to make it quicker and less expensive. The reason for having a CDRP outside of the judicial system is to reduce the cost and the bureaucratic red tape associated with going through the judicial system. As you mention if the process outside of the judicial system fails, either side can always fall back to that. Of course CIRA keeps a record of who registers domains. That is the essence of running a registry. CIRA does not track registrants other than to match them to domain names, ensure they meet the Canadian presence requirements, and possibly send them surveys to see if we are meeting their needs. In fact CIRA is one of the most progressive registries when it comes to registrants. By default all individual registrant information is private. Even law enforcement agencies can't access this information without going through a process first. The registrant will be advised their information was accessed. In some law enforcement cases this notification may be delayed up to 60 days or possibly longer if a court intervenes. We obviously disagree on where IP rights are going but as I don't have a functioning crystal ball we'll have to agree to disagree. Lastly I take it you are not that familiar with Canadian politics. The recently elected Conservative government has rolled several bills which died on the floor when the last election was called into an omnibus bill. This bill includes the legislation I mentioned earlier. They have indicated this new omnibus bill will be a priority. As they have a substantial majority in parliament it is almost assured the bill will pass. The part of the bill regarding forcing ISPs to track users and make the results available to law enforcement agencies with no court oversight may be amended but it is certain it will be in there in some form. Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: July-13-11 8:35 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kerry Brown; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > On 7/13/11, Kerry Brown wrote: > > Phillippe > > > > Thanks for the thoughtful response, You are more optimistic than I on > > how bureaucracies work. > > Kerry, according to your company's website, you are appointed to a private > bureaucracy called CIRA, the Canadian Internal Regulation Authority (CIRA). > > CIRA took over Canadian domain name registration from the University of > British Columbia in 2000, and operates as a private nonprofit > corporation. CIRA has its own judicial system via arbitration, and > when a complaint is filed with one of the providers selected by CIRA the > Registrant of the domain "must submit" to the CIRA-authorized arbitration > process. Anyone owing a CIRA provider money from a past arbitration is > barred from filing any actions until paid no matter how meritorious the action > may be, a policy that doesn't apply in any governmental court system that I > know of. Regarding any CIRA arbitration, the Provider may not supplement > the rules set forth by CIRA ( ), and neither the Complainant nor the > Respondent will be allowed to argue that any foreign or domestic laws or > legislation should be considered in a CIRA-authorized arbitration, and even > the Provider, Complainant and Respondent combined lack the power to > amend or waive a CIRA rule: only the written express permission of CIRA can > do that. See para. 1.2 & 1.7 at > http://www.cira.ca/assets/Documents/Legal/Dispute/CDRPrules.pdf CIRA > rules state that no in-person hearing is allowed, not even a telephone > conference or a chat room, unless the Provider alone finds it necessary. > > > While appeal from a CIRA arbitration to a court may be allowed, it > nevertheless appears clear from the above that CIRA has set up its own > private bureaucratic judicial system with panels of arbitrators so that parties > have to pay not only for lawyers but for the judges > (arbitrators) as well (Three of them, often), and as regards procedural rights, > CIRA has specified that democratically-based laws simply do not apply, > whether they be foreign laws or domestic laws. > > My question is this: When you say that bureaucracies don't work, are you > referring to the private bureaucracy of CIRA in its judicial (or > other) capacity, or do you see CIRA as a competitor with governments in > terms of providing dispute resolution rules and forums related to internet > domain names? > > > My objections to going forward with such a treaty are more > > philosophical than the details of how such a treaty would work. In > > general for such a treaty to work there would need to be a mechanism > > to identify and track each and every user on the Internet. I am > philosophically opposed to that. > > Does CIRA track the whereabouts of all 1.5 million .ca registrants? > Does it require an up to date admin contact and physical address so you can > track the whereabouts of all 1.5 million canadian registrants? > Have you made a record of your philosophical opposition to CIRA tracking > internet users in this way? > > > Such a > > mechanism could too easily be subverted for other uses. This will > > probably happen anyway but I will oppose it wherever I can. > > Alas, CIRA uses admin contacts to provider for valid service of CIRA- > authorized lawsuit arbitrations. I'll bet domain name registrants providing > admin contact information didn't expect in their wildest dreams that that > information would be used to perfect service of process on them before an > arbitral court system that they "must submit" to, and be stripped of all > procedural rights, foreign or domestic, in their submission. Thus, I agree you > are correct that information, once obtained, can be used or subverted for > collateral purposes. > > > The Internet is > > fundamentally changing the way we think of IP. My belief is eventually > > there will be no such thing as IP. We will be back to a time where > > ideas are freely passed between people as in a stranger shows up at > > the campfire and shows the locals how to make a better arrowhead or a > new hunting chant. > > Patents are a form of IP and as of late they are widely described as a new > form of currency or money. Many information-based corporations claim > balance sheets in which IP is 50% or more of the company's value. For a > couple decades we've been heading quickly into a world in which IP is money > itself, so I have to admit to a strong degree of skepticism that we are heading > toward a world in which IP is as free as a caveman showing how to make a > better arrowhead. Those with all the money simply won't allow that to > happen. > > > And yes, I agree, as long as money is changing hands someone will be > > trying to tax it. If that tax will be accepted by the constituents is > > a different matter. > > The CIRA arbitration providers are authorized by CIRA to tax costs against any > party, which if unpaid is both a legally enforceable debt as well as a bar > against filing any CIRA arbitrations no matter how justified. (Unscrupulous > domain holders can take advantage here if their victim doesn't have enough > money to pay CIRA's provider and thus can't file for a domain name > arbitration.) > > > The tax issues are important but to my mind the fact that a country > > that professes to be one of the freest countries in the world is > > considering this is a far more important issue. My fear is that > > governments will use issues like taxation to justify loss of freedom on the > Internet. > > Canada may do such a thing, but more likely will not. In contrast, CIRA > arbitrations have already created, in reality, a private judicial arbitration > system whereby (1) anybody hauled into such an arbitration loses all of their > procedural rights, foreign or domestic, (see para 1.7 at > http://www.cira.ca/assets/Documents/CDRPpolicy.pdf ) and (2) has to pay > for the judge-arbitrators as well as for any costs taxed to them or any > damages awarded in a CIRA-enabled arbitration system, not to mention their > own lawyer, if they can afford one. > Anybody who has a problem with any of these brave-new-legal-world rules > can't change them, even if their litigation opponent agrees, without "the > express written consent of CIRA." > > Personally, I'm much more worried about what is forced upon people TODAY > by private ("nonprofit") corporations, than what might someday possibly be > done by an elected democratic legislature in Canada or anywhere else. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jul 14 04:05:16 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:05:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E1EA33C.10500@digsys.bg> On 14.07.11 06:34, Paul Lehto wrote: > Canada may do such a thing, but more likely will not. In contrast, > CIRA arbitrations have already created, in reality, a private judicial > arbitration system whereby (1) anybody hauled into such an > arbitration loses all of their procedural rights, foreign or domestic, [...] Paul, Kerry has already provided good response, but I feel something was missing. You claim to compare the 'old' system with a 'new' system and that the new system imposes private-owned enterprise rules. What you compare in fact is the current system with the current system. Private arbitration courts have existed long before the Internet happened. ccTLD registries are forced to create arbitration rules (and all the associated bureaucracy) not because they so desire, but because there is lack of adequate legislation created by the public authorities that can be used for domain name disputes. The existing judicial system sometimes comes to some rather funny or even absurd rulings. Each of the ccTLD registries operates for the benefit of their respective constituency and under their (local) governing law. If they misbehave, it is all too easy to be corrected -- there have been many, many lawsuits involving ccTLD registries -- but you will be surprised in how few cases the registries were found guilty. As years pass, local legislation improves with regards to domain name and Internet related issues and the 'private' policy applied by the ccTLD registries improves as well. There are already countries, where 'domain law' exists in one form or another and the ccTLD registry is happily relieved by the burden of running any arbitration. In any case, both the (democratic) Government imposed old rules and the private-entity imposed old rules are inadequate. Private imposed rules have the benefit of being far more flexible and easier to fix. History of ccTLD registries development has already demonstrated this. Also, with primarily private rules, the Government imposed public rules apply anyway. Unfortunately, I have no proposal how to fix the old system. But then, I am not politician either. :) Daniel PS: ICANN is an entirely different story, but we are already sort of off-topic... PPS: By the way, law like that requiring ISPs to keep record of their customers Internet usage and provide access to that data to Government has passed already in Bulgaria. There was very strong public opposition and so far the implementation of this law is mainly used to track criminal activities. However, the law is in force and nothing prevents this or some next Government to actually enforce it. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jul 14 05:23:37 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:23:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1EA33C.10500@digsys.bg> References: <4E1EA33C.10500@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4E1EA33C.10500 at digsys.bg>, at 11:05:16 on Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >PPS: By the way, law like that requiring ISPs to keep record of their >customers Internet usage and provide access to that data to Government has >passed already in Bulgaria. It's the law in Europe: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0225:FIN:EN:PDF "The Data Retention Directive requires Member States to oblige providers of publically available electronic communications services or of public communications networks to retain traffic and location data for between six months and two years for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime." 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 07:44:51 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:44:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/14/11, Kerry Brown wrote: > I am indeed a director at the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. [snip] > I am not against all bureaucracies. They are sometimes necessary. My belief > is that bureaucracies often become inefficient over time. We should avoid > creating new ones whenever possible. Elected officials should have a close > oversight role to ensure bureaucracies do not become inefficient fiefdoms > that are a law unto themselves. My overall main point in this thread, contained in both the original replies and in Parminder's re-posting of the core part of the argument, is that any time one pursues "absence of government" or the like as a goal, to the same exact extent that democratically accountable government steps back from its natural authority and oversight role, the governance vacuum that is created by that is essentially always filled by private law and regulation, usually in the form of corporate contract law. However, government for the last decade or more has been rapidly privatizing not only services but government itself, breaking off chunks of government and handing their authority to private (nonprofit, usually) corporations. This is one main reason why we increasingly use the term "governance" -- because "governance" embraces private corporate regulation while "government" is not usually understood as including private corporate regulation that has recently increasingly become the Status Quo. Example: when the Canadian government delegated to CIRA ccTLD registration powers along with some of the regulatory power that goes with that area. In the case of CIRA and similar top level domain registries that are private corporations, we see an example of the privatization of government into the hands of a few, all in the name of efficiency and similar concerns that appear attractive on their face. While such efficiency concerns for ccTLDs are not entirely without merit, as President Harry S. Truman said, "If you want efficiency, you'll get a dictatorship." In seeking efficiency with CIRA, Canadian registrants get non-democratic governance, and they may or may not get the efficiency. (The attainment of efficiency is beside the point) I freely admit that an appropriately enlightened dictator or aristocracy can make the trains run on time. Further, if one is willing to make the government itself into a crime, the former Soviet Union stands as an example that street crime can be essentially eliminated, provided a strong enough police state is created. Simply put, the cost of freedom from street crime and the cost of achieving real "efficiency" are too high: In both, democracy and the rule of law are eliminated (albeit in somewhat different ways). It appears to me that CIRA is in fact, as you say, one of the most progressive of ccTLDs. But here's why it's an example of non-democratic government/governance: On another issue or at another time, you could say as a director of CIRA "the public interest be damned," and from the perspective of your duties as a director of a private corporation called CIRA, there's no consequences for your blatant disregard of the public interest, unless this statement is unacceptable to those **within the CIRA corporation.** Unlike an elected politician, you could say "I'm doing my job the best I can, and nothing requires me to act in the public interest" and that would be a true statement (unless CIRA voluntarily chooses for a time to make "public interest" part of its corporate goals in some form, subject to later retraction in CIRA's sole discretion...) In contrast, an elected public servant could never say (without laughter or scorn), "I'm doing my job the best I can, and nothing requires me to act in the public interest." The unavoidable job of the truly democratically elected politician/public servant is "to serve the public interest." The public interest is not the job of any director of any private nonprofit corporation unless that private corporation wants it to be, and then only for such limited time as the corporation, in its sole discretion, wishes to pursue "public interest." Even when nominally dedicated to "public interest" the private corporation(s) can define "public interest" as whatever their corporate crystal ball says it is, and WHAT CAN ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE POWER STRUCTURE DO ABOUT THAT?? Nothing. With democracy, at least we can vote the bums out, or pass/repeal with new laws. Sometimes, CIRA (as you point) out may even send a survey to the registrants whose rights in those domain names (a form of IP loosely speaking that one day, you still believe, will disappear along with all other IP) CIRA both restricts as well as governs. FOR NOW, CIRA by vote of its directors including yourself chooses to be progressive, but this "progressive" is not a function of any true or ultimate accountability to registrants or the public interest. The acid test of accountability is whether those whose rights you govern or affect can act to "kick you out" of office, and also whether those whose rights you process via arbitration procedures (judicial procedures) can "kick out" bad procedural rules by CIRA by initiating law-changing processes. I previously cited the CIRA rules that expressly forbid even the combined agreement of a Complainant, a Respondent and the arbitrators from changing or supplementing ANY procedural rules without the express written consent of CIRA. This is non-democratic, and is basically a form of what is sometimes called tyranny. We should not get distracted into a debate over whether it is smart and wise tyranny or dumb and stupid tyranny, efficient tyranny or inefficient bureaucratic tyranny. The point is that CIRA is private government, and it can do basically whatever it wants to within the scope of its "domain." Specific examples of CIRA being "progressive" miss the point, as do specific examples that may exist of Canadian government passing an occasional law that impacts CIRA or CIRA procedure. Neither of these change the fact that government has been privatized to governance, and CIRA can and does do whatever it wants to do, and is not democratically accountable. CIRA may choose to have a certain degree of "transparency" but basically this is voluntary and can be retracted at any time (especially since it would be more "efficient" to be less transparent). > CIRA has also recognised some of the problems you have pointed out with the > CDRP policy. Would be interesting to know on what specific points CIRA agrees with my critique. You mention making things "quicker and less expensive" but other than pointing to the extra expensive of paying for arbitrators in addition to an attorney, this was not one of the points in my critique. > The > reason for having a CDRP outside of the judicial system is to reduce the > cost and the bureaucratic red tape associated with going through the > judicial system. More often than not, reducing what most call "red tape" means eliminating either protective measures previously adopted, or reducing the exercise of rights. in order to achieve efficiency as a goal. EXAMPLE: Laws and regulations are passed in order to "prevent government waste" by having contractors thoroughly checked out, prior to getting government contracts. This seems laudable, but directly leads to many pages of paperwork, background checks, and delays for contractors. Later on, people and media complain (in some other context, and without mentioning the original concerns) about how difficult and onerous it is for those poor government contractors to have to go through so much red tape, and then the "red tape" is rescinded. But now, minus the "red tape" which usually has or had at least an arguably good reason for it, the system is now open yet again to waste fraud and abuse because people too quickly and easily get government contracts or government aid, leading to more changes like "checks and balances" and "oversight" (which are later seen as onerous "red tape" through the other viewpoint I mention). Of course, someone can try to cite examples of "red tape" that never had a reason for it in the first place. That doesn't change the dynamic above, whereby "red tape" and protecting against "waste fraud and abuse" are all too often a kind of yo yo, in both governmental and private bureaucracies. We keep flipping between the two, not understanding the interconnection means a tradeoff is quite often occurring between eliminating red tape and protecting against waste fraud and abuse. Applied to CIRA, I'm saying that effective and efficient efforts to eliminate red tape will also open the door to further waste, or fraud, or abuse (of power.) This won't happen in every case of reducing red tape, but on the whole it is guaranteed to happen as part of any systematic red tape-reduction effort. CIRA's relatively simple procedural rules for arbitration (19 pages or so) reduce red tape of detailed rules, but they do so at the cost of giving CIRA and its arbitration Providers sweeping power to do whatever they want to, procedurally, in arbitrations. That's an abuse (of power) waiting to happen, that has come because of a successful attempt at reducing the "red tape" of judicial litigation in government courts. In looking at corporate privatisation of government, I think nobody should trade in their ballots for empty promises from unaccountable corporate bureaucrats that they will treat us nicely, if only we give up our democratic powers of lawmaking and "kicking the bums out" via direct elections. To give up direct ballots in favor of the "efficiency" of corporate privatization of government means giving up the democratic accountability of rulers that centuries of humanity literally fought and died for, tooth and nail. These efforts were, at bottom, to make rulers (those who exercise power) directly accountable. Even though rulers through all of history almost invariably claimed to be doing what's best, and claimed to have their ears open to the public interest, history shows that those undemocratic rulers were rarely doing what's best for the public interest. Paul Lehto, J.D. PS Apologies for one error: While I believe I correctly cited in detail to CIRA policies and provided links, I inadvertently mis-named CIRA in the opening paragraph as the "Canadian Internal Regulation Authority" when in fact it is the "Canadian Internet Registration Authority." However, in both cases it is the AUTHORITY in this area of law, it is a form of private corporate government that, even when it appears for all the world "progressive" accountable to the public interest, doesn't really have to be accountable at all. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jul 14 10:16:59 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:16:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Canadian registrants get non-democratic governance, and they may or may > not get the efficiency. (The attainment of efficiency is beside the point) > CIRA's board of directors is democratically elected by CIRA members. Membership is free to anyone that registers a dot-ca domain. All members get one vote regardless of how many domains they have registered. There are three ex-officio non-voting appointed directors. All voting directors are elected by the members. One of the ex-officio directors is a representative of Industry Canada. The Canadian government through Industry Canada plays an advisory role to the board. The other non-voting directors are the CEO and John Demco the founder of the dot-ca registry when it was operated by volunteers working at UBC. We have drifted way off the topic. I'm happy to talk about CIRA but we should start a new topic if you want to continue this discussion. Kerry Brown ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jul 14 10:32:57 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:32:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <1C902DEA54564A18B7CEF9336C51101B@userPC> References: <1C902DEA54564A18B7CEF9336C51101B@userPC> Message-ID: > I'm not sure why you think that a mechanism for global governance to allow > for some sort of regulation/taxation would necessarily require tracking of > Internet users anymore than they are already trackable/traceable for the > purposes of e-commerce which is the point of the exercise. > In order to ensure that all relevant jurisdictions receive their portion of any tax collected both the seller and the purchaser must be identified. In a physical transaction the goods can be followed and taxes applied. In a virtual transaction with no physical goods only the seller and buyer can be tracked. Without ensuring the identity of the buyer it would be easy for buyers to scam the system and avoid paying the tax. I don't think a worldwide taxation system could work without some form of irrefutable digital ID that is open to inspection by any government. I'm not against a digital ID. It would actually help with Internet commerce. I am against any government having access to how and where these IDs are used without some kind of court oversight. Maybe I'm just being paranoid but for me it is the top of a slippery slope that leads to more government control. Kerry Brown ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 14 10:48:25 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:48:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4B5E324FCA394884813A34D33C35F45E@userPC> Interesting reply Kerry (and it's good to see another Canadian involved in these discussions :) Couldn't there be alternative processes of allocating the results of any tax collected -- per capita, Internet usage, self-reporting of location on a quantitative basis and so on? I'm not disagreeing with your concern regarding a digital ID and access to that (CIRA's procedures/safeguards might also work here would they not)? I'm also wondering whether something akin to Google Analytics which seems to be able to pinpoint those accessing and downloading from the online journal that I edit to the city level might also not be useable here? I guess the question is one of whether you think the issue of "identification" at this level makes the process of a global taxation regime for (let's say) virtual goods is impossible in principle or something which we need to put some very clever minds to figuring out a technical solution to. Best, M -----Original Message----- From: Kerry Brown [mailto:kerry at kdbsystems.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:33 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period > I'm not sure why you think that a mechanism for global governance to > allow for some sort of regulation/taxation would necessarily require > tracking of Internet users anymore than they are already > trackable/traceable for the purposes of e-commerce which is the point > of the exercise. > In order to ensure that all relevant jurisdictions receive their portion of any tax collected both the seller and the purchaser must be identified. In a physical transaction the goods can be followed and taxes applied. In a virtual transaction with no physical goods only the seller and buyer can be tracked. Without ensuring the identity of the buyer it would be easy for buyers to scam the system and avoid paying the tax. I don't think a worldwide taxation system could work without some form of irrefutable digital ID that is open to inspection by any government. I'm not against a digital ID. It would actually help with Internet commerce. I am against any government having access to how and where these IDs are used without some kind of court oversight. Maybe I'm just being paranoid but for me it is the top of a slippery slope that leads to more government control. Kerry Brown ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jul 14 11:42:18 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:42:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E1EA33C.10500@digsys.bg> Message-ID: I'm not a lawyer and struggle with some of the terms in the linked document. Do the governments have free access to the retained data or is there some kind of court oversight in how the data is accessed? As long as there is court oversight involved I am not against law enforcement agencies getting access to this kind of data. The proposed Canadian legislation does not provide for any court oversight. Any law enforcement agency can request to access the data without giving a reason why or justifying the request in any way. Law enforcement agencies will be free to use this data for fishing expeditions. Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Roland Perry > Sent: July-14-11 2:24 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > In message <4E1EA33C.10500 at digsys.bg>, at 11:05:16 on Thu, 14 Jul 2011, > Daniel Kalchev writes > >PPS: By the way, law like that requiring ISPs to keep record of their > >customers Internet usage and provide access to that data to Government > >has passed already in Bulgaria. > > It's the law in Europe: > > http://eur- > lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0225:FIN:EN:PDF > > "The Data Retention Directive requires Member States to oblige > providers of publically available electronic communications services or > of public communications networks to retain traffic and location data > for between six months and two years for the purpose of the > investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime." > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 14 12:34:40 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:34:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: <4E1EA33C.10500@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message , at 15:42:18 on Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Kerry Brown writes >I'm not a lawyer and struggle with some of the terms in the linked >document. Do the governments have free access to the retained data or >is there some kind of court oversight in how the data is accessed? That depends on the country, and some do allow law enforcement to access data without the involvement of a court [order]. But Law Enforcement access has (in any event) to also comply with the European Human Rights law, which would forbid them doing it without what the USA-ians call "probable cause", and without infringing proportionality. These would outlaw fishing expeditions. >As long as there is court oversight involved I am not against law >enforcement agencies getting access to this kind of data. In the UK (for example), the rules are encapsulated in various very lengthy "Codes of Practice" which are published and which the communications industry insists are followed. If they get requests they believe are outside of that, they'll simply refuse to co-operate. The governmental oversight is by a Commissioner who does regular bulk post-hoc inspections of the process conducted by the various law enforcement agencies empowered to ask for disclosure (which isn't all of them). Individuals can also bring complaints to the Commissioners, and some of them are even upheld (against poorly trained agencies normally). >The proposed Canadian legislation does not provide for any court >oversight. Any law enforcement agency can request to access the data >without giving a reason why or justifying the request in any way. Law >enforcement agencies will be free to use this data for fishing >expeditions. > >Kerry Brown > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> Behalf Of Roland Perry >> Sent: July-14-11 2:24 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on >> Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial >> period >> >> In message <4E1EA33C.10500 at digsys.bg>, at 11:05:16 on Thu, 14 Jul 2011, >> Daniel Kalchev writes >> >PPS: By the way, law like that requiring ISPs to keep record of their >> >customers Internet usage and provide access to that data to Government >> >has passed already in Bulgaria. >> >> It's the law in Europe: >> >> http://eur- >> lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0225:FIN:EN:PDF >> >> "The Data Retention Directive requires Member States to oblige >> providers of publically available electronic communications >>services or >> of public communications networks to retain traffic and location data >> for between six months and two years for the purpose of the >> investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime." >> 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 13:35:41 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:35:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/14/11, Kerry Brown wrote: > CIRA's board of directors is democratically elected by CIRA members. > Membership is free to anyone that registers a dot-ca domain. All members get > one vote regardless of how many domains they have registered. There are > three ex-officio non-voting appointed directors. All voting directors are > elected by the members. One of the ex-officio directors is a representative > of Industry Canada. The Canadian government through Industry Canada plays an > advisory role to the board. The other non-voting directors are the CEO and > John Demco the founder of the dot-ca registry when it was operated by > volunteers working at UBC. Unless you are claiming that CIRA does nothing that affects or impacts users of the internet (as opposed to .ca registrants) the above membership structure is still quite undemocratic by completely disfranchising users. On top of that, the structure you identify heavily weights the right to be heard (via ex officio membership) to industry and the corporation and its founder. Anything more restrictive than one person one vote for ALL GOVERNED or affected is a system that disfranchises and creates an aristocracy (rule by a few or a subset of all) rather than a democracy (rule by all the people). It would seem that everyone would realize that despite the fact that a few .ca registrants are "ordinary folks", a system where only .ca registrants can be members and thus vote is a system that (1) gives votes to non-humans that are also non-voters in a real democracy (corporate registrants), and (2) is an aristocracy weighted in favor of those with above-average money and property (domain name registrants) and completely disfranchising users as a whole. I do realize that CIRA is touting that in the last year (i.e. in CIRA's 10th or 11th year of operation) CIRA was begun a general listening program and accepts, for the first time in its history, some types of feedback from mere non-voting users and others. Anything less than real democracy (like CIRA) is an animal which one may call anything they want, but that can't call it democracy. Certain aspects are "democratic" but it ain't democracy. I won't throw out a name myself because there's a risk it could be perceived as name-calling. But it is what it is, and what it is ain't democracy. It's delegation of governmental power to a basically unaccountable corporate aristocracy of some sort. I'd be happy to indulge you with the truly formalistic step of starting a new thread with a new name involving CIRA so as to not be "off topic" but I don't think (right now) that you should have to defend an entire thread based in significant part on your job or status with CIRA, even though that job is so coincidentally topical to how the conversation has evolved here in this thread. Please accept my assurances that I intend nothing in the way of a personal attack here in any way -- I'm firmly convinced you are a nice guy and intelligently got involved in CIRA in all good faith to be in the game of internet policy and rulemaking. My one and only basic objection is that, however, is just that the structure in which you got involved and are committed to remaining involved in is fundamentally undemocratic in very significant ways, and you defend those shortfalls based on values like efficiency that are classically associated with non-democratic practices of government. In a democracy, efficiency is OK as a value provided one very fundamental (and usually satisfied) precondition is met: That the end or goal of the project is consistent with the objectives and principles of democracy and self-government as opposed to aristocracy or plutocracy. That basic precondition is defeated the moment any level of government gives away its power and responsibility to a private person or corporation without retaining 100% of its oversight power AND providing all the standards and rules of operation such that it can be fairly said that even though "power" be delegated, it is really being exercised at the direction and control of the government, via those standards and rules. But as to the procedure of arbitration for example, the CIRA rule that no domestic or foreign law or legislation may be used in a CIRA arbitration even if all the parties and the arbitrator agree means (beyond any serious doubt) that CIRA arbitration procedure has broken completely free of democracy's control, and therefore lost the legitimacy that only democracy can provide. CIRA not being democratic, it's not appropriate to wish CIRA to be "efficient" in accomplishing its goals for governance, since those goals are not fully democratic. Here again, Harry Truman put it very well when he said of his corporate-supported opponent: "Hitler learned that efficiency without justice is a vain thing. Democracy does not work that way. Democracy is a matter of faith--a faith in the soul of man--a **faith in human rights.** That is the kind of faith that moves mountains--" Human rights is key because they are possessed without precondition by all humans, and equally so. Picking and choosing who gets a say (registrants, but not users) inevitably leads to either social discord or even violence, because it disrespects the humanity and interests of those whose voice is not recognized or heard. Paul Lehto, J.D. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jul 14 15:19:24 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:19:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I take offence at the Hitler reference. You have your beliefs about the democratic process by which CIRA is governed. My beliefs are different. CIRA is governed solely by the members electing the voting board members. Ex-oficio board members advise, not govern. It looks like we will not come to an agreement. It is fine with me that our opinions are different. Despite your claim to the contrary this does feel like a personal attack. Because of this I'm done with our conversation. Kerry Brown On 11-07-14 10:35 AM, "Paul Lehto" wrote: >On 7/14/11, Kerry Brown wrote: >> CIRA's board of directors is democratically elected by CIRA members. >> Membership is free to anyone that registers a dot-ca domain. All >>members get >> one vote regardless of how many domains they have registered. There are >> three ex-officio non-voting appointed directors. All voting directors >>are >> elected by the members. One of the ex-officio directors is a >>representative >> of Industry Canada. The Canadian government through Industry Canada >>plays an >> advisory role to the board. The other non-voting directors are the CEO >>and >> John Demco the founder of the dot-ca registry when it was operated by >> volunteers working at UBC. > >Unless you are claiming that CIRA does nothing that affects or >impacts users of the internet (as opposed to .ca registrants) the >above membership structure is still quite undemocratic by completely >disfranchising users. On top of that, the structure you identify >heavily weights the right to be heard (via ex officio membership) to >industry and the corporation and its founder. Anything more >restrictive than one person one vote for ALL GOVERNED or affected is a >system that disfranchises and creates an aristocracy (rule by a few or >a subset of all) rather than a democracy (rule by all the people). It >would seem that everyone would realize that despite the fact that a >few .ca registrants are "ordinary folks", a system where only .ca >registrants can be members and thus vote is a system that (1) gives >votes to non-humans that are also non-voters in a real democracy >(corporate registrants), and (2) is an aristocracy weighted in favor >of those with above-average money and property (domain name >registrants) and completely disfranchising users as a whole. > >I do realize that CIRA is touting that in the last year (i.e. in >CIRA's 10th or 11th year of operation) CIRA was begun a general >listening program and accepts, for the first time in its history, some >types of feedback from mere non-voting users and others. Anything >less than real democracy (like CIRA) is an animal which one may call >anything they want, but that can't call it democracy. Certain aspects >are "democratic" but it ain't democracy. I won't throw out a name >myself because there's a risk it could be perceived as name-calling. >But it is what it is, and what it is ain't democracy. It's delegation >of governmental power to a basically unaccountable corporate >aristocracy of some sort. > >I'd be happy to indulge you with the truly formalistic step of >starting a new thread with a new name involving CIRA so as to not be >"off topic" but I don't think (right now) that you should have to >defend an entire thread based in significant part on your job or >status with CIRA, even though that job is so coincidentally topical to >how the conversation has evolved here in this thread. Please accept >my assurances that I intend nothing in the way of a personal attack >here in any way -- I'm firmly convinced you are a nice guy and >intelligently got involved in CIRA in all good faith to be in the game >of internet policy and rulemaking. My one and only basic objection is >that, however, is just that the structure in which you got involved >and are committed to remaining involved in is fundamentally >undemocratic in very significant ways, and you defend those shortfalls >based on values like efficiency that are classically associated with >non-democratic practices of government. > >In a democracy, efficiency is OK as a value provided one very >fundamental (and usually satisfied) precondition is met: That the end >or goal of the project is consistent with the objectives and >principles of democracy and self-government as opposed to aristocracy >or plutocracy. That basic precondition is defeated the moment any >level of government gives away its power and responsibility to a >private person or corporation without retaining 100% of its oversight >power AND providing all the standards and rules of operation such that >it can be fairly said that even though "power" be delegated, it is >really being exercised at the direction and control of the government, >via those standards and rules. But as to the procedure of arbitration >for example, the CIRA rule that no domestic or foreign law or >legislation may be used in a CIRA arbitration even if all the parties >and the arbitrator agree means (beyond any serious doubt) that CIRA >arbitration procedure has broken completely free of democracy's >control, and therefore lost the legitimacy that only democracy can >provide. > >CIRA not being democratic, it's not appropriate to wish CIRA to be >"efficient" in accomplishing its goals for governance, since those >goals are not fully democratic. Here again, Harry Truman put it very >well when he said of his corporate-supported opponent: > >"Hitler learned that efficiency without justice is a vain thing. >Democracy does not work that way. Democracy is a matter of faith--a >faith in the soul of man--a **faith in human rights.** That is the >kind of faith that moves mountains--" Human rights is key because >they are possessed without precondition by all humans, and equally so. > Picking and choosing who gets a say (registrants, but not users) >inevitably leads to either social discord or even violence, because it >disrespects the humanity and interests of those whose voice is not >recognized or heard. > >Paul Lehto, J.D. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 16:25:50 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:25:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul, I'm not an expert on CIRA although at this point I should declare that I have been nominated (by a civil society organization) as a candidate for the CIRA Board! That being said I think your comments are based on mistaken assumptions and are overall somewhat unfortunate. As I understand the situation CIRA has an election among its members (those holding .ca registrations) for its governance body--its Board. There are 3 ex officio members on a fifteen person Board--a representative of the overall regulator/policy maker (government); the Executive Director: and the founder/registrar (Canada's equivalent of John Postel)--quite normal I would have thought for this kind of agency. I'm not sure what standards of democracy you are using but in my limited observation this would seem to me by most conventional standards to be at least reasonably "democratic". Always remembering of course, that CIRA is only concerned with the 1.5 million or so .ca registrants--there are approximately 25 million Internet users in Canada whose overall Internet interests presumably are covered through the ordinary give and take of the (democratic) political system and for specialized purposes participation in forums such as ICANN, the IGF and so on. I would very much like to see Canada and Canadians more involved in ensuring a "democratic" Internet (however that might be defined), but at this point I wouldn't see CIRA as being the appropriate vehicle for that participation since its interests/mandate and constituency is far too narrow. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 10:36 AM To: Kerry Brown Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period On 7/14/11, Kerry Brown wrote: > CIRA's board of directors is democratically elected by CIRA members. > Membership is free to anyone that registers a dot-ca domain. All > members get one vote regardless of how many domains they have > registered. There are three ex-officio non-voting appointed directors. > All voting directors are elected by the members. One of the ex-officio > directors is a representative of Industry Canada. The Canadian > government through Industry Canada plays an advisory role to the > board. The other non-voting directors are the CEO and John Demco the > founder of the dot-ca registry when it was operated by volunteers > working at UBC. Unless you are claiming that CIRA does nothing that affects or impacts users of the internet (as opposed to .ca registrants) the above membership structure is still quite undemocratic by completely disfranchising users. On top of that, the structure you identify heavily weights the right to be heard (via ex officio membership) to industry and the corporation and its founder. Anything more restrictive than one person one vote for ALL GOVERNED or affected is a system that disfranchises and creates an aristocracy (rule by a few or a subset of all) rather than a democracy (rule by all the people). It would seem that everyone would realize that despite the fact that a few .ca registrants are "ordinary folks", a system where only .ca registrants can be members and thus vote is a system that (1) gives votes to non-humans that are also non-voters in a real democracy (corporate registrants), and (2) is an aristocracy weighted in favor of those with above-average money and property (domain name registrants) and completely disfranchising users as a whole. I do realize that CIRA is touting that in the last year (i.e. in CIRA's 10th or 11th year of operation) CIRA was begun a general listening program and accepts, for the first time in its history, some types of feedback from mere non-voting users and others. Anything less than real democracy (like CIRA) is an animal which one may call anything they want, but that can't call it democracy. Certain aspects are "democratic" but it ain't democracy. I won't throw out a name myself because there's a risk it could be perceived as name-calling. But it is what it is, and what it is ain't democracy. It's delegation of governmental power to a basically unaccountable corporate aristocracy of some sort. I'd be happy to indulge you with the truly formalistic step of starting a new thread with a new name involving CIRA so as to not be "off topic" but I don't think (right now) that you should have to defend an entire thread based in significant part on your job or status with CIRA, even though that job is so coincidentally topical to how the conversation has evolved here in this thread. Please accept my assurances that I intend nothing in the way of a personal attack here in any way -- I'm firmly convinced you are a nice guy and intelligently got involved in CIRA in all good faith to be in the game of internet policy and rulemaking. My one and only basic objection is that, however, is just that the structure in which you got involved and are committed to remaining involved in is fundamentally undemocratic in very significant ways, and you defend those shortfalls based on values like efficiency that are classically associated with non-democratic practices of government. In a democracy, efficiency is OK as a value provided one very fundamental (and usually satisfied) precondition is met: That the end or goal of the project is consistent with the objectives and principles of democracy and self-government as opposed to aristocracy or plutocracy. That basic precondition is defeated the moment any level of government gives away its power and responsibility to a private person or corporation without retaining 100% of its oversight power AND providing all the standards and rules of operation such that it can be fairly said that even though "power" be delegated, it is really being exercised at the direction and control of the government, via those standards and rules. But as to the procedure of arbitration for example, the CIRA rule that no domestic or foreign law or legislation may be used in a CIRA arbitration even if all the parties and the arbitrator agree means (beyond any serious doubt) that CIRA arbitration procedure has broken completely free of democracy's control, and therefore lost the legitimacy that only democracy can provide. CIRA not being democratic, it's not appropriate to wish CIRA to be "efficient" in accomplishing its goals for governance, since those goals are not fully democratic. Here again, Harry Truman put it very well when he said of his corporate-supported opponent: "Hitler learned that efficiency without justice is a vain thing. Democracy does not work that way. Democracy is a matter of faith--a faith in the soul of man--a **faith in human rights.** That is the kind of faith that moves mountains--" Human rights is key because they are possessed without precondition by all humans, and equally so. Picking and choosing who gets a say (registrants, but not users) inevitably leads to either social discord or even violence, because it disrespects the humanity and interests of those whose voice is not recognized or heard. Paul Lehto, J.D. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 14 17:06:03 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:06:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If we take all the issues that are being discussed and peel off the layers and coatings/vehicles whether government or private, we will see that the underlying issue is:- - How should power be controlled? - How can the interests of all be considered where no one gets marginalised in the process? Consider something like the social contract theory where John Locke develops the argument that people give up part of their rights to a sovereign in order to be governed? There are many jurisdictions where people have freely expressed their desire through the vote or revolution. Despite the diversity of governance systems and models - at the end of the day it is about power and control. How should that power be controlled? In Locke's time, the "death of distance" was an alien concept. Imagine a clean canvas, how should power be shared? These are my thoughts. Sala On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Paul, > > I'm not an expert on CIRA although at this point I should declare that I > have been nominated (by a civil society organization) as a candidate for > the > CIRA Board! > > That being said I think your comments are based on mistaken assumptions and > are overall somewhat unfortunate. > > As I understand the situation CIRA has an election among its members (those > holding .ca registrations) for its governance body--its Board. There are 3 > ex officio members on a fifteen person Board--a representative of the > overall regulator/policy maker (government); the Executive Director: and > the > founder/registrar (Canada's equivalent of John Postel)--quite normal I > would > have thought for this kind of agency. > > I'm not sure what standards of democracy you are using but in my limited > observation this would seem to me by most conventional standards to be at > least reasonably "democratic". Always remembering of course, that CIRA is > only concerned with the 1.5 million or so .ca registrants--there are > approximately 25 million Internet users in Canada whose overall Internet > interests presumably are covered through the ordinary give and take of the > (democratic) political system and for specialized purposes participation in > forums such as ICANN, the IGF and so on. > > I would very much like to see Canada and Canadians more involved in > ensuring > a "democratic" Internet (however that might be defined), but at this point > I > wouldn't see CIRA as being the appropriate vehicle for that participation > since its interests/mandate and constituency is far too narrow. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf > Of Paul Lehto > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 10:36 AM > To: Kerry Brown > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > > On 7/14/11, Kerry Brown wrote: > > CIRA's board of directors is democratically elected by CIRA members. > > Membership is free to anyone that registers a dot-ca domain. All > > members get one vote regardless of how many domains they have > > registered. There are three ex-officio non-voting appointed directors. > > All voting directors are elected by the members. One of the ex-officio > > directors is a representative of Industry Canada. The Canadian > > government through Industry Canada plays an advisory role to the > > board. The other non-voting directors are the CEO and John Demco the > > founder of the dot-ca registry when it was operated by volunteers > > working at UBC. > > Unless you are claiming that CIRA does nothing that affects or impacts > users of the internet (as opposed to .ca registrants) the above membership > structure is still quite undemocratic by completely disfranchising users. > On top of that, the structure you identify heavily weights the right to be > heard (via ex officio membership) to industry and the corporation and its > founder. Anything more restrictive than one person one vote for ALL > GOVERNED or affected is a system that disfranchises and creates an > aristocracy (rule by a few or a subset of all) rather than a democracy > (rule > by all the people). It would seem that everyone would realize that despite > the fact that a few .ca registrants are "ordinary folks", a system where > only .ca registrants can be members and thus vote is a system that (1) > gives > votes to non-humans that are also non-voters in a real democracy (corporate > registrants), and (2) is an aristocracy weighted in favor of those with > above-average money and property (domain name > registrants) and completely disfranchising users as a whole. > > I do realize that CIRA is touting that in the last year (i.e. in CIRA's > 10th > or 11th year of operation) CIRA was begun a general listening program and > accepts, for the first time in its history, some types of feedback from > mere > non-voting users and others. Anything less than real democracy (like CIRA) > is an animal which one may call anything they want, but that can't call it > democracy. Certain aspects are "democratic" but it ain't democracy. I > won't throw out a name myself because there's a risk it could be perceived > as name-calling. But it is what it is, and what it is ain't democracy. > It's > delegation of governmental power to a basically unaccountable corporate > aristocracy of some sort. > > I'd be happy to indulge you with the truly formalistic step of starting a > new thread with a new name involving CIRA so as to not be "off topic" but I > don't think (right now) that you should have to defend an entire thread > based in significant part on your job or status with CIRA, even though that > job is so coincidentally topical to how the conversation has evolved here > in > this thread. Please accept my assurances that I intend nothing in the way > of a personal attack here in any way -- I'm firmly convinced you are a > nice > guy and intelligently got involved in CIRA in all good faith to be in the > game of internet policy and rulemaking. My one and only basic objection is > that, however, is just that the structure in which you got involved and are > committed to remaining involved in is fundamentally undemocratic in very > significant ways, and you defend those shortfalls based on values like > efficiency that are classically associated with non-democratic practices of > government. > > In a democracy, efficiency is OK as a value provided one very fundamental > (and usually satisfied) precondition is met: That the end or goal of the > project is consistent with the objectives and principles of democracy and > self-government as opposed to aristocracy or plutocracy. That basic > precondition is defeated the moment any level of government gives away its > power and responsibility to a private person or corporation without > retaining 100% of its oversight power AND providing all the standards and > rules of operation such that it can be fairly said that even though "power" > be delegated, it is really being exercised at the direction and control of > the government, via those standards and rules. But as to the procedure of > arbitration for example, the CIRA rule that no domestic or foreign law or > legislation may be used in a CIRA arbitration even if all the parties and > the arbitrator agree means (beyond any serious doubt) that CIRA arbitration > procedure has broken completely free of democracy's control, and therefore > lost the legitimacy that only democracy can provide. > > CIRA not being democratic, it's not appropriate to wish CIRA to be > "efficient" in accomplishing its goals for governance, since those goals > are > not fully democratic. Here again, Harry Truman put it very well when he > said of his corporate-supported opponent: > > "Hitler learned that efficiency without justice is a vain thing. Democracy > does not work that way. Democracy is a matter of faith--a faith in the soul > of man--a **faith in human rights.** That is the > kind of faith that moves mountains--" Human rights is key because > they are possessed without precondition by all humans, and equally so. > Picking and choosing who gets a say (registrants, but not users) inevitably > leads to either social discord or even violence, because it disrespects the > humanity and interests of those whose voice is not recognized or heard. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jul 14 17:54:36 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:54:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4B5E324FCA394884813A34D33C35F45E@userPC> Message-ID: Google Analytics is quite good at detecting where a user is located as long as the user is not trying to obfuscate their location. It is quite easy obfuscate your location if you desire. VPNs, proxies, and things like TOR can be used alone or in combination to cause enough doubt that IP addresses cannot be used to identify a location or a person. With money involved many people would be trying to scam the system. I'm not against some sort of global taxation scheme. I think it is impractical given the number of jurisdictions involved. I think that trying to stop people from scamming the system would give governments too much control that could be used for other less desirous actions. Finally I believe that the Internet and the definition of IP rights are evolving so fast that the system would always be out of date with current business practices. For those reasons I would oppose such a scheme. I do believe in a democratic process. If somehow the majority of Internet users were for such a scheme then yes, it would take some very clever minds to figure out a technical solution. Under those circumstances I'd support such a scheme. Kerry Brown On 11-07-14 7:48 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: >Interesting reply Kerry (and it's good to see another Canadian involved in >these discussions :) > >Couldn't there be alternative processes of allocating the results of any >tax >collected -- per capita, Internet usage, self-reporting of location on a >quantitative basis and so on? > >I'm not disagreeing with your concern regarding a digital ID and access to >that (CIRA's procedures/safeguards might also work here would they not)? > >I'm also wondering whether something akin to Google Analytics which seems >to >be able to pinpoint those accessing and downloading from the online >journal >that I edit to the city level might also not be useable here? > >I guess the question is one of whether you think the issue of >"identification" at this level makes the process of a global taxation >regime >for (let's say) virtual goods is impossible in principle or something >which >we need to put some very clever minds to figuring out a technical solution >to. > >Best, > >M > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kerry Brown [mailto:kerry at kdbsystems.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:33 AM >To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on >Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial >period > > >> I'm not sure why you think that a mechanism for global governance to >> allow for some sort of regulation/taxation would necessarily require >> tracking of Internet users anymore than they are already >> trackable/traceable for the purposes of e-commerce which is the point >> of the exercise. >> > >In order to ensure that all relevant jurisdictions receive their portion >of >any tax collected both the seller and the purchaser must be identified. >In a >physical transaction the goods can be followed and taxes applied. In a >virtual transaction with no physical goods only the seller and buyer can >be >tracked. Without ensuring the identity of the buyer it would be easy for >buyers to scam the system and avoid paying the tax. I don't think a >worldwide taxation system could work without some form of irrefutable >digital ID that is open to inspection by any government. I'm not against a >digital ID. It would actually help with Internet commerce. I am against >any >government having access to how and where these IDs are used without some >kind of court oversight. Maybe I'm just being paranoid but for me it is >the >top of a slippery slope that leads to more government control. > >Kerry Brown > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jul 14 17:57:25 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:57:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you. I'm lazy and was having a hard time with some of the legalese in the document. I'm not happy about what is happening in the EU but it is more palatable then what is happening in Canada. Kerry Brown On 11-07-14 9:34 AM, "Roland Perry" wrote: >In message >, at >15:42:18 on Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Kerry Brown writes >>I'm not a lawyer and struggle with some of the terms in the linked >>document. Do the governments have free access to the retained data or >>is there some kind of court oversight in how the data is accessed? > >That depends on the country, and some do allow law enforcement to access >data without the involvement of a court [order]. > >But Law Enforcement access has (in any event) to also comply with the >European Human Rights law, which would forbid them doing it without what >the USA-ians call "probable cause", and without infringing >proportionality. These would outlaw fishing expeditions. > >>As long as there is court oversight involved I am not against law >>enforcement agencies getting access to this kind of data. > >In the UK (for example), the rules are encapsulated in various very >lengthy "Codes of Practice" which are published and which the >communications industry insists are followed. If they get requests they >believe are outside of that, they'll simply refuse to co-operate. > >The governmental oversight is by a Commissioner who does regular bulk >post-hoc inspections of the process conducted by the various law >enforcement agencies empowered to ask for disclosure (which isn't all of >them). > >Individuals can also bring complaints to the Commissioners, and some of >them are even upheld (against poorly trained agencies normally). > >>The proposed Canadian legislation does not provide for any court >>oversight. Any law enforcement agency can request to access the data >>without giving a reason why or justifying the request in any way. Law >>enforcement agencies will be free to use this data for fishing >>expeditions. >> >>Kerry Brown >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >>> Behalf Of Roland Perry >>> Sent: July-14-11 2:24 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on >>> Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial >>> period >>> >>> In message <4E1EA33C.10500 at digsys.bg>, at 11:05:16 on Thu, 14 Jul 2011, >>> Daniel Kalchev writes >>> >PPS: By the way, law like that requiring ISPs to keep record of their >>> >customers Internet usage and provide access to that data to Government >>> >has passed already in Bulgaria. >>> >>> It's the law in Europe: >>> >>> http://eur- >>> lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0225:FIN:EN:PDF >>> >>> "The Data Retention Directive requires Member States to oblige >>> providers of publically available electronic communications >>>services or >>> of public communications networks to retain traffic and >>>location data >>> for between six months and two years for the purpose of the >>> investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime." >>> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 20:57:52 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:57:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/14/11, michael gurstein wrote: > in my limited > observation [CIRA] would seem to me by most conventional standards to be at > least reasonably "democratic". I'm published in the area of political theorists of democracy, so perhaps I'm not clear. Here's something I hope is ultra-succinct relatively speaking, and shows why I'm not off base. The very definition of democracy in modern times is rule by the people (self-government), based on one person/one vote and universal suffrage (all adults voting). The very definition of aristocracy, as Montesquieu (one of the most famous political theorists of the world since the 1700s, a Frenchman) wrote, is rule by less than all the people. (I.e. Rule by some fraction of all the people, especially rule by an elite.) Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they wish, but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by CIRA, and then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're really saying that a largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." But no user encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy but who can not vote on policy like domain registrants or on directors like Mike Gurstein or Kerry Brown would ever call a structure like CIRA "reasonably democratic." (Not if they took the subject of CIRA's authority seriously, yet couldn't vote on it.) Such a person would say they have no vote, complain they are disfranchised using their own words for that, and note somehow that they are basically ruled by domain registrants and CIRA who do have votes and say. CIRA and these domain registrant members are the superiors of internet users (who have no say) and this aspect is not "reasonably democratic." There's lots of room and even necessity for compromise in the vast majority of political issues, but not on the most fundamental issues like democracy (or not), or freedom (or not) or whether or not you or I should have a vote on things affecting us. It's a simple definitional reality: Because aristocracies by definition are rule by less than all the people affected by laws, if you take the fundamental parts of democracy like who can vote on a piecemeal basis, and thereby give the vote to less than all the people, you have, by definition the very essence of aristocracy, not democracy. To call this piecemeal aristocratic outcome "reasonably democratic" because some affected can vote (registrants) and some affected can not vote (users) is to put way too kind a gloss on the undemocratic and aristocratic nature of any system that allows one big or small class to vote, and denies another big class, like internet users, the right to vote. That's the CIRA model. All the happy talk about multistakeholderism hides the ugly realities of denying voices and votes to classes of people, while often giving voices and votes even to some non-humans and non-voters, like corporations. The purpose of the Truman quote, and the purpose of *Truman's* invocation of Hitler, is to show that we do not want efficiency unless we agree on the process's end result or goal. If the train is headed down the wrong track, no rational person wants efficiency! That efficiency just sends us faster and further down the wrong track. Nothing personal, as I said before, was intended by any of my comments. But Kerry Brown has taken offense nevertheless. I am sorry he has done so. But I do not think there is any way out of a conclusion that CIRA is a form of aristocracy, not democracy, and because I believe that Kerry Brown believes in democracy, but probably never went through analysis like the above, the implication that the restructuring of CIRA in the way it is, is causing him to be participating in a form of non-democratic corporate governance is not just a charge that has a certain sting to it, but an unavoidable conclusion once one knows the basic difference between aristocracy as being rule by less than all the people.... Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. I fully understand the distinction you try to make with ex officio members. If you re-read my message, I recall clearly intending to draft that message to say these ex officio members had an enhanced "voice" or right to be "heard" -- which they do have by speaking at meetings and being recognized much more so than an average audience member. I did not say or mean to imply that ex officio members had a formal vote, by definition they do not. I was pointing to yet another difference in relative political power, not on the level of actual votes since ex officio members don't have them, but on the level of who has access to time at meetings to get their ideas out, if they wish to do so. Clearly, ex officio members have a privileged status with respect to that. That is basically why they are ex officio to begin with -- to hear from them based on prior experience, status, etc. So, while I think a careful reading of my text would be clear, I do see how one could mistakenly conclude that I misunderstood the role of ex officio board members. I was appointed in the past as parliamentarian for an annual bar association business meeting attended by most of the Supreme Court and in which many of the states' best lawyers argued over various motions and measures. I only mention that to hopefully put to rest any inference that I don't completely understand what an ex officio member is, they are common in bar association membership organizations in various states. Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Thu Jul 14 21:45:16 2011 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:45:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E1F9BAC.6010500@communisphere.com> As an advocate for public interest city-TLDs I was delighted to see this "tax" thread start. While it seems to have drifted from Taiwan to Canada, it has been illuminating and much appreciated. Not sure if it's appropriate to "fan" in here, but I just have to say thank you, especially to Paul, Michael, Kerry, and Parminder. And to Roland, Roxana, Daniel, Norbert, McTim, Philippe, Salanieta, Jean-Louis, Sonigitu, Avri, Lee and of course Milton. Really great conversation. Tom On 7/14/2011 8:57 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 7/14/11, michael gurstein wrote: >> in my limited >> observation [CIRA] would seem to me by most conventional standards to be at >> least reasonably "democratic". > I'm published in the area of political theorists of democracy, so > perhaps I'm not clear. Here's something I hope is ultra-succinct > relatively speaking, and shows why I'm not off base. > > The very definition of democracy in modern times is rule by the people > (self-government), based on one person/one vote and universal suffrage > (all adults voting). > > The very definition of aristocracy, as Montesquieu (one of the most > famous political theorists of the world since the 1700s, a Frenchman) > wrote, is rule by less than all the people. (I.e. Rule by some > fraction of all the people, especially rule by an elite.) > > Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA > (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they > wish, but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by > CIRA, and then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're > really saying that a largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." > > But no user encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy > but who can not vote on policy like domain registrants or on directors > like Mike Gurstein or Kerry Brown would ever call a structure like > CIRA "reasonably democratic." (Not if they took the subject of CIRA's > authority seriously, yet couldn't vote on it.) Such a person would > say they have no vote, complain they are disfranchised using their own > words for that, and note somehow that they are basically ruled by > domain registrants and CIRA who do have votes and say. CIRA and these > domain registrant members are the superiors of internet users (who > have no say) and this aspect is not "reasonably democratic." > > There's lots of room and even necessity for compromise in the vast > majority of political issues, but not on the most fundamental issues > like democracy (or not), or freedom (or not) or whether or not you or > I should have a vote on things affecting us. > > It's a simple definitional reality: Because aristocracies by > definition are rule by less than all the people affected by laws, if > you take the fundamental parts of democracy like who can vote on a > piecemeal basis, and thereby give the vote to less than all the > people, you have, by definition the very essence of aristocracy, not > democracy. > > To call this piecemeal aristocratic outcome "reasonably democratic" > because some affected can vote (registrants) and some affected can not > vote (users) is to put way too kind a gloss on the undemocratic and > aristocratic nature of any system that allows one big or small class > to vote, and denies another big class, like internet users, the right > to vote. That's the CIRA model. > > All the happy talk about multistakeholderism hides the ugly realities > of denying voices and votes to classes of people, while often giving > voices and votes even to some non-humans and non-voters, like > corporations. > > The purpose of the Truman quote, and the purpose of *Truman's* > invocation of Hitler, is to show that we do not want efficiency unless > we agree on the process's end result or goal. If the train is headed > down the wrong track, no rational person wants efficiency! That > efficiency just sends us faster and further down the wrong track. > > Nothing personal, as I said before, was intended by any of my > comments. But Kerry Brown has taken offense nevertheless. I am sorry > he has done so. But I do not think there is any way out of a > conclusion that CIRA is a form of aristocracy, not democracy, and > because I believe that Kerry Brown believes in democracy, but probably > never went through analysis like the above, the implication that the > restructuring of CIRA in the way it is, is causing him to be > participating in a form of non-democratic corporate governance is not > just a charge that has a certain sting to it, but an unavoidable > conclusion once one knows the basic difference between aristocracy as > being rule by less than all the people.... > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > P.S. I fully understand the distinction you try to make with ex > officio members. If you re-read my message, I recall clearly intending > to draft that message to say these ex officio members had an enhanced > "voice" or right to be "heard" -- which they do have by speaking at > meetings and being recognized much more so than an average audience > member. I did not say or mean to imply that ex officio members had a > formal vote, by definition they do not. I was pointing to yet another > difference in relative political power, not on the level of actual > votes since ex officio members don't have them, but on the level of > who has access to time at meetings to get their ideas out, if they > wish to do so. Clearly, ex officio members have a privileged status > with respect to that. That is basically why they are ex officio to > begin with -- to hear from them based on prior experience, status, > etc. So, while I think a careful reading of my text would be clear, I > do see how one could mistakenly conclude that I misunderstood the role > of ex officio board members. > > I was appointed in the past as parliamentarian for an annual bar > association business meeting attended by most of the Supreme Court and > in which many of the states' best lawyers argued over various motions > and measures. I only mention that to hopefully put to rest any > inference that I don't completely understand what an ex officio member > is, they are common in bar association membership organizations in > various states. > > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jul 14 22:41:24 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:41:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Paul I have no problem with the fact that we disagree on what constitutes a democracy. I was offended by the reference to Hitler. It was a statement intended, intentionally or not, to discredit by inference. When that happens I tend to lose interest in continuing. It has been a good discussion presenting many sides to a complex issue. I think we've pretty much talked it out though. We seem to have drawn our lines in the sand and are just restating our opinions in different ways. If this were a board meeting it would be time to call the question :) Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: July-14-11 5:58 PM > To: michael gurstein; Kerry Brown > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > On 7/14/11, michael gurstein wrote: > > in my limited > > observation [CIRA] would seem to me by most conventional standards to > > be at least reasonably "democratic". > > I'm published in the area of political theorists of democracy, so perhaps I'm > not clear. Here's something I hope is ultra-succinct relatively speaking, and > shows why I'm not off base. > > The very definition of democracy in modern times is rule by the people (self- > government), based on one person/one vote and universal suffrage (all > adults voting). > > The very definition of aristocracy, as Montesquieu (one of the most famous > political theorists of the world since the 1700s, a Frenchman) wrote, is rule by > less than all the people. (I.e. Rule by some fraction of all the people, > especially rule by an elite.) > > Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA > (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they wish, > but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by CIRA, and > then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're really saying that a > largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." > > But no user encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy but who > can not vote on policy like domain registrants or on directors like Mike > Gurstein or Kerry Brown would ever call a structure like CIRA "reasonably > democratic." (Not if they took the subject of CIRA's authority seriously, yet > couldn't vote on it.) Such a person would say they have no vote, complain > they are disfranchised using their own words for that, and note somehow > that they are basically ruled by domain registrants and CIRA who do have > votes and say. CIRA and these domain registrant members are the superiors > of internet users (who have no say) and this aspect is not "reasonably > democratic." > > There's lots of room and even necessity for compromise in the vast majority > of political issues, but not on the most fundamental issues like democracy (or > not), or freedom (or not) or whether or not you or I should have a vote on > things affecting us. > > It's a simple definitional reality: Because aristocracies by definition are rule > by less than all the people affected by laws, if you take the fundamental > parts of democracy like who can vote on a piecemeal basis, and thereby give > the vote to less than all the people, you have, by definition the very essence > of aristocracy, not democracy. > > To call this piecemeal aristocratic outcome "reasonably democratic" > because some affected can vote (registrants) and some affected can not > vote (users) is to put way too kind a gloss on the undemocratic and > aristocratic nature of any system that allows one big or small class to vote, > and denies another big class, like internet users, the right to vote. That's the > CIRA model. > > All the happy talk about multistakeholderism hides the ugly realities of > denying voices and votes to classes of people, while often giving voices and > votes even to some non-humans and non-voters, like corporations. > > The purpose of the Truman quote, and the purpose of *Truman's* > invocation of Hitler, is to show that we do not want efficiency unless we > agree on the process's end result or goal. If the train is headed down the > wrong track, no rational person wants efficiency! That efficiency just sends > us faster and further down the wrong track. > > Nothing personal, as I said before, was intended by any of my comments. > But Kerry Brown has taken offense nevertheless. I am sorry he has done so. > But I do not think there is any way out of a conclusion that CIRA is a form of > aristocracy, not democracy, and because I believe that Kerry Brown believes > in democracy, but probably never went through analysis like the above, the > implication that the restructuring of CIRA in the way it is, is causing him to be > participating in a form of non-democratic corporate governance is not just a > charge that has a certain sting to it, but an unavoidable conclusion once one > knows the basic difference between aristocracy as being rule by less than all > the people.... > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > P.S. I fully understand the distinction you try to make with ex officio > members. If you re-read my message, I recall clearly intending to draft that > message to say these ex officio members had an enhanced "voice" or right to > be "heard" -- which they do have by speaking at meetings and being > recognized much more so than an average audience member. I did not say > or mean to imply that ex officio members had a formal vote, by definition > they do not. I was pointing to yet another difference in relative political > power, not on the level of actual votes since ex officio members don't have > them, but on the level of who has access to time at meetings to get their > ideas out, if they wish to do so. Clearly, ex officio members have a privileged > status with respect to that. That is basically why they are ex officio to begin > with -- to hear from them based on prior experience, status, etc. So, while I > think a careful reading of my text would be clear, I do see how one could > mistakenly conclude that I misunderstood the role of ex officio board > members. > > I was appointed in the past as parliamentarian for an annual bar association > business meeting attended by most of the Supreme Court and in which > many of the states' best lawyers argued over various motions and measures. > I only mention that to hopefully put to rest any inference that I don't > completely understand what an ex officio member is, they are common in > bar association membership organizations in various states. > > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jul 14 22:44:27 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:44:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1F9BAC.6010500@communisphere.com> References: <4E1F9BAC.6010500@communisphere.com> Message-ID: It was a very enjoyable conversation. There were many points raised that caused to examine my own thoughts on the issue. That is always worthwhile. Kerry Brown ------------------------------------------------------------------- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Lowenhaupt Sent: July-14-11 6:45 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period As an advocate for public interest city-TLDs I was delighted to see this "tax" thread start. While it seems to have drifted from Taiwan to Canada, it has been illuminating and much appreciated. Not sure if it's appropriate to "fan" in here, but I just have to say thank you, especially to Paul, Michael, Kerry, and Parminder. And to Roland, Roxana, Daniel, Norbert, McTim, Philippe, Salanieta, Jean-Louis, Sonigitu, Avri, Lee and of course Milton. Really great conversation. Tom ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 23:18:39 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 23:18:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OK, Kerry, sorry for the Hitler reference, here's an edited version of precisely the same idea: "HISTORY teaches us that it is vain to pursue efficiency without justice." I don't know that we disagree (as you suggest) about democracy or "what constitutes a democracy." This is basically because I've provided a definition, and you have not stated any definition of democracy at all. CIRA doesn't meet my definition of democracy. It doesn't appear CIRA meets dictionary.com's definition of democracy either: 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy The only way CIRA can meet the definition of democracy is if we theorize that only domain registrants are "people" and that internet users are somehow not "people" at all, and therefore can't vote. But if not being a person or not being one of "the people" is a bar to voting, why then can corporations that are not "people" but who register .ca domains nevertheless be voting members in CIRA? As a member of the Board of Directors of CIRA, Kerry Brown owes CIRA as it presently is structured a legal duty of loyalty and good faith. For this and several other good reasons, even if I were assumed to be correct in my explanations above, one should never expect an admission by a director bound by such a duty of loyalty to a corporation. That's one reason why allowing everyone a vote is so valuable: with universal voting, there are always large numbers of people (almost always majorities of voters) who do not have close ties or potential vested interests in the status quo, because they are far away from the centers of power. These disinterested and democratic majorities of universal voting decide the direction of governance. In contrast, when voters are only those who own a "stake" in the internet (like domain name registrants) instead of being disinterested, the majority vote winners among stakeholders are always self-interested owners of "stakes" like domain names. (As are the losing minorities as well). Instead of disinterested majorities deciding more objectively like a democracy with universal voting, when voting is tied to ownership of a stake like a domain name, governance is more like a scramble amongst various self-interested owners trying to further their personal property interests. There is never a winning side or a losing side in any vote amongst (for example) domain name owner-registrants that does not have this special-interest problem of owning a property "stake" because that is how the right to be a member, and thus the right to vote, is defined. This is very much like the colonial voting systems widely regarded as oppressive, whereby only property owners could vote: Landowners were deemed more 'responsible' and knowledgeable and the like. That's analogous to domain name owners and internet users serf-ing the net, without a vote. Paul R. Lehto, J.D. On 7/14/11, Kerry Brown wrote: > Paul > > I have no problem with the fact that we disagree on what constitutes a > democracy. I was offended by the reference to Hitler. It was a statement > intended, intentionally or not, to discredit by inference. When that happens > I tend to lose interest in continuing. It has been a good discussion > presenting many sides to a complex issue. I think we've pretty much talked > it out though. We seem to have drawn our lines in the sand and are just > restating our opinions in different ways. If this were a board meeting it > would be time to call the question :) > > Kerry Brown > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] >> Sent: July-14-11 5:58 PM >> To: michael gurstein; Kerry Brown >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on >> Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial >> period >> >> On 7/14/11, michael gurstein wrote: >> > in my limited >> > observation [CIRA] would seem to me by most conventional standards to >> > be at least reasonably "democratic". >> >> I'm published in the area of political theorists of democracy, so perhaps >> I'm >> not clear. Here's something I hope is ultra-succinct relatively speaking, >> and >> shows why I'm not off base. >> >> The very definition of democracy in modern times is rule by the people >> (self- >> government), based on one person/one vote and universal suffrage (all >> adults voting). >> >> The very definition of aristocracy, as Montesquieu (one of the most famous >> political theorists of the world since the 1700s, a Frenchman) wrote, is >> rule by >> less than all the people. (I.e. Rule by some fraction of all the people, >> especially rule by an elite.) >> >> Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA >> (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they >> wish, >> but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by CIRA, and >> then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're really saying >> that a >> largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." >> >> But no user encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy but >> who >> can not vote on policy like domain registrants or on directors like Mike >> Gurstein or Kerry Brown would ever call a structure like CIRA "reasonably >> democratic." (Not if they took the subject of CIRA's authority seriously, >> yet >> couldn't vote on it.) Such a person would say they have no vote, complain >> they are disfranchised using their own words for that, and note somehow >> that they are basically ruled by domain registrants and CIRA who do have >> votes and say. CIRA and these domain registrant members are the superiors >> of internet users (who have no say) and this aspect is not "reasonably >> democratic." >> >> There's lots of room and even necessity for compromise in the vast >> majority >> of political issues, but not on the most fundamental issues like democracy >> (or >> not), or freedom (or not) or whether or not you or I should have a vote on >> things affecting us. >> >> It's a simple definitional reality: Because aristocracies by definition >> are rule >> by less than all the people affected by laws, if you take the fundamental >> parts of democracy like who can vote on a piecemeal basis, and thereby >> give >> the vote to less than all the people, you have, by definition the very >> essence >> of aristocracy, not democracy. >> >> To call this piecemeal aristocratic outcome "reasonably democratic" >> because some affected can vote (registrants) and some affected can not >> vote (users) is to put way too kind a gloss on the undemocratic and >> aristocratic nature of any system that allows one big or small class to >> vote, >> and denies another big class, like internet users, the right to vote. >> That's the >> CIRA model. >> >> All the happy talk about multistakeholderism hides the ugly realities of >> denying voices and votes to classes of people, while often giving voices >> and >> votes even to some non-humans and non-voters, like corporations. >> >> The purpose of the Truman quote, and the purpose of *Truman's* >> invocation of Hitler, is to show that we do not want efficiency unless we >> agree on the process's end result or goal. If the train is headed down >> the >> wrong track, no rational person wants efficiency! That efficiency just >> sends >> us faster and further down the wrong track. >> >> Nothing personal, as I said before, was intended by any of my comments. >> But Kerry Brown has taken offense nevertheless. I am sorry he has done >> so. >> But I do not think there is any way out of a conclusion that CIRA is a >> form of >> aristocracy, not democracy, and because I believe that Kerry Brown >> believes >> in democracy, but probably never went through analysis like the above, the >> implication that the restructuring of CIRA in the way it is, is causing >> him to be >> participating in a form of non-democratic corporate governance is not just >> a >> charge that has a certain sting to it, but an unavoidable conclusion once >> one >> knows the basic difference between aristocracy as being rule by less than >> all >> the people.... >> >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> >> P.S. I fully understand the distinction you try to make with ex officio >> members. If you re-read my message, I recall clearly intending to draft >> that >> message to say these ex officio members had an enhanced "voice" or right >> to >> be "heard" -- which they do have by speaking at meetings and being >> recognized much more so than an average audience member. I did not say >> or mean to imply that ex officio members had a formal vote, by definition >> they do not. I was pointing to yet another difference in relative >> political >> power, not on the level of actual votes since ex officio members don't >> have >> them, but on the level of who has access to time at meetings to get their >> ideas out, if they wish to do so. Clearly, ex officio members have a >> privileged >> status with respect to that. That is basically why they are ex officio to >> begin >> with -- to hear from them based on prior experience, status, etc. So, >> while I >> think a careful reading of my text would be clear, I do see how one could >> mistakenly conclude that I misunderstood the role of ex officio board >> members. >> >> I was appointed in the past as parliamentarian for an annual bar >> association >> business meeting attended by most of the Supreme Court and in which >> many of the states' best lawyers argued over various motions and measures. >> I only mention that to hopefully put to rest any inference that I don't >> completely understand what an ex officio member is, they are common in >> bar association membership organizations in various states. >> >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-4026 (cell) > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 23:45:37 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:45:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul, You seem to be referring to something you call "the mere user who is also governed to some extent by CIRA" and then go on to give a (sort of) definition as someone who is "encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy" without specifying what you mean by "encountering" (seeing an email cross one's screen, buy a widget from an entity with a .ca domain???) or affected by the TLD policy (and here I really can't think of an example)... I guess I have no idea of who "the mere user who is also governed to some extent by CIRA" might be and why you would consider them to be "governed" even to some extent by CIRA. I live in Canada have a couple of domains (non-.ca) and don't really encounter .ca from one day to the next let alone be "governed" by it to any extent that I can see. It seems to me that unless you can justify that statement the rest of your argument falls away. (BTW I'm a candidate for the CIRA Board not a current member.) (Mere user) Mike -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:58 PM To: michael gurstein; Kerry Brown Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period On 7/14/11, michael gurstein wrote: > in my limited > observation [CIRA] would seem to me by most conventional standards to > be at least reasonably "democratic". I'm published in the area of political theorists of democracy, so perhaps I'm not clear. Here's something I hope is ultra-succinct relatively speaking, and shows why I'm not off base. The very definition of democracy in modern times is rule by the people (self-government), based on one person/one vote and universal suffrage (all adults voting). The very definition of aristocracy, as Montesquieu (one of the most famous political theorists of the world since the 1700s, a Frenchman) wrote, is rule by less than all the people. (I.e. Rule by some fraction of all the people, especially rule by an elite.) Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they wish, but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by CIRA, and then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're really saying that a largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." But no user encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy but who can not vote on policy like domain registrants or on directors like Mike Gurstein or Kerry Brown would ever call a structure like CIRA "reasonably democratic." (Not if they took the subject of CIRA's authority seriously, yet couldn't vote on it.) Such a person would say they have no vote, complain they are disfranchised using their own words for that, and note somehow that they are basically ruled by domain registrants and CIRA who do have votes and say. CIRA and these domain registrant members are the superiors of internet users (who have no say) and this aspect is not "reasonably democratic." There's lots of room and even necessity for compromise in the vast majority of political issues, but not on the most fundamental issues like democracy (or not), or freedom (or not) or whether or not you or I should have a vote on things affecting us. It's a simple definitional reality: Because aristocracies by definition are rule by less than all the people affected by laws, if you take the fundamental parts of democracy like who can vote on a piecemeal basis, and thereby give the vote to less than all the people, you have, by definition the very essence of aristocracy, not democracy. To call this piecemeal aristocratic outcome "reasonably democratic" because some affected can vote (registrants) and some affected can not vote (users) is to put way too kind a gloss on the undemocratic and aristocratic nature of any system that allows one big or small class to vote, and denies another big class, like internet users, the right to vote. That's the CIRA model. All the happy talk about multistakeholderism hides the ugly realities of denying voices and votes to classes of people, while often giving voices and votes even to some non-humans and non-voters, like corporations. The purpose of the Truman quote, and the purpose of *Truman's* invocation of Hitler, is to show that we do not want efficiency unless we agree on the process's end result or goal. If the train is headed down the wrong track, no rational person wants efficiency! That efficiency just sends us faster and further down the wrong track. Nothing personal, as I said before, was intended by any of my comments. But Kerry Brown has taken offense nevertheless. I am sorry he has done so. But I do not think there is any way out of a conclusion that CIRA is a form of aristocracy, not democracy, and because I believe that Kerry Brown believes in democracy, but probably never went through analysis like the above, the implication that the restructuring of CIRA in the way it is, is causing him to be participating in a form of non-democratic corporate governance is not just a charge that has a certain sting to it, but an unavoidable conclusion once one knows the basic difference between aristocracy as being rule by less than all the people.... Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. I fully understand the distinction you try to make with ex officio members. If you re-read my message, I recall clearly intending to draft that message to say these ex officio members had an enhanced "voice" or right to be "heard" -- which they do have by speaking at meetings and being recognized much more so than an average audience member. I did not say or mean to imply that ex officio members had a formal vote, by definition they do not. I was pointing to yet another difference in relative political power, not on the level of actual votes since ex officio members don't have them, but on the level of who has access to time at meetings to get their ideas out, if they wish to do so. Clearly, ex officio members have a privileged status with respect to that. That is basically why they are ex officio to begin with -- to hear from them based on prior experience, status, etc. So, while I think a careful reading of my text would be clear, I do see how one could mistakenly conclude that I misunderstood the role of ex officio board members. I was appointed in the past as parliamentarian for an annual bar association business meeting attended by most of the Supreme Court and in which many of the states' best lawyers argued over various motions and measures. I only mention that to hopefully put to rest any inference that I don't completely understand what an ex officio member is, they are common in bar association membership organizations in various states. Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From philippe.blanchard at me.com Fri Jul 15 04:05:52 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:05:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1F9BAC.6010500@communisphere.com> References: <4E1F9BAC.6010500@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <5BE4FC2C-BB65-4CF0-844C-BB99C2ABB969@me.com> Dear All, I also think that we have somehow deviated from our initial discussions and objectives... Lateral thinking and hyperlinking can bring new opportunities but I am less "sensitive" to the current development of this thread and it is time for me to drop-off. Many thanks to you all for this enlightening discussion.... Kind regards, Philippe On Jul 15, 2011, at 3:45 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: As an advocate for public interest city-TLDs I was delighted to see this "tax" thread start. While it seems to have drifted from Taiwan to Canada, it has been illuminating and much appreciated. Not sure if it's appropriate to "fan" in here, but I just have to say thank you, especially to Paul, Michael, Kerry, and Parminder. And to Roland, Roxana, Daniel, Norbert, McTim, Philippe, Salanieta, Jean-Louis, Sonigitu, Avri, Lee and of course Milton. Really great conversation. Tom On 7/14/2011 8:57 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > On 7/14/11, michael gurstein wrote: >> in my limited >> observation [CIRA] would seem to me by most conventional standards to be at >> least reasonably "democratic". > I'm published in the area of political theorists of democracy, so > perhaps I'm not clear. Here's something I hope is ultra-succinct > relatively speaking, and shows why I'm not off base. > > The very definition of democracy in modern times is rule by the people > (self-government), based on one person/one vote and universal suffrage > (all adults voting). > > The very definition of aristocracy, as Montesquieu (one of the most > famous political theorists of the world since the 1700s, a Frenchman) > wrote, is rule by less than all the people. (I.e. Rule by some > fraction of all the people, especially rule by an elite.) > > Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA > (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they > wish, but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by > CIRA, and then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're > really saying that a largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." > > But no user encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy > but who can not vote on policy like domain registrants or on directors > like Mike Gurstein or Kerry Brown would ever call a structure like > CIRA "reasonably democratic." (Not if they took the subject of CIRA's > authority seriously, yet couldn't vote on it.) Such a person would > say they have no vote, complain they are disfranchised using their own > words for that, and note somehow that they are basically ruled by > domain registrants and CIRA who do have votes and say. CIRA and these > domain registrant members are the superiors of internet users (who > have no say) and this aspect is not "reasonably democratic." > > There's lots of room and even necessity for compromise in the vast > majority of political issues, but not on the most fundamental issues > like democracy (or not), or freedom (or not) or whether or not you or > I should have a vote on things affecting us. > > It's a simple definitional reality: Because aristocracies by > definition are rule by less than all the people affected by laws, if > you take the fundamental parts of democracy like who can vote on a > piecemeal basis, and thereby give the vote to less than all the > people, you have, by definition the very essence of aristocracy, not > democracy. > > To call this piecemeal aristocratic outcome "reasonably democratic" > because some affected can vote (registrants) and some affected can not > vote (users) is to put way too kind a gloss on the undemocratic and > aristocratic nature of any system that allows one big or small class > to vote, and denies another big class, like internet users, the right > to vote. That's the CIRA model. > > All the happy talk about multistakeholderism hides the ugly realities > of denying voices and votes to classes of people, while often giving > voices and votes even to some non-humans and non-voters, like > corporations. > > The purpose of the Truman quote, and the purpose of *Truman's* > invocation of Hitler, is to show that we do not want efficiency unless > we agree on the process's end result or goal. If the train is headed > down the wrong track, no rational person wants efficiency! That > efficiency just sends us faster and further down the wrong track. > > Nothing personal, as I said before, was intended by any of my > comments. But Kerry Brown has taken offense nevertheless. I am sorry > he has done so. But I do not think there is any way out of a > conclusion that CIRA is a form of aristocracy, not democracy, and > because I believe that Kerry Brown believes in democracy, but probably > never went through analysis like the above, the implication that the > restructuring of CIRA in the way it is, is causing him to be > participating in a form of non-democratic corporate governance is not > just a charge that has a certain sting to it, but an unavoidable > conclusion once one knows the basic difference between aristocracy as > being rule by less than all the people.... > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > P.S. I fully understand the distinction you try to make with ex > officio members. If you re-read my message, I recall clearly intending > to draft that message to say these ex officio members had an enhanced > "voice" or right to be "heard" -- which they do have by speaking at > meetings and being recognized much more so than an average audience > member. I did not say or mean to imply that ex officio members had a > formal vote, by definition they do not. I was pointing to yet another > difference in relative political power, not on the level of actual > votes since ex officio members don't have them, but on the level of > who has access to time at meetings to get their ideas out, if they > wish to do so. Clearly, ex officio members have a privileged status > with respect to that. That is basically why they are ex officio to > begin with -- to hear from them based on prior experience, status, > etc. So, while I think a careful reading of my text would be clear, I > do see how one could mistakenly conclude that I misunderstood the role > of ex officio board members. > > I was appointed in the past as parliamentarian for an annual bar > association business meeting attended by most of the Supreme Court and > in which many of the states' best lawyers argued over various motions > and measures. I only mention that to hopefully put to rest any > inference that I don't completely understand what an ex officio member > is, they are common in bar association membership organizations in > various states. > > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jul 15 04:33:33 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:33:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <5BE4FC2C-BB65-4CF0-844C-BB99C2ABB969@me.com> References: <4E1F9BAC.6010500@communisphere.com> <5BE4FC2C-BB65-4CF0-844C-BB99C2ABB969@me.com> Message-ID: I am afraid we cannot go further if we still try to cut&paste rules that were designed hundreds of years ago to the world we now live in. Internet governance and intangibles taxation require the creation (or the mobiilization) of a meta-structure, above the national levels... And for me, it needs to be a UN-type agency. I agree we cannot move forward to address these governance issues by cutting ans pasting from rules and philosophies that were designed for a world in which the concept of a borderless world and death of distance were completely alien. I am not certain whether it should be a UN Agency as the UN itself is made up of governments. I do know that if we examine the social contract theory where citizens choose to give up part of their rights to a sovereign. In this instance, the things that we will have to think about is whether citizens should withdraw their rights and give it to another sovereign? Should their be a distinction between the types and categories of citizens such as one for entities, nation states and ordinary citizens? How should power be balanced? Is democracy really a democracy, that is the power of the vote separate and divorced from economic strings? We know that in a real world, the power that the economic strings can create and sway change. On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Philippe Blanchard < philippe.blanchard at me.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I also think that we have somehow deviated from our initial discussions and > objectives... > Lateral thinking and hyperlinking can bring new opportunities but I am less > "sensitive" to the current development of this thread and it is time for me > to drop-off. > > Many thanks to you all for this enlightening discussion.... > > Kind regards, > Philippe > > On Jul 15, 2011, at 3:45 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > As an advocate for public interest city-TLDs I was delighted to see this > "tax" thread start. While it seems to have drifted from Taiwan to Canada, it > has been illuminating and much appreciated. Not sure if it's appropriate to > "fan" in here, but I just have to say thank you, especially to Paul, > Michael, Kerry, and Parminder. And to Roland, Roxana, Daniel, Norbert, > McTim, Philippe, Salanieta, Jean-Louis, Sonigitu, Avri, Lee and of course > Milton. > > Really great conversation. > > Tom > > On 7/14/2011 8:57 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > On 7/14/11, michael gurstein wrote: > > in my limited > observation [CIRA] would seem to me by most conventional standards to be at > least reasonably "democratic". > > I'm published in the area of political theorists of democracy, so > perhaps I'm not clear. Here's something I hope is ultra-succinct > relatively speaking, and shows why I'm not off base. > > The very definition of democracy in modern times is rule by the people > (self-government), based on one person/one vote and universal suffrage > (all adults voting). > > The very definition of aristocracy, as Montesquieu (one of the most > famous political theorists of the world since the 1700s, a Frenchman) > wrote, is rule by less than all the people. (I.e. Rule by some > fraction of all the people, especially rule by an elite.) > > Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA > (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they > wish, but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by > CIRA, and then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're > really saying that a largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." > > But no user encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy > but who can not vote on policy like domain registrants or on directors > like Mike Gurstein or Kerry Brown would ever call a structure like > CIRA "reasonably democratic." (Not if they took the subject of CIRA's > authority seriously, yet couldn't vote on it.) Such a person would > say they have no vote, complain they are disfranchised using their own > words for that, and note somehow that they are basically ruled by > domain registrants and CIRA who do have votes and say. CIRA and these > domain registrant members are the superiors of internet users (who > have no say) and this aspect is not "reasonably democratic." > > There's lots of room and even necessity for compromise in the vast > majority of political issues, but not on the most fundamental issues > like democracy (or not), or freedom (or not) or whether or not you or > I should have a vote on things affecting us. > > It's a simple definitional reality: Because aristocracies by > definition are rule by less than all the people affected by laws, if > you take the fundamental parts of democracy like who can vote on a > piecemeal basis, and thereby give the vote to less than all the > people, you have, by definition the very essence of aristocracy, not > democracy. > > To call this piecemeal aristocratic outcome "reasonably democratic" > because some affected can vote (registrants) and some affected can not > vote (users) is to put way too kind a gloss on the undemocratic and > aristocratic nature of any system that allows one big or small class > to vote, and denies another big class, like internet users, the right > to vote. That's the CIRA model. > > All the happy talk about multistakeholderism hides the ugly realities > of denying voices and votes to classes of people, while often giving > voices and votes even to some non-humans and non-voters, like > corporations. > > The purpose of the Truman quote, and the purpose of *Truman's* > invocation of Hitler, is to show that we do not want efficiency unless > we agree on the process's end result or goal. If the train is headed > down the wrong track, no rational person wants efficiency! That > efficiency just sends us faster and further down the wrong track. > > Nothing personal, as I said before, was intended by any of my > comments. But Kerry Brown has taken offense nevertheless. I am sorry > he has done so. But I do not think there is any way out of a > conclusion that CIRA is a form of aristocracy, not democracy, and > because I believe that Kerry Brown believes in democracy, but probably > never went through analysis like the above, the implication that the > restructuring of CIRA in the way it is, is causing him to be > participating in a form of non-democratic corporate governance is not > just a charge that has a certain sting to it, but an unavoidable > conclusion once one knows the basic difference between aristocracy as > being rule by less than all the people.... > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > P.S. I fully understand the distinction you try to make with ex > officio members. If you re-read my message, I recall clearly intending > to draft that message to say these ex officio members had an enhanced > "voice" or right to be "heard" -- which they do have by speaking at > meetings and being recognized much more so than an average audience > member. I did not say or mean to imply that ex officio members had a > formal vote, by definition they do not. I was pointing to yet another > difference in relative political power, not on the level of actual > votes since ex officio members don't have them, but on the level of > who has access to time at meetings to get their ideas out, if they > wish to do so. Clearly, ex officio members have a privileged status > with respect to that. That is basically why they are ex officio to > begin with -- to hear from them based on prior experience, status, > etc. So, while I think a careful reading of my text would be clear, I > do see how one could mistakenly conclude that I misunderstood the role > of ex officio board members. > > I was appointed in the past as parliamentarian for an annual bar > association business meeting attended by most of the Supreme Court and > in which many of the states' best lawyers argued over various motions > and measures. I only mention that to hopefully put to rest any > inference that I don't completely understand what an ex officio member > is, they are common in bar association membership organizations in > various states. > > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849lehto.paul at gmail.com906-204-4026 (cell) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Jul 15 04:41:32 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:41:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E1FFD3C.5080808@digsys.bg> On 15.07.11 03:57, Paul Lehto wrote: > > Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA > (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they > wish, but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by > CIRA, and then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're > really saying that a largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." This is all true, except you miss the whole point. Internet resources are private, not public. Let me try one more time. Please note we may have language differences and I claim no proper terminology knowledge of 'democracy theory'. What you call democracy is a system, where the public gives up certain of their rights to elected third party (or parties) but reserves the right to replace them by voting, if they misbehave. In the case of a ccTLD manager and their procedures, or 'law' (the case you make with CIRA, being 'non-democratic'), there is no 'right' to possess a .ca domain name. For anyone. There does not exist a right for anyone, to use Internet, both because Internet as such is a collection of private resources and because those who use it did not gave up any 'rights' to it's governors. An real-life example. Imagine you walk in an area full of gardens. Some gardens are better, some are worse. But none of them is yours. None of them is 'public'. All are private gardens. For the most part, you don't even have an idea who the owner is. You go forward and pick an apple form one garden. Nothing happens... You then go fill few baskets, cut few trees. Eventually out of a sudden guards come along and demand you obey certain rules. You did not elect who those guards are. You cannot vote to replace them because you didn't like how they handled you. Eventually, people who planted that garden (think, the .ca domain) and the people who regularly take care of it and visit it (think, .ca domain registrants, registrars etc.) elected them - they pay for the guards etc. If you wish to have your say, you must join that 'club'. Is this democratic? :) I see no way how Internet can switch from being private to being public. If it was say, AOL, the US Government might nationalize it, but it is spread all over the world with all kinds of stakeholders possessing small pieces of it. About the only way I see this happening, is a third world war and the winner (the rats, they say) making the Internet democratic. (or parts of it, really) Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jul 15 06:11:07 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:11:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1FFD3C.5080808@digsys.bg> (message from Daniel Kalchev on Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:41:32 +0300) References: <4E1FFD3C.5080808@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20110715101108.029B715C0E4@quill.bollow.ch> Daniel Kalchev wrote in raply to an email by Paul Lehto: > This is all true, except you miss the whole point. Internet > resources are private, not public. Even for resources where this is true and morally justifiable, the *rules* of governance of these resources should be considered matters of public interest. The concern which Paul has raised is about the current owners of private interests in these resources having near-absolute power or at least unjustifiably great influence on the rule-making processes. This is a very justified concern in my eyes. 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 Fri Jul 15 07:09:28 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:39:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E1FFD3C.5080808@digsys.bg> References: <4E1FFD3C.5080808@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4E201FE8.4000907@itforchange.net> On Friday 15 July 2011 02:11 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 15.07.11 03:57, Paul Lehto wrote: >> >> Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA >> (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they >> wish, but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by >> CIRA, and then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're >> really saying that a largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." > > This is all true, except you miss the whole point. Internet resources > are private, not public. This is the crux of the disagreement. Internet is public, not private. This is why, for instance, we meet at the UN Internet Governance Forum to discuss its governance. I did give what may be the extreme example, that the 'market' is public while the enterprises participating in the market are private. Similarly the public Internet connects private spaces. To give just one example, if you need the recent FCC directives on network neutrality, you will clearly see how the Internet as we know and speak of is considered a public internet. However, I am obliged, though also a bit shocked with the starkness of it, that you have clearly explained below many people's thinking and ideology about what the Internet is, especially many of those people who are closely associated with its governance today. This is the ideology that organisation like ours seeks to fight professionally. We see the grave danger in using the influence of the Internet over our world as a key neoliberal strategy towards marketising most things, if not all thing. You ask, is this arrangement democratic... No absolutely not 9I know you yourself are clear that it is not democratic). And I understand that the civil society here, and elsewhere, is largely for democracy vis a vis the governance of the Internet as for other things. Speaking of apple gardens, and private guards, and if you want to join the club you may, is such a beautiful analogy. incidentally, we are completing a paper on 'open but not public: membership of informaiton society as a club good'. And you seem to be clear, yes, it is a club good. Whatever else, thanks for providing such clarity to the debate :). Parminder > > Let me try one more time. Please note we may have language differences > and I claim no proper terminology knowledge of 'democracy theory'. > > What you call democracy is a system, where the public gives up certain > of their rights to elected third party (or parties) but reserves the > right to replace them by voting, if they misbehave. > > In the case of a ccTLD manager and their procedures, or 'law' (the > case you make with CIRA, being 'non-democratic'), there is no 'right' > to possess a .ca domain name. For anyone. There does not exist a right > for anyone, to use Internet, both because Internet as such is a > collection of private resources and because those who use it did not > gave up any 'rights' to it's governors. > > An real-life example. Imagine you walk in an area full of gardens. > Some gardens are better, some are worse. But none of them is yours. > None of them is 'public'. All are private gardens. For the most part, > you don't even have an idea who the owner is. You go forward and pick > an apple form one garden. Nothing happens... You then go fill few > baskets, cut few trees. Eventually out of a sudden guards come along > and demand you obey certain rules. > > You did not elect who those guards are. You cannot vote to replace > them because you didn't like how they handled you. Eventually, people > who planted that garden (think, the .ca domain) and the people who > regularly take care of it and visit it (think, .ca domain registrants, > registrars etc.) elected them - they pay for the guards etc. If you > wish to have your say, you must join that 'club'. > > Is this democratic? :) > > I see no way how Internet can switch from being private to being > public. If it was say, AOL, the US Government might nationalize it, > but it is spread all over the world with all kinds of stakeholders > possessing small pieces of it. > > About the only way I see this happening, is a third world war and the > winner (the rats, they say) making the Internet democratic. (or parts > of it, really) > > Daniel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 15 07:12:55 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:42:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E2020B7.2060007@itforchange.net> On Friday 15 July 2011 09:15 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Paul, > > You seem to be referring to something you call "the mere user who is also > governed to some extent by CIRA" and then go on to give a (sort of) > definition as someone who is "encountering .ca domains and affected by the > TLD policy" without specifying what you mean by "encountering" (seeing an > email cross one's screen, buy a widget from an entity with a .ca domain???) > or affected by the TLD policy (and here I really can't think of an > example)... > > I guess I have no idea of who "the mere user who is also governed to some > extent by CIRA" might be and why you would consider them to be "governed" > even to some extent by CIRA. I live in Canada have a couple of domains > (non-.ca) and don't really encounter .ca from one day to the next let alone > be "governed" by it to any extent that I can see. > > It seems to me that unless you can justify that statement the rest of your > argument falls away. Mike, you do realise that US government used the .com guys for enforcing IPR law against what could be mere users. In any case, if it does not affect mere users that perhaps it is not worth bothering giving attention to its governance, no. Parminder > (BTW I'm a candidate for the CIRA Board not a current member.) > > (Mere user) Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:58 PM > To: michael gurstein; Kerry Brown > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on > Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial > period > > > On 7/14/11, michael gurstein wrote: >> in my limited >> observation [CIRA] would seem to me by most conventional standards to >> be at least reasonably "democratic". > I'm published in the area of political theorists of democracy, so perhaps > I'm not clear. Here's something I hope is ultra-succinct relatively > speaking, and shows why I'm not off base. > > The very definition of democracy in modern times is rule by the people > (self-government), based on one person/one vote and universal suffrage (all > adults voting). > > The very definition of aristocracy, as Montesquieu (one of the most famous > political theorists of the world since the 1700s, a Frenchman) wrote, is > rule by less than all the people. (I.e. Rule by some fraction of all the > people, especially rule by an elite.) > > Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA (domain > registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they wish, but > ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by CIRA, and then > call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're really saying that a > largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." > > But no user encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy but who > can not vote on policy like domain registrants or on directors like Mike > Gurstein or Kerry Brown would ever call a structure like CIRA "reasonably > democratic." (Not if they took the subject of CIRA's authority seriously, > yet couldn't vote on it.) Such a person would say they have no vote, > complain they are disfranchised using their own words for that, and note > somehow that they are basically ruled by domain registrants and CIRA who do > have votes and say. CIRA and these domain registrant members are the > superiors of internet users (who have no say) and this aspect is not > "reasonably democratic." > > There's lots of room and even necessity for compromise in the vast majority > of political issues, but not on the most fundamental issues like democracy > (or not), or freedom (or not) or whether or not you or I should have a vote > on things affecting us. > > It's a simple definitional reality: Because aristocracies by definition are > rule by less than all the people affected by laws, if you take the > fundamental parts of democracy like who can vote on a piecemeal basis, and > thereby give the vote to less than all the people, you have, by definition > the very essence of aristocracy, not democracy. > > To call this piecemeal aristocratic outcome "reasonably democratic" because > some affected can vote (registrants) and some affected can not vote (users) > is to put way too kind a gloss on the undemocratic and aristocratic nature > of any system that allows one big or small class to vote, and denies another > big class, like internet users, the right to vote. That's the CIRA model. > > All the happy talk about multistakeholderism hides the ugly realities of > denying voices and votes to classes of people, while often giving voices and > votes even to some non-humans and non-voters, like corporations. > > The purpose of the Truman quote, and the purpose of *Truman's* invocation of > Hitler, is to show that we do not want efficiency unless we agree on the > process's end result or goal. If the train is headed down the wrong track, > no rational person wants efficiency! That efficiency just sends us faster > and further down the wrong track. > > Nothing personal, as I said before, was intended by any of my comments. But > Kerry Brown has taken offense nevertheless. I am sorry he has done so. But > I do not think there is any way out of a conclusion that CIRA is a form of > aristocracy, not democracy, and because I believe that Kerry Brown believes > in democracy, but probably never went through analysis like the above, the > implication that the restructuring of CIRA in the way it is, is causing him > to be participating in a form of non-democratic corporate governance is not > just a charge that has a certain sting to it, but an unavoidable conclusion > once one knows the basic difference between aristocracy as being rule by > less than all the people.... > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > P.S. I fully understand the distinction you try to make with ex officio > members. If you re-read my message, I recall clearly intending to draft that > message to say these ex officio members had an enhanced "voice" or right to > be "heard" -- which they do have by speaking at meetings and being > recognized much more so than an average audience member. I did not say or > mean to imply that ex officio members had a formal vote, by definition they > do not. I was pointing to yet another difference in relative political > power, not on the level of actual votes since ex officio members don't have > them, but on the level of who has access to time at meetings to get their > ideas out, if they wish to do so. Clearly, ex officio members have a > privileged status with respect to that. That is basically why they are ex > officio to begin with -- to hear from them based on prior experience, > status, etc. So, while I think a careful reading of my text would be clear, > I do see how one could mistakenly conclude that I misunderstood the role of > ex officio board members. > > I was appointed in the past as parliamentarian for an annual bar association > business meeting attended by most of the Supreme Court and in which many of > the states' best lawyers argued over various motions and measures. I only > mention that to hopefully put to rest any inference that I don't completely > understand what an ex officio member is, they are common in bar association > membership organizations in various states. > > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 15 07:49:58 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:49:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E2020B7.2060007@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:42:55 +0530) References: <4E2020B7.2060007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20110715114958.C5A1515C0E4@quill.bollow.ch> parminder wrote: > Mike, you do realise that US government used the .com guys for enforcing > IPR law against what could be mere users. Just to emphasize the seriousness of this situation, the US government seems to feel justified in doing this even in cases where the interactions in question are clearly legal under all directly relevant local laws. I mean just because a company say in Spain has a .com domain name that should not be a reason why the company should not be able to interact, in any way which is legal in Spain, with customers who are located in Spain, without risking to lose its domain name just because something that is legal in Spain might be illegal under US "IPR law". 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 Jul 15 08:33:09 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:33:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E2020B7.2060007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <239B29F63D244D2FBEF95F1A59CC5D41@userPC> Yes, that's my point... (and certainly the .com domain is being targeted/used for various purposes by the USG but I would guess that a government wanting to make an imposition where, for example, a "democratic" pushback would be warranted (and analysis as per Paul's argument) would need to be targeting a group which was either larger, more comprehensive or more specific to the target group than a quite general tld such as .ca. I guess the question remains does a general purpose ccLTD impact on general ("mere") users to the degree that its governance is a public issue rather than an issue for its more narrow set of specific domain name holders. And now that I'm thinking about it in the more general context of the overall class of country level domain names I think we may want to approach the issue from a different angle... Country level domains in some sense "represent" the country in the global e-space and as such are acting (or should/ or could act) in the overall "public interest"-if not now then certainly in the future. From that perspective there is most certainly a role for public intervention through the state in support of that interest and as we all know many states, late to the game, have come to recognize this and in one form or another have repatriated the ccTLD from private (and even occasionally foreign) hands into some form of "national" ownership structure. In the case of CIRA I'm presuming that that public interest is being represented through the ex-officio participation on the Board of the Industry Canada rep.--which, depending on the significance of the "public interest" being represented by the ccTLD may (or may not) be sufficient. In any case however, what ever the current or anticipated "public interest" re: the ccTLD this would, I'm assuming be represented through the broad activities of the State and its role as the representative of democratic governance rather than through some form of direct governance of the specific ccTLD by the entire set of "mere users". That is the CTLD is in this instance is something of interest to all citizens as citizens rather than to individuals as "mere" Intenet users. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 4:13 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period On Friday 15 July 2011 09:15 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Paul, You seem to be referring to something you call "the mere user who is also governed to some extent by CIRA" and then go on to give a (sort of) definition as someone who is "encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy" without specifying what you mean by "encountering" (seeing an email cross one's screen, buy a widget from an entity with a .ca domain???) or affected by the TLD policy (and here I really can't think of an example)... I guess I have no idea of who "the mere user who is also governed to some extent by CIRA" might be and why you would consider them to be "governed" even to some extent by CIRA. I live in Canada have a couple of domains (non-.ca) and don't really encounter .ca from one day to the next let alone be "governed" by it to any extent that I can see. It seems to me that unless you can justify that statement the rest of your argument falls away. Mike, you do realise that US government used the .com guys for enforcing IPR law against what could be mere users. In any case, if it does not affect mere users that perhaps it is not worth bothering giving attention to its governance, no. Parminder (BTW I'm a candidate for the CIRA Board not a current member.) (Mere user) Mike -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:58 PM To: michael gurstein; Kerry Brown Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period On 7/14/11, michael gurstein wrote: in my limited observation [CIRA] would seem to me by most conventional standards to be at least reasonably "democratic". I'm published in the area of political theorists of democracy, so perhaps I'm not clear. Here's something I hope is ultra-succinct relatively speaking, and shows why I'm not off base. The very definition of democracy in modern times is rule by the people (self-government), based on one person/one vote and universal suffrage (all adults voting). The very definition of aristocracy, as Montesquieu (one of the most famous political theorists of the world since the 1700s, a Frenchman) wrote, is rule by less than all the people. (I.e. Rule by some fraction of all the people, especially rule by an elite.) Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they wish, but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by CIRA, and then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're really saying that a largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." But no user encountering .ca domains and affected by the TLD policy but who can not vote on policy like domain registrants or on directors like Mike Gurstein or Kerry Brown would ever call a structure like CIRA "reasonably democratic." (Not if they took the subject of CIRA's authority seriously, yet couldn't vote on it.) Such a person would say they have no vote, complain they are disfranchised using their own words for that, and note somehow that they are basically ruled by domain registrants and CIRA who do have votes and say. CIRA and these domain registrant members are the superiors of internet users (who have no say) and this aspect is not "reasonably democratic." There's lots of room and even necessity for compromise in the vast majority of political issues, but not on the most fundamental issues like democracy (or not), or freedom (or not) or whether or not you or I should have a vote on things affecting us. It's a simple definitional reality: Because aristocracies by definition are rule by less than all the people affected by laws, if you take the fundamental parts of democracy like who can vote on a piecemeal basis, and thereby give the vote to less than all the people, you have, by definition the very essence of aristocracy, not democracy. To call this piecemeal aristocratic outcome "reasonably democratic" because some affected can vote (registrants) and some affected can not vote (users) is to put way too kind a gloss on the undemocratic and aristocratic nature of any system that allows one big or small class to vote, and denies another big class, like internet users, the right to vote. That's the CIRA model. All the happy talk about multistakeholderism hides the ugly realities of denying voices and votes to classes of people, while often giving voices and votes even to some non-humans and non-voters, like corporations. The purpose of the Truman quote, and the purpose of *Truman's* invocation of Hitler, is to show that we do not want efficiency unless we agree on the process's end result or goal. If the train is headed down the wrong track, no rational person wants efficiency! That efficiency just sends us faster and further down the wrong track. Nothing personal, as I said before, was intended by any of my comments. But Kerry Brown has taken offense nevertheless. I am sorry he has done so. But I do not think there is any way out of a conclusion that CIRA is a form of aristocracy, not democracy, and because I believe that Kerry Brown believes in democracy, but probably never went through analysis like the above, the implication that the restructuring of CIRA in the way it is, is causing him to be participating in a form of non-democratic corporate governance is not just a charge that has a certain sting to it, but an unavoidable conclusion once one knows the basic difference between aristocracy as being rule by less than all the people.... Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. I fully understand the distinction you try to make with ex officio members. If you re-read my message, I recall clearly intending to draft that message to say these ex officio members had an enhanced "voice" or right to be "heard" -- which they do have by speaking at meetings and being recognized much more so than an average audience member. I did not say or mean to imply that ex officio members had a formal vote, by definition they do not. I was pointing to yet another difference in relative political power, not on the level of actual votes since ex officio members don't have them, but on the level of who has access to time at meetings to get their ideas out, if they wish to do so. Clearly, ex officio members have a privileged status with respect to that. That is basically why they are ex officio to begin with -- to hear from them based on prior experience, status, etc. So, while I think a careful reading of my text would be clear, I do see how one could mistakenly conclude that I misunderstood the role of ex officio board members. I was appointed in the past as parliamentarian for an annual bar association business meeting attended by most of the Supreme Court and in which many of the states' best lawyers argued over various motions and measures. I only mention that to hopefully put to rest any inference that I don't completely understand what an ex officio member is, they are common in bar association membership organizations in various states. Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Jul 15 09:14:25 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:14:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E201FE8.4000907@itforchange.net> References: <4E1FFD3C.5080808@digsys.bg> <4E201FE8.4000907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E203D31.1010206@digsys.bg> On 15.07.11 14:09, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 15 July 2011 02:11 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >> >> On 15.07.11 03:57, Paul Lehto wrote: >>> >>> Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by CIRA >>> (domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if they >>> wish, but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some extent by >>> CIRA, and then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic", you're >>> really saying that a largish aristocracy is "reasonably democratic." >> >> This is all true, except you miss the whole point. Internet resources >> are private, not public. > > This is the crux of the disagreement. Internet is public, not private. I explicitly mentioned 'resources' there. > > However, I am obliged, though also a bit shocked with the starkness of > it, that you have clearly explained below many people's thinking and > ideology about what the Internet is, especially many of those people > who are closely associated with its governance today. This is the > ideology that organisation like ours seeks to fight professionally. We > see the grave danger in using the influence of the Internet over our > world as a key neoliberal strategy towards marketising most things, if > not all thing. This is how the human world goes, for many thousands years. One group discovers a new good, then others come along and want a piece of it too, eventually both groups give up their freedom for 'governance' and the next Empire is born. Just random thoughts: It is interesting to note, as you did, that the Internet is giving so much power to those who buy into the freedom idea. When there is high concentration of power, there is always change. History always goes in circles (some hope it is a spiral, but this has not yet proven) and that may mean that democracy as such is moving to 'history' while some 'old' form of sharing the public goods will resurrect. Who knows. > > You ask, is this arrangement democratic... No absolutely not 9I know > you yourself are clear that it is not democratic). And I understand > that the civil society here, and elsewhere, is largely for democracy > vis a vis the governance of the Internet as for other things. Those who seek Governance just seek power and control. Human society is a collection of independent individuals that agree to abide by common law. That law is typically local (country, state, city, family). Internet is global. I keep repeating this, as this is where the problem with the current system is. If the current system wants to preserve the status-quo, it must restrict it's regulation attempts to things that matter locally. Or change. If someone says they want democracy in a ccTLD registry (or, an ISP, or an hosting company -- they are NOT different from Internet point of view, just different parts of the infrastructure), then what they say is that they want control over the operation of that infrastructure. ICANN, unfortunately is moving into the direction of becoming a para-TLD registry, instead of policy and consensus building forum it was supposed to be. Asking for democracy in the new ICANN is the same thing. I have yet another theory that relates to Internet and possible future development, based on the concept that humans are multi-dimensional creatures. But we have gone already way off-topic. By the way, I fail to understand why we argue about the obvious. A ccTLD registry (say CIRA) operates under existing law, that is built and enforced by democratically elected forces. In this environment CIRA is just like an individual. That may be an very clever, resourceful and valuable for the society individual, but still -- just part of the whole society that had submitted to being subject to democratic powers. We don't require each individual to be subject to democracy (say, Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jul 15 09:26:16 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:26:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <4E203D31.1010206@digsys.bg> (message from Daniel Kalchev on Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:14:25 +0300) References: <4E1FFD3C.5080808@digsys.bg> <4E201FE8.4000907@itforchange.net> <4E203D31.1010206@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20110715132616.48F1B15C0E4@quill.bollow.ch> Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Those who seek Governance just seek power and control. Some of us are satisfied as soon as we see that something is governed in a reasonable way. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Jul 15 10:14:51 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:14:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: <20110715101108.029B715C0E4@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4E1FFD3C.5080808@digsys.bg> <20110715101108.029B715C0E4@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 7/15/11, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Daniel Kalchev wrote in raply to an email by > Paul Lehto: > >> This is all true, except you miss the whole point. Internet >> resources are private, not public. > > Even for resources where this is true and morally justifiable, > the *rules* of governance of these resources should be considered > matters of public interest. This point, while good, should be stated more strongly. Even where we have a 100% "private" ownership and transactions between 100% "private" persons, the rules of contract law that govern contracts and whether they are legal or illegal, enforceable or unconscionable and oppressive, or whether the terms are fair or fradulent/deceptive, are all quintessential *public* matters, with the legal rules set by legislatures elected by the people after a public debate or deliberation. It is not that the *rules* of governance "should be considered matters of public interest" they indisputably are matters of exclusive public interest in all contexts. It is primarily only regarding the internet that rule-making authority has been delegated to private parties without (so far) legal challenges being brought successfully. For example, when a legislature decides that perhaps they lack expertise in construction codes and delegates the drafting of portions of the construction code to an organization of builders and architects, incorporating the builders' code by reference as the law of the country, such delegations have been struck down upon a proper legal challenge as impermissible delegations of democratic law-making authority under what is called in the USA the "nondelegation doctrine." This doctrine is a constitutional doctrine because it protects the exclusive law-making function assigned to legislatures and Congresses and prevents such public power from being given away to some other entity. The Internet, of course, is nowhere near 100% private. Yesterday, my country (the USA) declared the Internet a "domain of war" for various reasons, not the least of which is that the .mil domain carries sensitive military information over public or otherwise insecure pathways. But even if the internet were 100% private, the legal rules governing the private law contracting process by which private persons reach would still be a clear matter of public interest and concern, just as a private contract to sell property implicates a large range of public laws governing the contract and the land, and disputes about this private transaction would be in public courts, in open hearings that the public has a constitutional right to attend, despite the "private" nature of the transaction at issue. One of the most controversial aspects of Internet governance is the extent to which, as exemplified by CIRA, law-making and rule-making functions, together with the right to set up "courts" for arbitration purposes, has been delegated to private corporations, and away from what has always been a public matter. As also seen with CIRA, policies have been developed to claim that the procedure of these arbitrations must not cite domestic or foreign democratically passed laws, even if the parties and the arbitrators agree! This is truly a breath-taking development. If one considers that self-government (the core of real democracy) means the right and opportunity to participate and structuring society's legal rules for both private and public transactions by passing laws, the delegation of many of the powers in this area is an anti-democratic and anti-self-government development. > The concern which Paul has raised is about the current owners of > private interests in these resources having near-absolute power > or at least unjustifiably great influence on the rule-making > processes. > > This is a very justified concern in my eyes. Again, I would say it is more than a mere concern, it is an unconstitutional development for any country considering itself free and self-governing. Only "the people" -- all of them -- can legitimately set the rules for private and public transactions, not a subset of the people or a corporation. "The people" delegate their power, temporarily and for a period of time, to elected representatives who consider and pass the laws not everyone has the time to study. When the power of passing laws is essentially permanently delegated away from the control of the people as a whole, that is not a legitimate law or transfer under nondelegation doctrines because representatives hold the people's power in Trust, to use only for their benefit. Such transfers that defeat democratic power and authority are more in the nature of a coup d'etat. They await an appropriately drafted and litigated legal challenge. And if such challenges are for whatever reason not successful (and sometimes challenges take decades to appear even for clearly unconstitutional actions) then the coup d'etat has succeeded and we no longer have a system that in its basic structures claims to be democratic and derive its powers from the people. We instead have some sort of aristocracy able to set laws and rules in certain sectors independent of the people. >From time to time, people on this list express frustration or criticism of the difficulty of working with elected governments, who are often out of touch with the people they nevertheless purport to represent. While much of this criticism is all too often true, the answer to the problem of faithless servants (elected politicians and their assistants) is not to set up "stakeholder" law-making that makes faithlessness and unaccountability to the people a permanent and institutionalized feature of governance. The only persons that ought to be happy with such developments that institutionalize faithlessness and break the links of accountability to the people are those players in governance who gamble that the delegation of democratic authority to some private stakeholder consortium in order to better and more efficiently or wisely govern the Internet is something they will personally be in a position to influence, i.e., that they will be one of the aristocrats exercising the authority of the people, without tracing any mandate at all back to the people themselves. This improves the position of such folks in terms of influence, at the expense of killing off accountability and even the pretense of deriving one's power to make rules from the people themselves, who are the only legitimate source of such power. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jul 15 14:52:18 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:52:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for hub registration IGF 2011 Message-ID: Dear all, Please find the call for hub registration to the IGF 2011 below. We would appreciate if you could help to disseminate this with your contacts. Best wishes, Marília *Call for hub registration - IGF 2011* If you are not able to attend the next IGF in Nairobi, Kenya, you can follow it remotely! Remote participation, and specifically the hubs structure, has been successful in previous IGF's in partnership between United Nations IGF Secretariat and the Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG). This time again - the Remote Participation Working Group will provide interactive *channels for e-participation *so you can follow the discussions from home; watch the webcast of the event ; and participate in live chat. Or you can also expand the discussions and organize an IGF hub in your city! So what are the *"Hubs*?" The hubs are local meetings that take place in parallel with the IGF. People can watch the webcast together and send questions (via text or video) that will be answered by panelists in IGF. In addition, hub organizers can hold debates to discuss the themes introduced at the IGF from their local perspective. There are several advantages in creating a hub - it helps to raise awareness about Internet Governance issues; it fosters networking among participants and community building; and it encourages follow-up activities. For your convenience, we have created a page to explain about remote hubs. *Click here!* *How to organize a hub?* The requirements are very simple: • A room or auditorium. It can be held in a university classroom or any other convenient place; • A computer with a broadband Internet connection and a videoconference (or projector) equipment, to watch the webcast; • A hub moderator, who will plan the dynamics of the local discussions as well as transmit the hub participants’ questions or comments to the IGF through the remote participation channels; • A general call in lists, forums etc, to invite the interested local community. If you are interested in setting up a local remote hub in your area, please click on link for the *IGF HUB REGISTRATION * and follow the instructions. There will also be an online training (to be announced soon) for hub organizers prior to the event. What's more? 
Hub participants are also encouraged to send short pre-recorded video questions or statement (2-3 minutes), outlining key issues on the local discussion agenda. Hubs are also possibly allowed to join with real-time video message. Then the links to access each meeting room will be provided before the IGF. That's why have encouraged remote participants in the past to take a look at the IGF schedule (available soon) to check room assignments and session times they wished to follow. During the IGF, you can also use *social network* platforms to take part in the Internet Governance dialogue: • Share your views in Twitter: #IGF11 • Share your video in Youtube • Share your pictures in Flickr • Leave messages in Facebook We hope you can join us this September for the IGF 2011 in Nairobi! Remote Participation Working Group -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 11:23:37 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:23:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] Foreign Policy of the Internet Message-ID: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/foreign-policy-of-the-internet/2011/0 7/08/gIQAjqFyEI_story.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 14:57:58 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 06:57:58 +1200 Subject: [governance] Foreign Policy of the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am wondering whether this is related to the Stuxnet and Stars "attack" on Iran's nuclear facilities. If the Iranians are really going to disconnect their cyberspace from the world, then it signals that the threats that they perceive as threats are coming from "outside Iran". On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/foreign-policy-of-the-internet/2011/0 > 7/08/gIQAjqFyEI_story.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 > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 16:18:51 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:18:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" Message-ID: The Washington Post takes as a truism this statement it published today: "The Internet is a powerful tool for innovation and expression because it allows information and ideas to flow freely." Information and ideas do not "flow freely" on anything that is plainly and simply "private property." The very essence of property interests in general features this common thing: The right to exclude, or exclusive use. If one owns real property (land), they can exclude trespassers. If they own a trademark, they can exclude others from using that mark in confusing ways. If they own a copyright, they have exclusive use of that text and may prevent others from using it unfairly. If the internet were predominantly "private" in any non-misleading sense of the term "private" it could never -- on the whole-- allow information and ideas to flow freely. Thus, while the internet surely features countless privately owned things like websites and so forth, the value of the internet can never come from the exclusive rights of property, which is by legal definition not something freely shared, it is something exclusively owned with access to others significantly or totally restricted. The dream of the internet, at least for many people, of an open place where people meet and thus all kinds of things are facilitated -- from commerce to communication -- is in the nature of what's called "the commons". The commons is kind of a public area, such as a public square, free to all, but often with "private" vendors offering additional goods or services for a fee. It feels to me like some have noted the countless private individuals and private vendors who have flocked to the public commons called the internet, and because there are so many vendors and people in the commons, have concluded that the *commons* is private, that the Internet is private. In fact, the internet as people experience it really only has private components but cannot be said, without being misleading, to be "private" on the whole or in general. The most critically valuable and crucial aspects of the internet (even if by some method of "counting" they are only 1% or less of the whole) is that which is either owned or operated as a "commons" - and therefore experienced as free to all. Sure, somebody has to pay for the commons somewhere (taxes support the "public square") but the economic aspect to the commons does not defeat its status as commons. Even private property owned by a single individual can, by the choice of the owner, be operated as a commons or like a commons. (An individual can make a park on her own land and invite all to use it for free.) It's nice if someone chooses to do this, but we can't rely on the largesse of private individuals if we wish to keep a commons going because they can change their mind at any time, and close the gates of the park for any reason. No matter what numbers or factors one may focus on, the core of what is loved about the internet is its aspects that are most like the traditional public commons - a place to freely meet, greet and transact business. Even if, once in the commons, we decide to join a more truly "private" party - with a cover charge to get in and "riff raff" not allowed in -- we may then be in a more exclusive "private" party, and "private" has more meaning here. But we still used the commons to GET TO the private party we prefer, and without that commons the private party couldn't have happened across the distances typically involved. If our guiding star principle were to be that the Internet is "private" it would kill the core value of the internet as we know it. This doesn't mean that the Internet *could not* be made much more private. Just recently, I've pointed to examples of just such a development, where public law-making authority about the internet is delegated to a private corporation. But the more we make, or even just think the internet is "private", the more we tolerate exclusion (which is the common essence of all property interests). And, the more we tolerate or implement exclusion, or the more we give power to forms of governance like corporations that, being property interests themselves, have exclusion as part of their structural essence, the more we kill the Internet as the open marketplace of friendship, communication and commerce that is what most people think is the greatest thing about it. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 16:24:19 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 08:24:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is interesting Paul. I am not taking sides but am throwing these thoughts in for general discussion. Consider the analogy of roads. highways and border controls mechanisms such as Customs etc. Who determines the roads and highways that gets built? Who pays for it? There are all kinds of roads - public and private. Are tolls collected on some roads? Why are they collected? Can anyone be allowed to drive through the roads or should there be some sort of rules? Who decides the rules and why? Are there aspects which are public and private? Are these justified? On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > The Washington Post takes as a truism this statement it published today: > > "The Internet is a powerful tool for innovation and expression because > it allows information and ideas to flow freely." > > Information and ideas do not "flow freely" on anything that is plainly > and simply "private property." > > The very essence of property interests in general features this common > thing: The right to exclude, or exclusive use. If one owns real > property (land), they can exclude trespassers. If they own a > trademark, they can exclude others from using that mark in confusing > ways. If they own a copyright, they have exclusive use of that text > and may prevent others from using it unfairly. > > If the internet were predominantly "private" in any non-misleading > sense of the term "private" it could never -- on the whole-- allow > information and ideas to flow freely. Thus, while the internet surely > features countless privately owned things like websites and so forth, > the value of the internet can never come from the exclusive rights of > property, which is by legal definition not something freely shared, it > is something exclusively owned with access to others significantly or > totally restricted. > > The dream of the internet, at least for many people, of an open place > where people meet and thus all kinds of things are facilitated -- from > commerce to communication -- is in the nature of what's called "the > commons". The commons is kind of a public area, such as a public > square, free to all, but often with "private" vendors offering > additional goods or services for a fee. > > It feels to me like some have noted the countless private individuals > and private vendors who have flocked to the public commons called the > internet, and because there are so many vendors and people in the > commons, have concluded that the *commons* is private, that the > Internet is private. In fact, the internet as people experience it > really only has private components but cannot be said, without being > misleading, to be "private" on the whole or in general. The most > critically valuable and crucial aspects of the internet (even if by > some method of "counting" they are only 1% or less of the whole) is > that which is either owned or operated as a "commons" - and therefore > experienced as free to all. Sure, somebody has to pay for the commons > somewhere (taxes support the "public square") but the economic aspect > to the commons does not defeat its status as commons. > > Even private property owned by a single individual can, by the choice > of the owner, be operated as a commons or like a commons. (An > individual can make a park on her own land and invite all to use it > for free.) It's nice if someone chooses to do this, but we can't rely > on the largesse of private individuals if we wish to keep a commons > going because they can change their mind at any time, and close the > gates of the park for any reason. > > No matter what numbers or factors one may focus on, the core of what > is loved about the internet is its aspects that are most like the > traditional public commons - a place to freely meet, greet and > transact business. Even if, once in the commons, we decide to join a > more truly "private" party - with a cover charge to get in and "riff > raff" not allowed in -- we may then be in a more exclusive "private" > party, and "private" has more meaning here. But we still used the > commons to GET TO the private party we prefer, and without that > commons the private party couldn't have happened across the distances > typically involved. > > If our guiding star principle were to be that the Internet is > "private" it would kill the core value of the internet as we know it. > > This doesn't mean that the Internet *could not* be made much more > private. Just recently, I've pointed to examples of just such a > development, where public law-making authority about the internet is > delegated to a private corporation. But the more we make, or even > just think the internet is "private", the more we tolerate exclusion > (which is the common essence of all property interests). And, the > more we tolerate or implement exclusion, or the more we give power to > forms of governance like corporations that, being property interests > themselves, have exclusion as part of their structural essence, the > more we kill the Internet as the open marketplace of friendship, > communication and commerce that is what most people think is the > greatest thing about it. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 17:05:47 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:05:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/16/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > This is interesting Paul. I am not taking sides but am throwing these > thoughts in for general discussion. > Consider the analogy of roads. highways and border controls mechanisms such > as Customs etc. Who determines the roads and highways that gets built? Who > pays for it? While private roads exist (no trespassing) public roads are most common. The rules of those roads are set by democratically elected legislatures. While legislatures on occasion (and because of budgetary constraints usually) call for toll roads, the requirement of a direct user fee collected in this way is disliked by large majorities of people. Part of the proof of the preference of most people for free access to what they experience as the commons is the preference of telephone users for a flat fee unlimited access telephone plan, even if large numbers of those people would be economically better off if they paid for each telephone usage, local or long distance. People want to have the freedom to go long distances or talk endlessly on the phone, even if chances are they will never do that, they want it anyway and will pay a premium for it if forced to do so, as with telephone flat fee plans. > There are all kinds of roads - public and private. Are tolls collected on > some roads? Why are they collected? Most of this is answered above. Tolls are nearly universal on those private roads that accept all comers, tolls are relatively rare but do exist on government operated public roads, but disliked and disfavored, and mostly instituted for budgetary reasons. > > Can anyone be allowed to drive through the roads or should there be some > sort of rules? Who decides the rules and why? There are always rules, even in the "freest" marketplace. These rules are the structures for freedom (don't dig up the grass in the park, travel at a safe speed on the road, etc.) Restrictions are lesser on private property in terms of what one may do (cut the trees, etc) but they are almost always greater in terms of who may participate (the "exclusive use" element of property law). Legislatures decide the rules of the commons as well as the rules that still remain applicable to purely "private" transactions. One cannot on private property spread nuclear radiation, or continually feed large fires. What nearly all humans seem to want is a "private" home of some modest minimum where they can retire and feel safe, and that implies the right to exclude unwanted others, and thus its private property or privacy that's sought. At the same time, nearly all humans, when they venture out into the world, want to maximize the commons - that which is (up front at least) free to all. I think it's mostly only when someone has found their way in this world, (and found their way into enough money to join enough private clubs, and pay for private schools and so forth that they can have the illusion of an upscale "commons" together with some similarly wealthy friends who are in the same schools and clubs) that they start to resent or oppose the commons they grew up in. People thinking themselves "self-made" and thinking they can now purchase their own "commons" start to resent paying taxes to support the commons that the general public mostly uses, because the wealthy have chosen to form an upscale substitute commons. These relatively few people come to believe (unlike the vast majority of the population that picks the flat rate telephone plan that usually subsidizes both their own freedom and everyone else's too, as well as the phone company's profits), that they can safely pay for everything they utilize on a direct user fee or toll basis, and therefore they don't want any of their money to indirectly benefit other people. But they are the minority. > > Are there aspects which are public and private? Are these justified? The more discriminatory in any way and the more money is charged, the more the activity is normatively "private" and the less it is public. Some forms of discrimination even private clubs can't engage in (by law), and some forms of exclusion are nevertheless practiced with varying degrees of legal and social acceptability by public governments. But the bottom line is that what is public is normatively Open, and what is private is normatively Closed. To the extent there are departures from these, they are either justified or there is an attempted justification based on necessity, or a grudging acceptance of "reality" (public parks CLOSED at night, or tolls charged on a few roads), or an outright controversy is caused, and perhaps a legal violation depending on the specifics. Despite lots of exceptions and cross-over, the baseline from which we argue or reason our way to exceptions is still Public = Open and Private = Closed, and most people want a private home and a public world to the maximum extent reasonably possible. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 17:12:02 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:12:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *Question* Why is it that when someone from Kenya emails someone from the US, the ISP in Kenya pays? Why is that when someone from the US emails someone from Kenya, the ISP in Kenya still pays? * * * * Who makes the rules and who calls the shots? Sala * * On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 7/16/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > This is interesting Paul. I am not taking sides but am throwing these > > thoughts in for general discussion. > > Consider the analogy of roads. highways and border controls mechanisms > such > > as Customs etc. Who determines the roads and highways that gets built? > Who > > pays for it? > > While private roads exist (no trespassing) public roads are most > common. The rules of those roads are set by democratically elected > legislatures. While legislatures on occasion (and because of > budgetary constraints usually) call for toll roads, the requirement of > a direct user fee collected in this way is disliked by large > majorities of people. Part of the proof of the preference of most > people for free access to what they experience as the commons is the > preference of telephone users for a flat fee unlimited access > telephone plan, even if large numbers of those people would be > economically better off if they paid for each telephone usage, local > or long distance. People want to have the freedom to go long > distances or talk endlessly on the phone, even if chances are they > will never do that, they want it anyway and will pay a premium for it > if forced to do so, as with telephone flat fee plans. > > > There are all kinds of roads - public and private. Are tolls collected on > > some roads? Why are they collected? > > Most of this is answered above. Tolls are nearly universal on those > private roads that accept all comers, tolls are relatively rare but do > exist on government operated public roads, but disliked and > disfavored, and mostly instituted for budgetary reasons. > > > > Can anyone be allowed to drive through the roads or should there be some > > sort of rules? Who decides the rules and why? > > There are always rules, even in the "freest" marketplace. These rules > are the structures for freedom (don't dig up the grass in the park, > travel at a safe speed on the road, etc.) Restrictions are lesser on > private property in terms of what one may do (cut the trees, etc) but > they are almost always greater in terms of who may participate (the > "exclusive use" element of property law). Legislatures decide the > rules of the commons as well as the rules that still remain applicable > to purely "private" transactions. One cannot on private property > spread nuclear radiation, or continually feed large fires. > > What nearly all humans seem to want is a "private" home of some modest > minimum where they can retire and feel safe, and that implies the > right to exclude unwanted others, and thus its private property or > privacy that's sought. At the same time, nearly all humans, when they > venture out into the world, want to maximize the commons - that which > is (up front at least) free to all. > > I think it's mostly only when someone has found their way in this > world, (and found their way into enough money to join enough private > clubs, and pay for private schools and so forth that they can have the > illusion of an upscale "commons" together with some similarly wealthy > friends who are in the same schools and clubs) that they start to > resent or oppose the commons they grew up in. People thinking > themselves "self-made" and thinking they can now purchase their own > "commons" start to resent paying taxes to support the commons that > the general public mostly uses, because the wealthy have chosen to > form an upscale substitute commons. > > These relatively few people come to believe (unlike the vast majority > of the population that picks the flat rate telephone plan that usually > subsidizes both their own freedom and everyone else's too, as well as > the phone company's profits), that they can safely pay for everything > they utilize on a direct user fee or toll basis, and therefore they > don't want any of their money to indirectly benefit other people. But > they are the minority. > > > > Are there aspects which are public and private? Are these justified? > > The more discriminatory in any way and the more money is charged, the > more the activity is normatively "private" and the less it is public. > Some forms of discrimination even private clubs can't engage in (by > law), and some forms of exclusion are nevertheless practiced with > varying degrees of legal and social acceptability by public > governments. > > But the bottom line is that what is public is normatively Open, and > what is private is normatively Closed. To the extent there are > departures from these, they are either justified or there is an > attempted justification based on necessity, or a grudging acceptance > of "reality" (public parks CLOSED at night, or tolls charged on a few > roads), or an outright controversy is caused, and perhaps a legal > violation depending on the specifics. Despite lots of exceptions and > cross-over, the baseline from which we argue or reason our way to > exceptions is still Public = Open and Private = Closed, and most > people want a private home and a public world to the maximum extent > reasonably possible. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From devonrb at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 17:37:19 2011 From: devonrb at gmail.com (devonrb at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:37:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <623201918-1310852241-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-200821259-@b5.c7.bise6.blackberry> This Is a very well reasoned piece on the nature of the Internet. It is physical space as the foundation of virtual space. The virtual space is geometrically larger than the physical space on which it is based, making available enough free space for every individual on planet earth. With more than enough space for economic enterprise and private ownership. Space here is equated to property. The ideal situation here os that every citizen of earth to own a piece of the internet, adequate space is available for commerce, there is adequate common space for every body in the world to meet in one forum, every representative grouping of people has adequate space for their activities, there is adequate space for counter cyber crime activities,counter cyber terrorism activities and counter cyber maliicious activities. All this is in addition to totally free space like parks where anyone can visit and interact in for a while. In my mind these are the type of goals we need to work towards in the development of a governance structure. Of course the question is who drives all this, my answer: The IGF. How? By engaging every member in a democratic process of action: Finally the internet is potentially the most likely means of achieving equity in the distribution of wealth, the freedom of expression, the right to privacy and other such basic principles of a human right. Let us not waste this opportunity, but grasp it with both hands. Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:18:51 To: ; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Paul Lehto Cc: michael gurstein Subject: [governance] The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" The Washington Post takes as a truism this statement it published today: "The Internet is a powerful tool for innovation and expression because it allows information and ideas to flow freely." Information and ideas do not "flow freely" on anything that is plainly and simply "private property." The very essence of property interests in general features this common thing: The right to exclude, or exclusive use. If one owns real property (land), they can exclude trespassers. If they own a trademark, they can exclude others from using that mark in confusing ways. If they own a copyright, they have exclusive use of that text and may prevent others from using it unfairly. If the internet were predominantly "private" in any non-misleading sense of the term "private" it could never -- on the whole-- allow information and ideas to flow freely. Thus, while the internet surely features countless privately owned things like websites and so forth, the value of the internet can never come from the exclusive rights of property, which is by legal definition not something freely shared, it is something exclusively owned with access to others significantly or totally restricted. The dream of the internet, at least for many people, of an open place where people meet and thus all kinds of things are facilitated -- from commerce to communication -- is in the nature of what's called "the commons". The commons is kind of a public area, such as a public square, free to all, but often with "private" vendors offering additional goods or services for a fee. It feels to me like some have noted the countless private individuals and private vendors who have flocked to the public commons called the internet, and because there are so many vendors and people in the commons, have concluded that the *commons* is private, that the Internet is private. In fact, the internet as people experience it really only has private components but cannot be said, without being misleading, to be "private" on the whole or in general. The most critically valuable and crucial aspects of the internet (even if by some method of "counting" they are only 1% or less of the whole) is that which is either owned or operated as a "commons" - and therefore experienced as free to all. Sure, somebody has to pay for the commons somewhere (taxes support the "public square") but the economic aspect to the commons does not defeat its status as commons. Even private property owned by a single individual can, by the choice of the owner, be operated as a commons or like a commons. (An individual can make a park on her own land and invite all to use it for free.) It's nice if someone chooses to do this, but we can't rely on the largesse of private individuals if we wish to keep a commons going because they can change their mind at any time, and close the gates of the park for any reason. No matter what numbers or factors one may focus on, the core of what is loved about the internet is its aspects that are most like the traditional public commons - a place to freely meet, greet and transact business. Even if, once in the commons, we decide to join a more truly "private" party - with a cover charge to get in and "riff raff" not allowed in -- we may then be in a more exclusive "private" party, and "private" has more meaning here. But we still used the commons to GET TO the private party we prefer, and without that commons the private party couldn't have happened across the distances typically involved. If our guiding star principle were to be that the Internet is "private" it would kill the core value of the internet as we know it. This doesn't mean that the Internet *could not* be made much more private. Just recently, I've pointed to examples of just such a development, where public law-making authority about the internet is delegated to a private corporation. But the more we make, or even just think the internet is "private", the more we tolerate exclusion (which is the common essence of all property interests). And, the more we tolerate or implement exclusion, or the more we give power to forms of governance like corporations that, being property interests themselves, have exclusion as part of their structural essence, the more we kill the Internet as the open marketplace of friendship, communication and commerce that is what most people think is the greatest thing about it. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From devonrb at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 17:46:44 2011 From: devonrb at gmail.com (devonrb at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:46:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be"private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1591770498-1310852805-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-215128717-@b5.c7.bise6.blackberry> I am really facinated by this as it goes to the what or who to be governed or not governed. Do you ever wonder why governments do not use successful business models to run their country? This issue is directly related to the sustainability of the internet. Why can't we be so fair in the use of the internet that the combined commerce, educational and other social activities pay for and ensure it's sustainqability. Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:05:47 To: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Paul Lehto Cc: ; michael gurstein Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" On 7/16/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > This is interesting Paul. I am not taking sides but am throwing these > thoughts in for general discussion. > Consider the analogy of roads. highways and border controls mechanisms such > as Customs etc. Who determines the roads and highways that gets built? Who > pays for it? While private roads exist (no trespassing) public roads are most common. The rules of those roads are set by democratically elected legislatures. While legislatures on occasion (and because of budgetary constraints usually) call for toll roads, the requirement of a direct user fee collected in this way is disliked by large majorities of people. Part of the proof of the preference of most people for free access to what they experience as the commons is the preference of telephone users for a flat fee unlimited access telephone plan, even if large numbers of those people would be economically better off if they paid for each telephone usage, local or long distance. People want to have the freedom to go long distances or talk endlessly on the phone, even if chances are they will never do that, they want it anyway and will pay a premium for it if forced to do so, as with telephone flat fee plans. > There are all kinds of roads - public and private. Are tolls collected on > some roads? Why are they collected? Most of this is answered above. Tolls are nearly universal on those private roads that accept all comers, tolls are relatively rare but do exist on government operated public roads, but disliked and disfavored, and mostly instituted for budgetary reasons. > > Can anyone be allowed to drive through the roads or should there be some > sort of rules? Who decides the rules and why? There are always rules, even in the "freest" marketplace. These rules are the structures for freedom (don't dig up the grass in the park, travel at a safe speed on the road, etc.) Restrictions are lesser on private property in terms of what one may do (cut the trees, etc) but they are almost always greater in terms of who may participate (the "exclusive use" element of property law). Legislatures decide the rules of the commons as well as the rules that still remain applicable to purely "private" transactions. One cannot on private property spread nuclear radiation, or continually feed large fires. What nearly all humans seem to want is a "private" home of some modest minimum where they can retire and feel safe, and that implies the right to exclude unwanted others, and thus its private property or privacy that's sought. At the same time, nearly all humans, when they venture out into the world, want to maximize the commons - that which is (up front at least) free to all. I think it's mostly only when someone has found their way in this world, (and found their way into enough money to join enough private clubs, and pay for private schools and so forth that they can have the illusion of an upscale "commons" together with some similarly wealthy friends who are in the same schools and clubs) that they start to resent or oppose the commons they grew up in. People thinking themselves "self-made" and thinking they can now purchase their own "commons" start to resent paying taxes to support the commons that the general public mostly uses, because the wealthy have chosen to form an upscale substitute commons. These relatively few people come to believe (unlike the vast majority of the population that picks the flat rate telephone plan that usually subsidizes both their own freedom and everyone else's too, as well as the phone company's profits), that they can safely pay for everything they utilize on a direct user fee or toll basis, and therefore they don't want any of their money to indirectly benefit other people. But they are the minority. > > Are there aspects which are public and private? Are these justified? The more discriminatory in any way and the more money is charged, the more the activity is normatively "private" and the less it is public. Some forms of discrimination even private clubs can't engage in (by law), and some forms of exclusion are nevertheless practiced with varying degrees of legal and social acceptability by public governments. But the bottom line is that what is public is normatively Open, and what is private is normatively Closed. To the extent there are departures from these, they are either justified or there is an attempted justification based on necessity, or a grudging acceptance of "reality" (public parks CLOSED at night, or tolls charged on a few roads), or an outright controversy is caused, and perhaps a legal violation depending on the specifics. Despite lots of exceptions and cross-over, the baseline from which we argue or reason our way to exceptions is still Public = Open and Private = Closed, and most people want a private home and a public world to the maximum extent reasonably possible. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 17 03:32:41 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 08:32:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 09:12:02 on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >Question > >Why is it that when someone from Kenya emails someone from the US, the >ISP in Kenya pays? > >Why is that when someone from the US emails someone from Kenya, the ISP >in Kenya still pays Firstly, it would the ISP customer who is paying (through their subscriptions). Secondly, we must examine what they are paying *for*. At the most basic level it's "a connection to the Internet". (And emails are sent and received over that connection). So what is "the Internet"? It's a set of interconnected networks. What the customer is therefore paying for is his ISP to operate the 'local' network *plus* establish and maintain the interconnects with other networks. For historical reasons, the early *international* interconnects were on the East and West coast of the USA. So an ISP customer in Chicago will be at the very least paying for his ISP to haul the traffic halfway across the USA. As time went on, and there was more traffic in places like Europe, ISPs built additional interconnects that were cheaper for them. So an ISP customer in Paris might only pay for his ISP to operate the network inside France (to exchange emails with other Frenchmen, entirely at the cost of the French) plus an Interconnect to London, Amsterdam or Frakkfurt; rather than "plus an Interconnect to New York". Unfortunately, the regulatory regime in some parts of the world made it very difficult to establish new local interconnects, let alone international ones. And to some extent the users in those areas are "paying" for that. There's also an economy of scale, and a need for bold investment, when it comes to laying new International connectivity. So the answer to your question is "no, the user in Kenya isn't paying for the emails in both directions, they are paying for their local connectivity plus a share of the connectivity to an International hub. The user in the USA is paying exactly the same. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 03:44:01 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:44:01 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You probably have read this already but I invite you to read the article below: Esmat, B and Fernandez ,J. *International Internet Connections Costs* in Reforming Internet Governance (Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)) Edited by William J Drake This was raised as an issue in terms of discussions on internet governance, see:http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/APC_IGC_IIC_final.pdf On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message @mail.gmail.com >, at 09:12:02 on Sun, > 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro gmail.com > writes > > Question >> >> Why is it that when someone from Kenya emails someone from the US, the ISP >> in Kenya pays? >> >> Why is that when someone from the US emails someone from Kenya, the ISP in >> Kenya still pays >> > > Firstly, it would the ISP customer who is paying (through their > subscriptions). > > Secondly, we must examine what they are paying *for*. At the most basic > level it's "a connection to the Internet". (And emails are sent and received > over that connection). > > So what is "the Internet"? It's a set of interconnected networks. > > What the customer is therefore paying for is his ISP to operate the 'local' > network *plus* establish and maintain the interconnects with other networks. > > For historical reasons, the early *international* interconnects were on the > East and West coast of the USA. So an ISP customer in Chicago will be at the > very least paying for his ISP to haul the traffic halfway across the USA. > > As time went on, and there was more traffic in places like Europe, ISPs > built additional interconnects that were cheaper for them. So an ISP > customer in Paris might only pay for his ISP to operate the network inside > France (to exchange emails with other Frenchmen, entirely at the cost of the > French) plus an Interconnect to London, Amsterdam or Frakkfurt; rather than > "plus an Interconnect to New York". > > Unfortunately, the regulatory regime in some parts of the world made it > very difficult to establish new local interconnects, let alone international > ones. And to some extent the users in those areas are "paying" for that. > > There's also an economy of scale, and a need for bold investment, when it > comes to laying new International connectivity. > > So the answer to your question is "no, the user in Kenya isn't paying for > the emails in both directions, they are paying for their local connectivity > plus a share of the connectivity to an International hub. The user in the > USA is paying exactly the same. > -- > Roland Perry > > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 05:05:58 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:05:58 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1931120.stm On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > You probably have read this already but I invite you to read the article > below: > Esmat, B and Fernandez ,J. *International Internet Connections Costs* > > in Reforming Internet Governance (Perspectives > > from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)) > > Edited by William J Drake > > > This was raised as an issue in terms of discussions on internet > governance, see: > http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/APC_IGC_IIC_final.pdf > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message > @mail.gmail.com >, at 09:12:02 on Sun, >> 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > gmail.com > writes >> >> Question >>> >>> Why is it that when someone from Kenya emails someone from the US, the >>> ISP in Kenya pays? >>> >>> Why is that when someone from the US emails someone from Kenya, the ISP >>> in Kenya still pays >>> >> >> Firstly, it would the ISP customer who is paying (through their >> subscriptions). >> >> Secondly, we must examine what they are paying *for*. At the most basic >> level it's "a connection to the Internet". (And emails are sent and received >> over that connection). >> >> So what is "the Internet"? It's a set of interconnected networks. >> >> What the customer is therefore paying for is his ISP to operate the >> 'local' network *plus* establish and maintain the interconnects with other >> networks. >> >> For historical reasons, the early *international* interconnects were on >> the East and West coast of the USA. So an ISP customer in Chicago will be at >> the very least paying for his ISP to haul the traffic halfway across the >> USA. >> >> As time went on, and there was more traffic in places like Europe, ISPs >> built additional interconnects that were cheaper for them. So an ISP >> customer in Paris might only pay for his ISP to operate the network inside >> France (to exchange emails with other Frenchmen, entirely at the cost of the >> French) plus an Interconnect to London, Amsterdam or Frakkfurt; rather than >> "plus an Interconnect to New York". >> >> Unfortunately, the regulatory regime in some parts of the world made it >> very difficult to establish new local interconnects, let alone international >> ones. And to some extent the users in those areas are "paying" for that. >> >> There's also an economy of scale, and a need for bold investment, when it >> comes to laying new International connectivity. >> >> So the answer to your question is "no, the user in Kenya isn't paying for >> the emails in both directions, they are paying for their local connectivity >> plus a share of the connectivity to an International hub. The user in the >> USA is paying exactly the same. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Sala > > "Stillness in the midst of the noise". > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jul 17 05:50:27 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:50:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4Yr30fojBrIOFAl0@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 19:44:01 on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >You probably have read this already but I invite you to read the >article below: > Esmat, B and Fernandez ,J.  International Internet Connections Costs  > >in Reforming Internet Governance (Perspectives  >from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG))  http://www.wgig.org/docs/book/Baher_Esmat_and_Juan_Fern%C3%A1ndez%20.pdf I'm glad it agrees with me that it's the subscribers who pay (not the ISPs) but it goes on to talk about the completely broken analogy with telecoms half circuits. I'm very familiar with all of that, having paid something like half a million dollars a year to lease a line from UK to New York when I first set up an ISP in about 1995. I also sat on a subgroup which fed into the ITU's D.50 report. I won't further expand on this here, other than to say that the underlying issues were covered when I said "there's a need for bold investment, when it comes to laying new International connectivity". Half-circuits are a way of recovering the costs of having laid cables in the past, through a "pay as you use" strategy. People forget that using half-circuits to provide Internet connectivity is using the previous (telephony) technology to try to deliver the new (Internet) product. It's bound not to be an optimal way of doing it - you need to lay new connectivity and have a new paradigm. Meanwhile, I wish I could buy "half air fares" where the Kenyan organisers pay half my costs to fly from London to Nairobi! Roland. >On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 09:12:02 on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro writes > > >> Question > >> Why is it that when someone from Kenya emails someone from the >> US, the ISP in Kenya pays? > >> Why is that when someone from the US emails someone from Kenya, >> the ISP in Kenya still pays > > > Firstly, it would the ISP customer who is paying (through their > subscriptions). > > Secondly, we must examine what they are paying *for*. At the most > basic level it's "a connection to the Internet". (And emails are > sent and received over that connection). > > So what is "the Internet"? It's a set of interconnected networks. > > What the customer is therefore paying for is his ISP to operate the > 'local' network *plus* establish and maintain the interconnects with > other networks. > > For historical reasons, the early *international* interconnects were > on the East and West coast of the USA. So an ISP customer in Chicago > will be at the very least paying for his ISP to haul the traffic > halfway across the USA. > > As time went on, and there was more traffic in places like Europe, > ISPs built additional interconnects that were cheaper for them. So > an ISP customer in Paris might only pay for his ISP to operate the > network inside France (to exchange emails with other Frenchmen, > entirely at the cost of the French) plus an Interconnect to London, > Amsterdam or Frakkfurt; rather than "plus an Interconnect to New > York". > > Unfortunately, the regulatory regime in some parts of the world made > it very difficult to establish new local interconnects, let alone > international ones. And to some extent the users in those areas are > "paying" for that. > > There's also an economy of scale, and a need for bold investment, > when it comes to laying new International connectivity. > > So the answer to your question is "no, the user in Kenya isn't > paying for the emails in both directions, they are paying for their > local connectivity plus a share of the connectivity to an > International hub. The user in the USA is paying exactly the same. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > >-- >Sala >  >"Stillness in the midst of the noise". >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- 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 Jul 17 05:54:19 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:54:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 21:05:58 on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1931120.stm Yes, I know. The half-circuit fallacy has got plenty of air-time. Perhaps we can move on, and try to fit round pegs in round holes, rather than complaining it costs too much money to push square pegs into round holes? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 06:18:25 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:18:25 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: @ Roland: I would like to link the reason why I asked the questions back to the general thread: if the internet is "public" why is it that some get marginalised. I do not know much about Kenya except for the little I have read but I will say this, it is easy for you to say that people should stop whinging about high international internet costs. In the Pacific, where I come from, this is a huge issue. Take Vanuatu, a country in the South Pacific, I have friends who live there who pay around $50US for 186kbps a month and this is "crap speed" and they are forced to pay this even if they do not get good QoS or connectivity. Take Fiji where I come from, even though the Competition Authority has liberalised the international gateway, we are still witnessing high retail internet prices. For developing countries who already have limited resources, ICT is often not the priority. We have all kinds of challenges and the regulatory environment hinders the management of things like "access deficit". Our jurisdictions face things like having poor anti dumping laws. I don't think the paper agreed with you, it actually disagreed with your position. In principle, the point is that an ordinary user in a developing world (Kenya) had to be forced and probably is still being forced to carry someone else's cost. Where is the fairness/equity? Back to the internet as a "public" good - if it is how then can the governance forum address these issues. To you it may be a half a circuit fallacy but to the people in the developing world this is a harsh reality. Whilst studies done such as that by the World Bank show that ICT has revolutionised economic development in developing countries by showing that for every 10% increase in broadband penetration leads to 1.38% increase in GDP (World Bank Study 2009 by Wei and Rossotto), the reality is that there are challenges to increasing this broadband penetration. These issues need to be discussed. Whilst the ITU is a good Forum, you will recognise that its membership is restricted to governments and Telcos/ Vendors etc. However, the IGF is a good place to have these issues discussed and if you think that it has been overly discussed, please go to another session that interests you or ignore this thread and start another thread on another topic that interests you. Sala On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com>, > at 21:05:58 on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> > writes > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/**africa/1931120.stm >> > > Yes, I know. The half-circuit fallacy has got plenty of air-time. > > Perhaps we can move on, and try to fit round pegs in round holes, rather > than complaining it costs too much money to push square pegs into round > holes? > > -- > Roland Perry > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jul 17 07:08:02 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:08:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 22:18:25 on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >I would like to link the reason why I asked the questions back to the >general thread: if the internet is "public" why is it that some get >marginalised. Airlines are "public" transport (in the sense that anyone can use them. They are even publicly owned in some cases (less so in modern times I agree). None of this makes it the same price to fly inside Africa (which I understand is also an issue) as to fly inside Europe or the USA. > I do not know much about Kenya except for the little I have read but I >will say this, it is easy for you to say that people should stop >whinging about high international internet costs. People are entitles to complain, but I am also entitled to point out that there are good reasons for the difference in costs. It's not a conspiracy by the developed world, and indeed much of the developed world had the same costs as recently as a decade ago. Rather than sit waiting for someone to give you a free lunch, why not try to solve the problem by investing in connectivity, just like everyone else had to? >I don't think the paper agreed with you, it actually disagreed with >your position. It agreed with me that it's users (not ISPs) who pay. That's half the original proposition shot down in flames. Yes, we disagree from there onwards! >In principle, the point is that an ordinary user in a >developing world (Kenya) had to be forced and probably is still being >forced to carry someone else's cost. Where is the fairness/equity? They aren't being forced to pay *anyone* else's cost. The cost is the cost of connecting to the Internet. It's not my fault they currently live somewhere far from the Interconnections which *define* "The Internet", and that Americans live nearer. You might as well say it's someone's fault that a Kenyan has to pay a fortune in travelling expense to visit Disneyland, but a Florida resident doesn't. Answer: build your own Disneyland closer to home, rather than forcing an airline to cross the Atlantic for nothing. >Back to the internet as a "public" good - if it is how then can the >governance forum address these issues. To you it may be a half a >circuit fallacy but to the people in the developing world this is a >harsh reality. If you want to fix the problem (and there *is* a problem), then *please* express it using the correct parameters. You'll never make progress trying to cure the *wrong* disease, any more than you'll cure a brain tumour by taking aspirin for the headache (or passing a law that says everyone must have cheap aspirin available). Roland. >On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 21:05:58 on Sun, 17 Jul > 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1931120.stm > Yes, I know. The half-circuit fallacy has got plenty of air-time. > Perhaps we can move on, and try to fit round pegs in round holes, > rather than complaining it costs too much money to push square pegs > into round holes? > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >-- >Sala >  >"Stillness in the midst of the noise". >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- 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 soekpe at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 07:55:19 2011 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:55:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Thank you Roland. People feel fine once they get quality services. The discussion thread do not need leapfogging, but the way forward. Warm wishes, Sonigitu On 17 Jul 2011 12:09, "Roland Perry" wrote: In message >, at 22:18:25 on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> writes > I would like to link the reason why I asked the questions back to the > general thread: if the i... Airlines are "public" transport (in the sense that anyone can use them. They are even publicly owned in some cases (less so in modern times I agree). None of this makes it the same price to fly inside Africa (which I understand is also an issue) as to fly inside Europe or the USA. > I do not know much about Kenya except for the little I have read but I > will say this, it is e... People are entitles to complain, but I am also entitled to point out that there are good reasons for the difference in costs. It's not a conspiracy by the developed world, and indeed much of the developed world had the same costs as recently as a decade ago. Rather than sit waiting for someone to give you a free lunch, why not try to solve the problem by investing in connectivity, just like everyone else had to? > I don't think the paper agreed with you, it actually disagreed with > your position. It agreed with me that it's users (not ISPs) who pay. That's half the original proposition shot down in flames. Yes, we disagree from there onwards! > In principle, the point is that an ordinary user in a > developing world (Kenya) had to be force... They aren't being forced to pay *anyone* else's cost. The cost is the cost of connecting to the Internet. It's not my fault they currently live somewhere far from the Interconnections which *define* "The Internet", and that Americans live nearer. You might as well say it's someone's fault that a Kenyan has to pay a fortune in travelling expense to visit Disneyland, but a Florida resident doesn't. Answer: build your own Disneyland closer to home, rather than forcing an airline to cross the Atlantic for nothing. > Back to the internet as a "public" good - if it is how then can the > governance forum address t... If you want to fix the problem (and there *is* a problem), then *please* express it using the correct parameters. You'll never make progress trying to cure the *wrong* disease, any more than you'll cure a brain tumour by taking aspirin for the headache (or passing a law that says everyone must have cheap aspirin available). Roland. > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com >, at 21:05:58 on Sun, 17 > Jul > > > > 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro gmail.com> writes > > http://n... > -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this mes... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 17 08:29:30 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:29:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com>, > at 22:18:25 on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> > writes > > > I would like to link the reason why I asked the questions back to the >> general thread: if the internet is "public" why is it that some get >> marginalised. >> > > Airlines are "public" transport (in the sense that anyone can use them. > They are even publicly owned in some cases (less so in modern times I > agree). None of this makes it the same price to fly inside Africa (which I > understand is also an issue) as to fly inside Europe or the USA. > > > I do not know much about Kenya except for the little I have read but I >> will say this, it is easy for you to say that people should stop >> whinging about high international internet costs. >> > > People are entitles to complain, but I am also entitled to point out that > there are good reasons for the difference in costs. It's not a conspiracy by > the developed world, and indeed much of the developed world had the same > costs as recently as a decade ago. Rather than sit waiting for someone to > give you a free lunch, why not try to solve the problem by investing in > connectivity, just like everyone else had to? > > Who says we are sitting for someone to give us a free lunch? Believe it or not, we are trying to solve the problems and part of these is to deal with a discussion on the challenges. > > I don't think the paper agreed with you, it actually disagreed with >> your position. >> > > It agreed with me that it's users (not ISPs) who pay. That's half the > original proposition shot down in flames. Yes, we disagree from there > onwards! > > The ISPs are forced to carry the cost from whoever is providing backhaul > and this is passed to the end user. "Shot down in flames" is an exaggeration > that in this instance detracts from the issue of equity in costs bearing. > > > In principle, the point is that an ordinary user in a >> developing world (Kenya) had to be forced and probably is still being >> forced to carry someone else's cost. Where is the fairness/equity? >> > > They aren't being forced to pay *anyone* else's cost. The cost is the cost > of connecting to the Internet. It's not my fault they currently live > somewhere far from the Interconnections which *define* "The Internet", and > that Americans live nearer. > Who said it was your fault? > > You might as well say it's someone's fault that a Kenyan has to pay a > fortune in travelling expense to visit Disneyland, but a Florida resident > doesn't. Answer: build your own Disneyland closer to home, rather than > forcing an airline to cross the Atlantic for nothing. > > Why would they need a Disneyland when they have georgous terrain and > wildlife and canopy that you cannot artificially construct? Who would I need > Disneyland when I can travel 20 km from where I am and swim with the > dolphins. It is the height of arrogance to assume that we want to visit > Disneyland. > >> Back to the internet as a "public" good - if it is how then can the >> governance forum address these issues. To you it may be a half a >> circuit fallacy but to the people in the developing world this is a >> harsh reality. >> > > If you want to fix the problem (and there *is* a problem), then *please* > express it using the correct parameters. You'll never make progress trying > to cure the *wrong* disease, any more than you'll cure a brain tumour by > taking aspirin for the headache (or passing a law that says everyone must > have cheap aspirin available). > Roland. > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Roland Perry < >> roland at internetpolicyagency.**com > >> wrote: >> In message > *gmail.com >, at 21:05:58 on Sun, >> 17 Jul >> >> 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > gmail.com> writes >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/**africa/1931120.stm >> Yes, I know. The half-circuit fallacy has got plenty of air-time. >> Perhaps we can move on, and try to fit round pegs in round holes, >> rather than complaining it costs too much money to push square pegs >> into round holes? >> -- >> Roland Perry >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> >> -- >> Sala >> >> "Stillness in the midst of the noise". >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> >> > -- > Roland Perry > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 12:34:04 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:34:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 22:18:25 on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > writes > >> I would like to link the reason why I asked the questions back to the >> general thread: if the internet is "public" why is it that some get >> marginalised. > > Airlines are "public" transport (in the sense that anyone can use them. They > are even publicly owned in some cases (less so in modern times I agree). > None of this makes it the same price to fly inside Africa (which I > understand is also an issue) as to fly inside Europe or the USA. > >>  I do not know much about Kenya except for the little I have read but I >> will say this, it is easy for you to say that people should stop >> whinging about high international internet costs. > > People are entitles to complain, but I am also entitled to point out that > there are good reasons for the difference in costs. It's not a conspiracy by > the developed world, and indeed much of the developed world had the same > costs as recently as a decade ago. Rather than sit waiting for someone to > give you a free lunch, why not try to solve the problem by investing in > connectivity, just like everyone else had to? The "Halfway Proposition" by Richard Bell was written a decade ago and described a very different scenario than the one we have now in Africa. While it is true that in the past, ISPs (and ultimately their customers had to pay the full cost of the "circuit" (typically satellite connectivity) to their upstream, this is no longer the case. What we have now may be described as the "3/4 Propostion" instead of the "Halfway Proposition". Currently, ISPs in East Africa have multiple choice in terms of submarine capacity providers, but are still paying for the cost of building those cables via fairly high transit costs. However, there ARE now Tier 1 providers who will bring their transit service to the coast of Africa to meet African ISPs. The problem is that many ISPs have spent millions on submarine capacity already, so they have excess capacity and can't take advantage of these new Tier 1 offers. -- 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 Jul 17 17:29:04 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:29:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <++LW9DJgQ1IOFAmS@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 00:29:30 on Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >Who says we are sitting for someone to give us a free lunch? Promoting the "half circuit" model is in effect doing that. > Believe it or not, we are trying to solve the problems and part of > these is to deal with a discussion on the challenges. I'd strongly encourage that, and McTim seems to think that there has been some progress over the last few years. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 18:32:33 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:32:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <++LW9DJgQ1IOFAmS@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> <++LW9DJgQ1IOFAmS@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com>, > at 00:29:30 on Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> > writes > > > Who says we are sitting for someone to give us a free lunch? >> > > Promoting the "half circuit" model is in effect doing that. I disagree and think that you have some serious stereotyping issues. I don't know what you have against the developing world or what they did to you but as policy writers, we cannot afford to enter global debates and forums with preconceived stereotypes and biases that are presumptuous. > > > > Believe it or not, we are trying to solve the problems and part of > > these is to deal with a discussion on the challenges. > > I'd strongly encourage that, and McTim seems to think that there has been > some progress over the last few years. > -- > Roland Perry > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jul 17 23:00:47 2011 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 23:00:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB278B9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi Paul, Been enjoying the dialog. Am off on overdue holiday tomorrow so won;t belabor point now, but as to: Public = Open and Private = Closed Well things are more complicated than that in the Internet economy. There are lots of private but relatively open software development environments; and some movement from private to public/open source development - of some things previously closed. Sometimes even by the same company, but now they hope others will contribute freebie code to help to augment their next - product development effort. Which will be built on top of open/public and closed/private; and open/private too. Meaning, then, speaking of public policy, that an open Internet can;t be maintained or mandated by 'public' authority alone; since it requires and is constructed of - proprietary/private bits too. Some of which are then explicitly given away to the public. For example, we all use web standards, courtesy of W3C which we never talk about as a 'governance' issue. Even though it is a dues-paying private club. Which then gives away things under the GPL. Anyway, to tie this back to the discussion on interconnection models and costs, and 'public' and 'private' in that context: in my own view, ultimately the Internet is public because it is built upon open, public (non-proprietary) standards, courtesy of IETF. Beyond that elemental level, where private networks configured for IP traffic intersect - exactly there, the rules of the road are very much in play, and IGF certainly could in a hypothetical future be a primary forum for sorting those questions out. But, and here I agree with Roland, trying to revert to voice-(half-) circuit regulatory models for - packet data networks among various contracted parties - doesn't help much. And especially not for developing countries. Encouraging a couple data providers competing, in bringing bandwidth to and from - anywhere - usually works better, faster, at making more bandwidth available at lower cost. The elusive public (interest) in that environment is - where we are kind of stuck at the moment. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto [lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 5:05 PM To: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" On 7/16/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > This is interesting Paul. I am not taking sides but am throwing these > thoughts in for general discussion. > Consider the analogy of roads. highways and border controls mechanisms such > as Customs etc. Who determines the roads and highways that gets built? Who > pays for it? While private roads exist (no trespassing) public roads are most common. The rules of those roads are set by democratically elected legislatures. While legislatures on occasion (and because of budgetary constraints usually) call for toll roads, the requirement of a direct user fee collected in this way is disliked by large majorities of people. Part of the proof of the preference of most people for free access to what they experience as the commons is the preference of telephone users for a flat fee unlimited access telephone plan, even if large numbers of those people would be economically better off if they paid for each telephone usage, local or long distance. People want to have the freedom to go long distances or talk endlessly on the phone, even if chances are they will never do that, they want it anyway and will pay a premium for it if forced to do so, as with telephone flat fee plans. > There are all kinds of roads - public and private. Are tolls collected on > some roads? Why are they collected? Most of this is answered above. Tolls are nearly universal on those private roads that accept all comers, tolls are relatively rare but do exist on government operated public roads, but disliked and disfavored, and mostly instituted for budgetary reasons. > > Can anyone be allowed to drive through the roads or should there be some > sort of rules? Who decides the rules and why? There are always rules, even in the "freest" marketplace. These rules are the structures for freedom (don't dig up the grass in the park, travel at a safe speed on the road, etc.) Restrictions are lesser on private property in terms of what one may do (cut the trees, etc) but they are almost always greater in terms of who may participate (the "exclusive use" element of property law). Legislatures decide the rules of the commons as well as the rules that still remain applicable to purely "private" transactions. One cannot on private property spread nuclear radiation, or continually feed large fires. What nearly all humans seem to want is a "private" home of some modest minimum where they can retire and feel safe, and that implies the right to exclude unwanted others, and thus its private property or privacy that's sought. At the same time, nearly all humans, when they venture out into the world, want to maximize the commons - that which is (up front at least) free to all. I think it's mostly only when someone has found their way in this world, (and found their way into enough money to join enough private clubs, and pay for private schools and so forth that they can have the illusion of an upscale "commons" together with some similarly wealthy friends who are in the same schools and clubs) that they start to resent or oppose the commons they grew up in. People thinking themselves "self-made" and thinking they can now purchase their own "commons" start to resent paying taxes to support the commons that the general public mostly uses, because the wealthy have chosen to form an upscale substitute commons. These relatively few people come to believe (unlike the vast majority of the population that picks the flat rate telephone plan that usually subsidizes both their own freedom and everyone else's too, as well as the phone company's profits), that they can safely pay for everything they utilize on a direct user fee or toll basis, and therefore they don't want any of their money to indirectly benefit other people. But they are the minority. > > Are there aspects which are public and private? Are these justified? The more discriminatory in any way and the more money is charged, the more the activity is normatively "private" and the less it is public. Some forms of discrimination even private clubs can't engage in (by law), and some forms of exclusion are nevertheless practiced with varying degrees of legal and social acceptability by public governments. But the bottom line is that what is public is normatively Open, and what is private is normatively Closed. To the extent there are departures from these, they are either justified or there is an attempted justification based on necessity, or a grudging acceptance of "reality" (public parks CLOSED at night, or tolls charged on a few roads), or an outright controversy is caused, and perhaps a legal violation depending on the specifics. Despite lots of exceptions and cross-over, the baseline from which we argue or reason our way to exceptions is still Public = Open and Private = Closed, and most people want a private home and a public world to the maximum extent reasonably possible. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Jul 18 02:42:53 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:42:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E23D5ED.6060803@digsys.bg> On 16.07.11 23:18, Paul Lehto wrote: > The Washington Post takes as a truism this statement it published today: > > "The Internet is a powerful tool for innovation and expression because > it allows information and ideas to flow freely." This statement is very much correct and constitutes the primary problem current 'lawmaking' has with Internet. Laws are all about control and restriction and you cannot control something intrinsically 'free'. In order to control Internet, you need to remove the 'free for all' bit. > Information and ideas do not "flow freely" on anything that is plainly > and simply "private property." Can you prove this? > Even private property owned by a single individual can, by the choice > of the owner, be operated as a commons or like a commons. (An > individual can make a park on her own land and invite all to use it > for free.) It's nice if someone chooses to do this, but we can't rely > on the largesse of private individuals if we wish to keep a commons > going because they can change their mind at any time, and close the > gates of the park for any reason. This is what the current Internet is. A collection of many, many private places, made accessible to the public. We have relied on this for few decades already, how came we can no longer rely on this? Do you know something that none of us knows, that makes it impossible for the Internet to continue to operate as it always did? There are many places, where the land is private. The roads are private. Yet nobody will prohibit you from driving there, nor will they ask you for a fee or anything like that. In many places in the world, you can build your house on someone else's private land and in most cases that will not cost you anything (but the cost of constructing your house). In some of these places the government will come along and lay infrastructure for you, 'for free'. (well, considering you continue to be citizen of that country, obey laws, pay taxes and work for its prosperity etc) By the way, I first saw, ever, an "no trespassing, private property" sign in the US. > This doesn't mean that the Internet *could not* be made much more > private. Just recently, I've pointed to examples of just such a > development, where public law-making authority about the internet is > delegated to a private corporation. That law-making authority, was it before that "public property"? How does any property become "public"? Most likely, before being granted to the new 'private' entity, that power just belonged to a different private entity. An interesting though, if my word would be considered "law" in my family, does that mean, that the public needs to take over and decide what the "law" in my family will be? That will not fly in many cultures, to say it mildly. By the way, we seem to have different interpretation of the "public" and "private" terms. > And, the > more we tolerate or implement exclusion, or the more we give power to > forms of governance like corporations that, being property interests > themselves, have exclusion as part of their structural essence, the > more we kill the Internet as the open marketplace of friendship, > communication and commerce that is what most people think is the > greatest thing about it. > Can we stop equating "private" with "corporate" please? Nobody argues that large corporations are evil. But replacing large corporations with governments does not make things better or even different. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jul 18 07:43:58 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:43:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> <++LW9DJgQ1IOFAmS@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4vtHZef+xBJOFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 10:32:33 on Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >> Promoting the "half circuit" model is in effect doing that. > >I disagree and think that you have some serious stereotyping issues. I don't >know what you have against the developing world I have nothing against the developing world, indeed I spend an enormous amount of time trying to help the developing world. >or what they did to you but as policy writers, we cannot afford to >enter global debates and forums with preconceived stereotypes and >biases that are presumptuous. And one of the most damaging (to your chances of improving your connectivity) preconceptions is that the problems arise because of the "half circuit" issue. I'm trying to help you here. Look elsewhere for a solution; I've already talked about the need for local IXPs, for example. -- 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Jul 18 10:56:49 2011 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:56:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Policy briefs on the mobile internet In-Reply-To: <4vtHZef+xBJOFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> <++LW9DJgQ1IOFAmS@internetpolicyagency.com> <4vtHZef+xBJOFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4E2449B1.9020109@apc.org> Dear all Apologies for my general silence in recent weeks. Just too much other work. But here is something APC recently completed with help from some of the people on this list: a set of policy briefs on the mobile internet from a human rights perspective: http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/mobile-internet-human-rights-perspective-collected Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Jul 18 11:24:58 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:24:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB278B9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB278B9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 7/17/11, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi Paul, > Been enjoying the dialog. Am off on overdue holiday tomorrow so won;t > belabor point now, but as to: > "Public = Open and Private = Closed" > Well things are more complicated than that in the Internet economy. You could have saved yourself some trouble had you quoted even a portion of the rest of the sentence in which "Public = Open and Private = Closed" appears. Adding another clause or two shows that I was already admitting there are lots of exceptions (which you call "complicated"). I still maintain that whenever public departs from "open" and private departs from "closed" then the situation is, at least, unusual or laudatory (a private owner opens their land to the public freely), or starts to become controversial or a subject of discussion, and in the more extreme cases constitutes an actual or alleged violation of law (private owner sues in court arguing that administrative regulation of the environment constitutes a "taking" of his private land rights for public use, for which the landowner claims compensation). The fuller quotation is and was: "Despite lots of exceptions and cross-over, the baseline from which we argue or reason our way to exceptions is still Public = Open and Private = Closed,[...]" I stand by that statement after reading all the comments. And, if you think about it, given the way I admit of many exceptions, it would be difficult to show my statement to be outright wrong. > > Anyway, to tie this back to the discussion on interconnection models and > costs, and 'public' and 'private' in that context: in my own view, > ultimately the Internet is public because it is built upon open, public > (non-proprietary) standards, courtesy of IETF. And it is public for other additional reasons as well. Ultimately, the dualistic "public/private" dichotomy is not terribly useful because private is not purely private nor is public usually purely public, and this reality leads to lots of confusion. One can see people implying on this list that if something is private it's "off limits" to governmental law, which is just extremely false. Even the classic totally "private" contract between two privacy-loving individuals relies upon numerous bodies of publicly-passed laws or legislation. For the sake of clarity, everyone on this list should understand and apply a key distinction: (1) Government acting to create legal and infrastructural "frameworks for freedom" (such as contract law) that include protection against things like oppressive or unconscionable contracts, which protections should not be lumped into the same category of government intervention as censorship, VERSUS (2) the more odious category of governmental "regulation" that attempts to control the content of speech, or set forth legally privileged classes or legally discriminated-against classes. By broadly criticizing all laws or governmental action, such rhetoric (a) goes way too far and criticizes the legal frameworks of freedom (so to speak), and (b) implies that there is not any substantial legal control of internet users' freedom without government intervention, which is totally false given that corporate contracts (which are legally enforceable in court) control internet users' rights and experiences, and are often riddled with all of the speech suppression and other problems associated with governmental laws. The main difference is that Constitutions protect us against governmental action of this kind by giving us a cause of action for interfering with free speech, but with corporate action against free speech we do not have a cause of action under the Constitution because they are "private" parties. The bottom line is that if one wishes to preserve freedom on the internet, or create it, simply making sure that the government DOES pass the "frameworks of freedom" in terms of laws and also that the government DOES NOT do anything odious like censorship does not solve the problem at all. Government restraint from affirmative wrongs like censorship leaves the more powerful private parties free to set the law of the internet via contract and terms of service, and to be as oppressive or even more oppressive of speech and expression. (Most corporate employers feature, literally, zero freedom of speech, and there's little or nothing anyone can do about it). Therefore, real freedom on the internet requires government action in the nature of consumer protection and rights protection, all within the context of setting up the "frameworks of freedom" just as government does in structuring free markets, provided it also provides robust protections for the abuses of market actors against other persons. > trying to revert to voice-(half-) circuit > regulatory models for - packet data networks among various contracted > parties - doesn't help much. And especially not for developing countries. > Encouraging a couple data providers competing, in bringing bandwidth to and > from - anywhere - usually works better, faster, at making more bandwidth > available at lower cost. The elusive public (interest) in that environment > is - where we are kind of stuck at the moment. The comment was made earlier, and some offense taken, that seeking to equalize in some way the email costs of Africa and smaller countries generally is seeking a "handout" - and the idea was dismissed. The reply was that we are discussing policy here, and what policy ought to be. As such, I agree with the reply, and don't think the notion of equal costs or making them at least more equal is preposterous or anything like that. Let me give an example. Most countries, including the USA, have set up postal services for centuries, and by policy in the USA, a stamp to deliver a letter next door presently costs 44 cents, and a stamp to deliver a letter thousands of miles away to Alaska for example is also the same 44 cents. Service to very rural areas by the post office causes losses. BUT PUBLIC POLICY at the governmental level has resoundingly, and for over a century now, affirmed that the interest of tying the country together in communications exceeds the consideration of financial losses in serving rural areas that are high cost. By the same taken, a reasonable global governance system for the internet could easily provide, if it elected to, that the interest in connecting the globe as a whole was of sufficient weight that "postage" costs for email on the internet should be the same no matter whether the email is domestic or going to Kenya. Note that I am not necessarily saying that I'm moving this thread to defend such a proposal on the merits. But I am saying that it is reasonable to suggest that costs should be equal, as there is ample precedent with postal services, and reasonable policy makers have long concluded that the interest of tying everyone together on communication networks trumped the interest in making the more expensive connectees pay their own way for their relatively higher cost. It's OK to marshal reasons in opposition to such an equal cost model, but I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss it out of hand as a "hand out" and nothing more. Even if Roland and Lee are correct, and perhaps they are, such proposals for equalizing costs are worthy of discussion. Please note that in a private or privatized internet, such goals of tying everyone together at approximately equal cost are impossible for corporate business models to deal with. Competition may lower prices (eventually) but competition will never create a e-postal service that serves everyone equally. That requires government. (Or, an extremely rare philanthropic visionary running a monopolistic corporation world-wide, which is unlikely to say the least, and subject to change upon that death of that visionary) Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Jul 18 11:47:04 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:47:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB278B9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E245578.6080103@digsys.bg> On 18.07.11 18:24, Paul Lehto wrote: > > The main difference is that > Constitutions protect us against governmental action of this kind by > giving us a cause of action for interfering with free speech, but with > corporate action against free speech we do not have a cause of action > under the Constitution because they are "private" parties. Different countries have different constitutions. Internet is global and is the same for everyone. Which constitution should everyone on Earth adopt? > > Most countries, including the USA, have set up postal services for > centuries, and by policy in the USA, a stamp to deliver a letter next > door presently costs 44 cents, and a stamp to deliver a letter > thousands of miles away to Alaska for example is also the same 44 > cents. Service to very rural areas by the post office causes losses. > BUT PUBLIC POLICY at the governmental level has resoundingly, and for > over a century now, affirmed that the interest of tying the country > together in communications exceeds the consideration of financial > losses in serving rural areas that are high cost. Setting up prices is considered regulation in many countries. 44 cents may be reasonable price in he US, but it may be too high in Kenya, or may be too small in say Norway. Because of this, long ago postal companies have agreed on international 'mail coupons' that have different "price" in different countries, but the same "value": this coupon guarantees the delivery of one air mail letter. > By the same taken, a reasonable global governance system for the > internet could easily provide, if it elected to, that the interest in > connecting the globe as a whole was of sufficient weight that > "postage" costs for email on the internet should be the same no matter > whether the email is domestic or going to Kenya. You suggest global regulation of Internet access costs across Earth? With all countries agreeing on the one true price? > Competition > may lower prices (eventually) but competition will never create a > e-postal service that serves everyone equally. It has. It's called the Internet. Used by billions of people worldwide for decades. > That requires government. Which one? > (Or, an extremely rare philanthropic visionary running a > monopolistic corporation world-wide, which is unlikely to say the > least, and subject to change upon that death of that visionary) > Or a few million individuals, and growing, as it happened to be with the today's Internet. Many have already passed away, new were born for the lifespan of the Internet and more are on the way. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Jul 18 14:53:55 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:53:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <4E245578.6080103@digsys.bg> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035FB278B9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4E245578.6080103@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On 7/18/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 18.07.11 18:24, Paul Lehto wrote: >> >> The main difference is that >> Constitutions protect us against governmental action of this kind by >> giving us a cause of action for interfering with free speech, but with >> corporate action against free speech we do not have a cause of action >> under the Constitution because they are "private" parties. > > Different countries have different constitutions. Internet is global and > is the same for everyone. > > Which constitution should everyone on Earth adopt? Daniel Kalchev asks a series of questions like the one above, for which no answer is presently agreed to, and few or none of the potential answers are easy or problem-free. In part for that reason, it's hard to say via email whether the questions are sincere or sarcastic: Obviously, we are here to talk about internet governance globally, and the need therefore, and it seems we all recognize that there is little or no global internet governance in a democratic sense of "governance". But if "governance" is considered broader than "govern-ment" then we definitely do have non-democratic entities exercising governance: mostly corporations. It doesn't seem a single one of them is interested in the collective input of the various experts on our list here, but if they are many of us would love to hear of that. A global corporate governance exists in one format with ICANN, and in another form exists or comes to exist to the extent one or more corporations owning key internet assets agree (or only one "agrees" if that one has an effective monopoly) in which case we have a form of "governance" in practice, via private governors. Governments globally may or may not be able to get it together in terms of a reasonable global framework for internet freedom, especially against the ideological opposition that faces combined with the business-interest opposition. But that does not mean that we don't have internet governance, it's just mainly corporate governance. And for them, public policy is irrelevant except to the extent it happens to harmonize with corporate interests, and except to the extent that mandatory laws force the corporations to do other than they wish. But for those two things, corporations are obliged by law to be single track minds for profit. In fact, if they forgo profit in favor of public service they can be sued by their own shareholders in a derivative lawsuit for 'wasting' corporate assets. So we are unlikely to see any "public policy" that's friendly to the public - except by coincidence, such as when business interests just happen to align with public interests. > > Setting up prices is considered regulation in many countries. Not when the government directly runs a monopoly such as the US Postal Service. Then setting up prices is a business decision by the legislature or administrative agencies, but one made with public policy in mind, as required. >> By the same taken, a reasonable global governance system for the >> internet could easily provide, if it elected to, that the interest in >> connecting the globe as a whole was of sufficient weight that >> "postage" costs for email on the internet should be the same no matter >> whether the email is domestic or going to Kenya. > > You suggest global regulation of Internet access costs across Earth? > With all countries agreeing on the one true price? I'm not sure if you are a native English speaker, but I am suggesting that reasonable people could well support a global "one price" initiative, because once one's "home country" for INTERNET PURPOSES is considered to be the globe, then just as postal services provide the same price domestically within their country, the "country" for internet purposes is now the globe, and there would naturally be a desire (among some at least) to do the same thing for the globe that domestic postal services do for their home countries. >> Competition >> may lower prices (eventually) but competition will never create a >> e-postal service that serves everyone equally. > > It has. It's called the Internet. Used by billions of people worldwide > for decades. I'm afraid you're not understanding, or else inappropriately sarcastic. The Internet (think: "Digital Divide") does not presently serve everyone on the globe that would like access. Furthermore, even more importantly, it does not do so even among those it currently serves at equal prices or approximately equal prices, which is the specific subject being discussed here. >> That requires government. > > Which one? A form of international law, probably ratified by governments via a treaty process, or developed via court and similar processes by applying existing human rights laws in the relatively new context. >> (Or, an extremely rare philanthropic visionary running a >> monopolistic corporation world-wide, which is unlikely to say the >> least, and subject to change upon that death of that visionary) >> > Or a few million individuals, and growing, as it happened to be with the > today's Internet. Many have already passed away, new were born for the > lifespan of the Internet and more are on the way. If you believe that a few million people, simply by virtue of participating in a process such as using the internet, somehow guarantees the perpetuation of conditions of freedom of expression, you have forgotten too much history. The periods of freedom in history are relatively brief, and they don't happen accidentally. Basically an entity called government or the state is created and tasked with creating the infrastructure, legally and otherwise, for free expression and commerce, and then (most importantly) that government is then tied down and obliged to serve the people, both by duty and by the right of removal held by voters. I hope no one confuses the actions of business interests that just happen to satisfy some human needs (but only because they're profit interests overlap with that satisfaction) with the much broader human needs in general. Human flowering and expression involves acts of "faith" -- faith in free expression means allowing dissent that one violently disagrees with. Without dissent, there is no evidence of freedom's existence. Corporations will never tolerate those who would oppose the corporation (except if this opposition happens to be in the long term profitability interest of the corporation). Corporations will never have faith in the freedom of dissent -- in any robust way. Sure, they encourage "creative" "out of the box" thinking that ultimately increases the profitability of the company -- but never thinking like "this corporation should not do business at all" and the like. Finally, the point of the postal service discussion was only to put some other posters here on a plane of equality -- to say that even if many may oppose a policy of equally priced internet access as something to shoot for, it is not a crazy goal, even if the price of affording internet access to some areas of the world is much higher than others, because this is what postal services around the world do. Because I agree the internet IS kind of like the e-postal service, that is exactly why it is not unreasonable to pursue such a equality of price policy for emails as a future aspirational goal. The fact that economics argues against it is at best only marginally relevant, because economics argues against rural postal services worldwide, yet they've seen fit to offer equal pricing within their jurisdictions for centuries. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jul 18 15:02:37 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:02:37 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <4vtHZef+xBJOFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> <++LW9DJgQ1IOFAmS@internetpolicyagency.com> <4vtHZef+xBJOFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: For your information, I have been working on pushing for the building local IXP but that in itself is not the solution. There are numerous other challenges. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com>, > at 10:32:33 on Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> > writes > > > Promoting the "half circuit" model is in effect doing that. >>> >> >> I disagree and think that you have some serious stereotyping issues. I >> don't >> know what you have against the developing world >> > > I have nothing against the developing world, indeed I spend an enormous > amount of time trying to help the developing world. > > > or what they did to you but as policy writers, we cannot afford to enter >> global debates and forums with preconceived stereotypes and biases that are >> presumptuous. >> > > And one of the most damaging (to your chances of improving your > connectivity) preconceptions is that the problems arise because of the "half > circuit" issue. > > I'm trying to help you here. Look elsewhere for a solution; I've already > talked about the need for local IXPs, for example. > > -- > Roland Perry > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Jul 18 15:16:24 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:16:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> Hey folks ! Are we on Fox News or in News of the World, or on a  Civil Society mailing list, exchanging opinions based on arguments -for or against- and on a minimum of respect and tolerance. Salanieta is perfectly right when she reminds us the "robbery" African Internet users have been victims for years (and still are at a great  extent). Because of its sseriousness, this topic deserves more consideration than just a brooadside. Let's hope that another rich debate (like this thread has proven to be, with a few occasional exceptions) will take place in a near future on the "bill" (not only financial but also sociological) Africans pay their access to information and communication through Internet and ICT in general, and the actual links to, and impact with, their future and the development of their country. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack  > Message du 17/07/11 11:56 > De : "Roland Perry" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" > > In message > , at > 21:05:58 on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > writes > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1931120.stm > > Yes, I know. The half-circuit fallacy has got plenty of air-time. > > Perhaps we can move on, and try to fit round pegs in round holes, rather > than complaining it costs too much money to push square pegs into round > holes? > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jul 19 05:35:43 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:35:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> <++LW9DJgQ1IOFAmS@internetpolicyagency.com> <4vtHZef+xBJOFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 05:02:37 on Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >For your information, I have been working on pushing for the building >local IXP That's a very good place to start. >but that in itself is not the solution. It's part of the solution. Half-circuits aren't. >There are numerous other challenges Sure. But bringing "The Internet" closer to your shores is a big step in reducing the cost of connecting to 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jul 19 05:40:12 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:40:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> References: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> Message-ID: In message <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www at wwinf1e36>, at 21:16:24 on Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Jean-Louis FULLSACK writes >Salanieta is perfectly right when she reminds us the "robbery" African >Internet users have been victims for years You need to look carefully at why that's the case. Some of it is purely caused by physical distance. That's an argument for a global "universal Service obligation", as exists inside many highly-regulated developed countries. The way you implement that is by taxing those users whose connectivity is easy to provide, and use the money to subsidise the hard-to-connect. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 05:56:05 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:56:05 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> Message-ID: @ Roland The problem arises when we try to raise the issues that developing countries face, we get shot down and accused of wanting a free lunch. I work for a Telco in Fiji and know that even with implementing IXPs, there will still be high transit costs as globally we still do not have a level playing field. The Pacific Islands Telecommunications Association (PITA) is lobbying through APT to take up some of these issues in the international fora. For now, we are still seeing a David and Goliath situation. As for USOs, there are other challenges in implementation as there are numerous other factors arising from various complex variables. If you take the time to try to keep an open mind and listen to some of the issues being raised. Do not assume that the challenges that your country faced when it was developing is the same as ours. A global governance listing must and ought to be one which allows room for everyone to be heard. *AND WE* will be heard. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <31715753.59186.1311016584996.**JavaMail.www at wwinf1e36>, at > 21:16:24 on Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Jean-Louis FULLSACK > writes > > Salanieta is perfectly right when she reminds us the "robbery" African >> Internet users have been victims for years >> > > You need to look carefully at why that's the case. Some of it is purely > caused by physical distance. That's an argument for a global "universal > Service obligation", as exists inside many highly-regulated developed > countries. The way you implement that is by taxing those users whose > connectivity is easy to provide, and use the money to subsidise the > hard-to-connect. > > -- > Roland Perry > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Jul 19 05:57:44 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:57:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> <++LW9DJgQ1IOFAmS@internetpolicyagency.com> <4vtHZef+xBJOFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4E255518.9040301@digsys.bg> On 18.07.11 22:02, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > For your information, I have been working on pushing for the building > local IXP but that in itself is not the solution. There are numerous > other challenges. > While not the immediate solution, building one or more local exchange points greatly improves the chances for a more level playing field. In Bulgaria, we have been victims to the same "unfair" situation, with all sorts of opportunists coming and selling international bandwidth to the country, at outrageous prices. And this has continued for many, many years. But then, eventually local players began to understand (something we have been trying to tell them for many years), that the Internet is not "a connection to somewhere out there", but rather, everywhere and that an ISP is not merely buying and selling Internet connectivity as it was perceived in the past - they are "producing" the Internet. Initial IXP attempts, supported by the monopoly telecom failed, but this did not prevent many private interconnects to exist. Thanks to few commercial initiatives, we now have several IXPs. Because they are commercial, they compete with each other. This has in practice freed the competing ISPs, lowered their costs tremendously and provided cheap connectivity to end users. The key to freedom was competition and lack of any regulation. Eventually, those international players came, invested in their own connections to the IXPs and now beg the local ISPs to sell them connectivity to the outside world at orders of magnitude lower prices. At the moment we enjoy much faster broadband Internet and much lower prices than is available anywhere in Europe. This is not to say, that local IXPs are the solution, but they do help a great deal. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 06:07:41 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:07:41 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <4E255518.9040301@digsys.bg> References: <+JHmwowSKsIOFA1d@internetpolicyagency.com> <++LW9DJgQ1IOFAmS@internetpolicyagency.com> <4vtHZef+xBJOFAO5@internetpolicyagency.com> <4E255518.9040301@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Yes there are some great people on the ground who have offered to help from PCH and others, now it's only a matter of getting the buy in. I will contact you offlist Daniel and it would be great to learn from the Bulgarian experience. It was also great to learn from Phillip Smith who helped set up the first IXP in London and so he has been really helpful in giving us the lowdown on models around the world. I also met some of the Indonesian ISP Association Reps at the Asia Pacific Regional IGF and it was interesting to hear of the models etc. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 18.07.11 22:02, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> For your information, I have been working on pushing for the building >> local IXP but that in itself is not the solution. There are numerous other >> challenges. >> >> While not the immediate solution, building one or more local exchange > points greatly improves the chances for a more level playing field. > > In Bulgaria, we have been victims to the same "unfair" situation, with all > sorts of opportunists coming and selling international bandwidth to the > country, at outrageous prices. And this has continued for many, many years. > > But then, eventually local players began to understand (something we have > been trying to tell them for many years), that the Internet is not "a > connection to somewhere out there", but rather, everywhere and that an ISP > is not merely buying and selling Internet connectivity as it was perceived > in the past - they are "producing" the Internet. > > Initial IXP attempts, supported by the monopoly telecom failed, but this > did not prevent many private interconnects to exist. Thanks to few > commercial initiatives, we now have several IXPs. Because they are > commercial, they compete with each other. This has in practice freed the > competing ISPs, lowered their costs tremendously and provided cheap > connectivity to end users. The key to freedom was competition and lack of > any regulation. > > Eventually, those international players came, invested in their own > connections to the IXPs and now beg the local ISPs to sell them connectivity > to the outside world at orders of magnitude lower prices. > > At the moment we enjoy much faster broadband Internet and much lower prices > than is available anywhere in Europe. > > This is not to say, that local IXPs are the solution, but they do help a > great deal. > > Daniel > > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jul 19 06:35:44 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:35:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> Message-ID: In message , at 19:56:05 on Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >The problem arises when we try to raise the issues that developing >countries face, we get shot down and accused of wanting a free lunch. There's a misunderstanding here. It's the people demanding a "half circuit" model who want the free lunch. >I work for a Telco in Fiji and know that even with implementing IXPs, >there will still be high transit costs as globally we still do not have >a level playing field. My question would be: why should there be a level playing field? (I'm being a devils advocate here). There's not a level playing field globally for health-care or air transport. Once you have a hospital, or an airline (or Internet connectivity) then by all means be very vigilant not to discriminate between one user and another. In my country I can get a free bus to a free hospital. Will you pay my airfare to come and be treated free of charge in one of your hospitals? No, I wouldn't expect that. Even if (and this is important) you were a developed country. There's a danger that the Internet is over-globalised in people's minds. Just because we can all send emails to one another on a level playing field, doesn't mean every aspect of it can be levelled as easily. I get a feeling that you don't think I'm on your side. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only reason I've entered this small debate here is to try to assist in the understanding of what's a realistic route to improving the situation that you and others like you are experiencing. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 06:41:36 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:41:36 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> Message-ID: At least now, we can have a civil discussion. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message @mail.gmail.com >, at > 19:56:05 on Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> > writes > > > The problem arises when we try to raise the issues that developing >> countries face, we get shot down and accused of wanting a free lunch. >> > > There's a misunderstanding here. It's the people demanding a "half circuit" > model who want the free lunch. > > > I work for a Telco in Fiji and know that even with implementing IXPs, >> there will still be high transit costs as globally we still do not have a >> level playing field. >> > > My question would be: why should there be a level playing field? (I'm being > a devils advocate here). > > There's not a level playing field globally for health-care or air > transport. Once you have a hospital, or an airline (or Internet > connectivity) then by all means be very vigilant not to discriminate between > one user and another. > > In my country I can get a free bus to a free hospital. Will you pay my > airfare to come and be treated free of charge in one of your hospitals? > > No, I wouldn't expect that. Even if (and this is important) you were a > developed country. > > There's a danger that the Internet is over-globalised in people's minds. > Just because we can all send emails to one another on a level playing field, > doesn't mean every aspect of it can be levelled as easily. > > I get a feeling that you don't think I'm on your side. Nothing could be > further from the truth. The only reason I've entered this small debate here > is to try to assist in the understanding of what's a realistic route to > improving the situation that you and others like you are experiencing. > -- > Roland Perry > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jul 19 07:27:38 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:27:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> Message-ID: <5y4XO$2qoWJOFAfq@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 20:41:36 on Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >At least now, we can have a civil discussion [offlist] I'm sorry if my brevity over some issues has appeared to be un-civil. It was unintentional. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 16:42:34 2011 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:42:34 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> Message-ID: Dear All, >From the development point of view, the question is what can we do? and what are the best ways? to improve interconnection costs at the local, national, regional and international levels. In this case, it is convenient to follow the levels in the suggested order: First actions at the local, then national, etc. We need to overcome the barriers to cheaper interconnection costs. One way of doing so, is promoting IXP at the local, national and regional levels. The order is also important to have more meaningful discussions at the next level. Here, I am also very interested in the experience in Bulgaria. How ISPs finally understood the convenience of IXPs ? Could Daniel help us in finding out more information about it? Another usual missing part of the equation is the promotion of content. Infrastructure and content need to evolve hand in hand. Any good experiences from anybody to share on this? Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message @mail.gmail.com >, at > 19:56:05 on Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> > writes > > > The problem arises when we try to raise the issues that developing >> countries face, we get shot down and accused of wanting a free lunch. >> > > There's a misunderstanding here. It's the people demanding a "half circuit" > model who want the free lunch. > > > I work for a Telco in Fiji and know that even with implementing IXPs, >> there will still be high transit costs as globally we still do not have a >> level playing field. >> > > My question would be: why should there be a level playing field? (I'm being > a devils advocate here). > > There's not a level playing field globally for health-care or air > transport. Once you have a hospital, or an airline (or Internet > connectivity) then by all means be very vigilant not to discriminate between > one user and another. > > In my country I can get a free bus to a free hospital. Will you pay my > airfare to come and be treated free of charge in one of your hospitals? > > No, I wouldn't expect that. Even if (and this is important) you were a > developed country. > > There's a danger that the Internet is over-globalised in people's minds. > Just because we can all send emails to one another on a level playing field, > doesn't mean every aspect of it can be levelled as easily. > > I get a feeling that you don't think I'm on your side. Nothing could be > further from the truth. The only reason I've entered this small debate here > is to try to assist in the understanding of what's a realistic route to > improving the situation that you and others like you are experiencing. > > -- > 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 daniel at digsys.bg Wed Jul 20 02:18:45 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:18:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: References: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> Message-ID: <4E267345.1030600@digsys.bg> Please note what follows may be too old for many and sometimes with more detail. I also try to not draw much conclusions at this time. On 19.07.11 23:42, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > In this case, it is convenient to follow the levels in the suggested > order: First actions at the local, then national, etc. We need to > overcome the barriers to cheaper interconnection costs. One way of > doing so, is promoting IXP at the local, national and regional levels. > The order is also important to have more meaningful discussions at the > next level. > > Here, I am also very interested in the experience in Bulgaria. How > ISPs finally understood the convenience of IXPs ? Could Daniel help us > in finding out more information about it? > > Another usual missing part of the equation is the promotion of > content. Infrastructure and content need to evolve hand in hand. Any > good experiences from anybody to share on this? > In the Bulgarian case, the development was driven primarily by "private" demands, that is, costs and user demand. Of course, local content played significant role in this development. In the beginning, Internet connectivity to Bulgaria was very expensive, due to relying on the monopoly telecom pricing. Connectivity within the country was not less expensive, for the same reasons, although the telecom possessed and operated modern infrastructure. But they were not letting anyone "buy" it -- you had to wait several months, sometimes years in order to get a line from A to B, while it was strikingly apparent that infrastructure and capacity is available. I remember two such cases, that are indicative: For a while, we have been using analog circuit for international connectivity. So far so good -- TCP/IP Internet was available! But, it was slow and unreliable (in today's perception even more so), so we wanted to go digital. Digital circuits were available, although very expensive and ... the telecom refused to provide the circuit for whatever reason. We eventually succeeded and it was only possible, because it turned out the PTT wanted to provide digital capacity first to their own X.25 network, then to "the competition" --- was it our fault that their network could not make use of this connectivity faster? I havent' looked in archives, but from memory 64kbit line to anywhere would cost like 6000+ SDR a month. Another case was for national connectivity, same telecom. We wanted to connect a major city and were looking for a location to put our equipment (not much at that time). After discussing with the local PTT branch we were offered to collocate our equipment in their "new all digital switch room", a place where the optical rings across the country interconnect. To my surprise, everything was connected and passing dummy traffic there -- but no real users! We were excited and immediately ordered digital circuits from that city to few others. At a price like 4000-5000 SDR for 2 Mbit for 100+ km distance.. Outrageous price, even if international connectivity was more expensive. We got no response... Two years later, the manager at the local PTT responsible for the digital infrastructure eventually got Green Card from the US lottery and left the country --- ironically, we got "permission" for the first circuit few days latter... During that two years, we were forced to use multiple analog circuits and to whatever tricks to have some connectivity to that large city.. Since then however, things developed in a different way. It was obvious that the state owned and regulated telecom would do whatever it take to stop this "Internet thing" from developing. However more difficult it seemed, we were forced to go forward and build our own networks, all over the country. The in-city networks were easier/cheaper to build and the initial inter-city links were all wireless, not so fast and reliable but way, way cheaper and instantly available --- going even to the smallest village, that didn't have phone coverage. Then, as traffic needs became more significant, few optical networks were laid across the country. Some even went that far to lay optical fiber cross-border, thus providing massive capacity opportunities internationally. The telecom, which was later privatized was practically forgotten and now they are insignificant player, although they still continue to have the most extensive infrastructure available (form the times the state invested in laying cables all over the country). For some time, the phenomenon of "Local city networks" emerged in Bulgaria. These were networks with relatively poor Internet connectivity, but offering LAN speeds (10-100 Mbit) to local content. This built local Internet communities and demand and also local interconnects. Eventually with inter-city and international connectivity becoming cheaper, these networks got better Internet connectivity to non-local content and regional/national interconnects. Some of these networks also became larger ISPs offering wider selection of services. As to IXPs development. In the beginning there were some attempts to organize the IXPs by few ISP organizations. But this never worked. At that time, private interconnects were the rule and indeed, few of the ISPs were offering "free lunch" to their peers, that is, transit to other national networks. There were few "official" IXPs but because they were hosted by one or more ISPs other didn't find this neutral enough and were reluctant to join. We tried to also organize IXPs based on Academia grounds, as an neutral place to interconnect, but this too, newer worked. There was the telecom initiative to provide city-wide and nation-wide MAN networks, but they never got the price/attitude right and although these services were used for interconnects by many, and are still used -- this initiative was never competitive enough. The first successful "real" IXP was purely private and focused effort -- to fill the need. A privately owned enterprise, especially founded for the purpose and focused exclusively on providing IXP services. So far has exceeded expectations. Of course, private interconnects between ISPs still do exist and grow. But the IXPs have permitted smaller players to have access to the same Internet connectivity/capacity as did larger. Besides IXPs, what helped development and driving costs down was the creation of few data centers. The first data centers were rather primitive by today's standards but provided cheap means for data providers to host their infrastructure without inuring enormous costs for connectivity. What is common in all these success stories: 100% private initiatives and 100% lack of regulation. If, say 20 years ago, the government has chosen to other the monopoly state owned telecom to at least provide connectivity without delays, we could have achieved this much, much faster. But apparently, at that, already democratic times those in the Government who were "governing" IT and telecom development didn't see any value to developing Internet and so, their "governance" was in effect trying to prevent it from happening. Not so, with the private people. It is important to understand, that by "private" I do not mean corporate, by any way! Most of the ISPs in Bulgaria started very, very small. Sometimes I guess even as family business. Those people all invested their efforts for the Internet to happen. Even if some of them dreamed of "control" and were greedy (I have many examples, observed over the years), they soon realized, that they can achieve this on/via Internet as much, as they can achieve it in their normal human society.. and if they were unsuccessful in the human society, they would fail the same way in Internet. Years ago, there was a great debate in Bulgaria, whether Internet should be subject to regulation. There were intentions to require ISPs to obtain licenses etc. Ironically, to my knowledge, that regulation was invented by some of the existing ISPs, that didn't really understand how Internet work and dreamed of having absolute monopoly (or oligopoly, rather). Many claim to have direct influence on the outcome, but my position is that the outcome was community effort -- at the end the Government backed out of regulation. I believe they are now happy with that decision and the further Internet development has happened without any effort on Government's part. Current raw connectivity costs in Bulgaria are well below 1 euro per megabit for both inter-city and international connectivity. Connectivity costs have reached the level at which users are not really paying for connectivity, but more for service and support. This has become longer than expected, but let's home some find it useful. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 20 04:11:28 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:11:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <4E267345.1030600@digsys.bg> References: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> <4E267345.1030600@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4E267345.1030600 at digsys.bg>, at 09:18:45 on Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Daniel Kalchev writes >Besides IXPs, what helped development and driving costs down was the >creation of few data centers. The first data centers were rather >primitive by today's standards but provided cheap means for data >providers to host their infrastructure without inuring enormous costs >for connectivity. This is very important. Of course, the ideal combination is an IXP inside a carrier-neutral data centre (or co-location facility). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 06:50:17 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:50:17 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private" In-Reply-To: <4E267345.1030600@digsys.bg> References: <31715753.59186.1311016584996.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e36> <4E267345.1030600@digsys.bg> Message-ID: This is excellent recount of history Daniel and it is certainly useful. Sala On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Please note what follows may be too old for many and sometimes with more > detail. I also try to not draw much conclusions at this time. > > > On 19.07.11 23:42, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > >> In this case, it is convenient to follow the levels in the suggested >> order: First actions at the local, then national, etc. We need to overcome >> the barriers to cheaper interconnection costs. One way of doing so, is >> promoting IXP at the local, national and regional levels. The order is also >> important to have more meaningful discussions at the next level. >> >> Here, I am also very interested in the experience in Bulgaria. How ISPs >> finally understood the convenience of IXPs ? Could Daniel help us in finding >> out more information about it? >> >> Another usual missing part of the equation is the promotion of content. >> Infrastructure and content need to evolve hand in hand. Any good experiences >> from anybody to share on this? >> >> In the Bulgarian case, the development was driven primarily by "private" > demands, that is, costs and user demand. > Of course, local content played significant role in this development. > > In the beginning, Internet connectivity to Bulgaria was very expensive, due > to relying on the monopoly telecom pricing. Connectivity within the country > was not less expensive, for the same reasons, although the telecom possessed > and operated modern infrastructure. But they were not letting anyone "buy" > it -- you had to wait several months, sometimes years in order to get a line > from A to B, while it was strikingly apparent that infrastructure and > capacity is available. > > I remember two such cases, that are indicative: > > For a while, we have been using analog circuit for international > connectivity. So far so good -- TCP/IP Internet was available! But, it was > slow and unreliable (in today's perception even more so), so we wanted to go > digital. Digital circuits were available, although very expensive and ... > the telecom refused to provide the circuit for whatever reason. We > eventually succeeded and it was only possible, because it turned out the PTT > wanted to provide digital capacity first to their own X.25 network, then to > "the competition" --- was it our fault that their network could not make use > of this connectivity faster? I havent' looked in archives, but from memory > 64kbit line to anywhere would cost like 6000+ SDR a month. > > Another case was for national connectivity, same telecom. We wanted to > connect a major city and were looking for a location to put our equipment > (not much at that time). After discussing with the local PTT branch we were > offered to collocate our equipment in their "new all digital switch room", a > place where the optical rings across the country interconnect. To my > surprise, everything was connected and passing dummy traffic there -- but no > real users! We were excited and immediately ordered digital circuits from > that city to few others. At a price like 4000-5000 SDR for 2 Mbit for 100+ > km distance.. Outrageous price, even if international connectivity was more > expensive. We got no response... Two years later, the manager at the local > PTT responsible for the digital infrastructure eventually got Green Card > from the US lottery and left the country --- ironically, we got "permission" > for the first circuit few days latter... During that two years, we were > forced to use multiple analog circuits and to whatever tricks to have some > connectivity to that large city.. > > Since then however, things developed in a different way. It was obvious > that the state owned and regulated telecom would do whatever it take to stop > this "Internet thing" from developing. However more difficult it seemed, we > were forced to go forward and build our own networks, all over the country. > The in-city networks were easier/cheaper to build and the initial inter-city > links were all wireless, not so fast and reliable but way, way cheaper and > instantly available --- going even to the smallest village, that didn't have > phone coverage. Then, as traffic needs became more significant, few optical > networks were laid across the country. Some even went that far to lay > optical fiber cross-border, thus providing massive capacity opportunities > internationally. The telecom, which was later privatized was practically > forgotten and now they are insignificant player, although they still > continue to have the most extensive infrastructure available (form the times > the state invested in laying cables all over the country). > > For some time, the phenomenon of "Local city networks" emerged in Bulgaria. > These were networks with relatively poor Internet connectivity, but offering > LAN speeds (10-100 Mbit) to local content. This built local Internet > communities and demand and also local interconnects. Eventually with > inter-city and international connectivity becoming cheaper, these networks > got better Internet connectivity to non-local content and regional/national > interconnects. Some of these networks also became larger ISPs offering wider > selection of services. > > As to IXPs development. In the beginning there were some attempts to > organize the IXPs by few ISP organizations. But this never worked. At that > time, private interconnects were the rule and indeed, few of the ISPs were > offering "free lunch" to their peers, that is, transit to other national > networks. There were few "official" IXPs but because they were hosted by one > or more ISPs other didn't find this neutral enough and were reluctant to > join. We tried to also organize IXPs based on Academia grounds, as an > neutral place to interconnect, but this too, newer worked. > > There was the telecom initiative to provide city-wide and nation-wide MAN > networks, but they never got the price/attitude right and although these > services were used for interconnects by many, and are still used -- this > initiative was never competitive enough. > > The first successful "real" IXP was purely private and focused effort -- to > fill the need. A privately owned enterprise, especially founded for the > purpose and focused exclusively on providing IXP services. So far has > exceeded expectations. Of course, private interconnects between ISPs still > do exist and grow. But the IXPs have permitted smaller players to have > access to the same Internet connectivity/capacity as did larger. > > Besides IXPs, what helped development and driving costs down was the > creation of few data centers. The first data centers were rather primitive > by today's standards but provided cheap means for data providers to host > their infrastructure without inuring enormous costs for connectivity. > > What is common in all these success stories: 100% private initiatives and > 100% lack of regulation. > > If, say 20 years ago, the government has chosen to other the monopoly state > owned telecom to at least provide connectivity without delays, we could have > achieved this much, much faster. But apparently, at that, already democratic > times those in the Government who were "governing" IT and telecom > development didn't see any value to developing Internet and so, their > "governance" was in effect trying to prevent it from happening. > Not so, with the private people. It is important to understand, that by > "private" I do not mean corporate, by any way! Most of the ISPs in Bulgaria > started very, very small. Sometimes I guess even as family business. Those > people all invested their efforts for the Internet to happen. Even if some > of them dreamed of "control" and were greedy (I have many examples, observed > over the years), they soon realized, that they can achieve this on/via > Internet as much, as they can achieve it in their normal human society.. and > if they were unsuccessful in the human society, they would fail the same way > in Internet. > > Years ago, there was a great debate in Bulgaria, whether Internet should be > subject to regulation. There were intentions to require ISPs to obtain > licenses etc. Ironically, to my knowledge, that regulation was invented by > some of the existing ISPs, that didn't really understand how Internet work > and dreamed of having absolute monopoly (or oligopoly, rather). Many claim > to have direct influence on the outcome, but my position is that the outcome > was community effort -- at the end the Government backed out of regulation. > I believe they are now happy with that decision and the further Internet > development has happened without any effort on Government's part. > > Current raw connectivity costs in Bulgaria are well below 1 euro per > megabit for both inter-city and international connectivity. Connectivity > costs have reached the level at which users are not really paying for > connectivity, but more for service and support. > > This has become longer than expected, but let's home some find it useful. > > Daniel > > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jul 20 08:01:05 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:01:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Germany against Three Strikes References: <013001cc4655$f1b75470$d6777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> This is an official document by the German government which was tabled this week in Brussel in the IPRED consultations (Inteelectual Property Rights Portection). Unfortunately I have it German only. Very strong position against three strikes procedure which was advocated in the same consultations by the French government. Wolfgang https://circabc.europa.eu/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/0ef00dda-f4be-4950-bfad-f48baf11cb0c/germany_de.pdf wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jul 20 12:38:30 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:38:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC References: <013001cc4655$f1b75470$d6777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi who follows the ECOSOC meeting In Geneva next week? Agenda Itenm 13b "Science and technology for development" reads as follows: * Report of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development on its fourteenth session (E/2011/31) * Report of the Secretary-General on enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet (E/2011/103 ) * Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 - E/2011/77 ) * Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79 ) The sessions starts July 22 and ends July 29. Thanks wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Jul 21 04:27:46 2011 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:27:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <013001cc4655$f1b75470$d6777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, thanks for raising this important, but sometimes invisible, or hard to notice, information. We really need someone there to monitor and report, at least. izumi 2011/7/21 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > > Hi > > who follows the ECOSOC meeting In Geneva next week?  Agenda Itenm 13b "Science and technology for development" reads as follows: > > *       Report of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development on its fourteenth session (E/2011/31) > *       Report of the Secretary-General on enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet (E/2011/103 ) > *       Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 - E/2011/77 ) > *       Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79 ) > > The sessions starts July 22 and ends July 29. > > > > Thanks > > > > wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *                               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 philippe.blanchard at me.com Thu Jul 21 05:35:13 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:35:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC In-Reply-To: References: <013001cc4655$f1b75470$d6777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA@me.com> Dear All, Am based in Lausanne and can pop up to Geneva. Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? Where can I register ? Best regards, Philippe On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: Wolfgang, thanks for raising this important, but sometimes invisible, or hard to notice, information. We really need someone there to monitor and report, at least. izumi 2011/7/21 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > > Hi > > who follows the ECOSOC meeting In Geneva next week? Agenda Itenm 13b "Science and technology for development" reads as follows: > > * Report of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development on its fourteenth session (E/2011/31) > * Report of the Secretary-General on enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet (E/2011/103 ) > * Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 - E/2011/77 ) > * Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79 ) > > The sessions starts July 22 and ends July 29. > > > > Thanks > > > > wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jul 21 07:57:17 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:57:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC In-Reply-To: <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA@me.com> References: <013001cc4655$f1b75470$d6777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA@me.com> Message-ID: In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes >Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 09:52:30 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 06:52:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? Message-ID: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> I have no idea of the truth or falsity of what is described in the below blogpost but whether or not the specific instance is accurate/truthful the overall description which is, I would think, potentially very real may raise some very serious issues including from a global internet governance perspective. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/brph8m ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 21 10:02:25 2011 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:32:25 -0430 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> Message-ID: I would like to hear more about this case, if someone can find specifics, or does any follow up on it. Thanks, Michael, for the link. Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *The latest from Diplo... *Climate Change Diplomacy: It's current, it's controversial, and it's a top priority. Apply now for our online course at http://www.diplomacy. edu/Courses/Climate.asp On 21 July 2011 09:22, michael gurstein wrote: > > I have no idea of the truth or falsity of what is described in the below > blogpost but whether or not the specific instance is accurate/truthful the > overall description which is, I would think, potentially very real may > raise > some very serious issues including from a global internet governance > perspective. > > http://www.twitlonger.com/show/brph8m > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jul 21 10:16:52 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:16:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> Message-ID: I would be as outraged as the person writing the blog but I don't understand how this is an internet governance issue. It seems to me it is an issue between an individual and a company providing a service. Should we regulate how companies run their business or should we leave that up to the current legal system? Without a lot of thought I'd say leave it to the current legal system but I'd be very interested in hearing an alternate view. Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: July-21-11 6:53 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet > Human Rights? > > > I have no idea of the truth or falsity of what is described in the below > blogpost but whether or not the specific instance is accurate/truthful the > overall description which is, I would think, potentially very real may raise > some very serious issues including from a global internet governance > perspective. > > http://www.twitlonger.com/show/brph8m > > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 10:25:55 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:25:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> Message-ID: I would think that it is a fundamental internet governance issue going to basic concerns like trust and responsibility and how these work "online". Try reading the argument while leaving out any references to "Google" specifically. When the crunch comes it would appear that currently, legally, "we" have no rights at all. Deirdre On 21 July 2011 10:16, Kerry Brown wrote: > I would be as outraged as the person writing the blog but I don't > understand how this is an internet governance issue. It seems to me it is an > issue between an individual and a company providing a service. Should we > regulate how companies run their business or should we leave that up to the > current legal system? Without a lot of thought I'd say leave it to the > current legal system but I'd be very interested in hearing an alternate > view. > > Kerry Brown > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > > Behalf Of michael gurstein > > Sent: July-21-11 6:53 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet > > Human Rights? > > > > > > I have no idea of the truth or falsity of what is described in the below > > blogpost but whether or not the specific instance is accurate/truthful > the > > overall description which is, I would think, potentially very real may > raise > > some very serious issues including from a global internet governance > > perspective. > > > > http://www.twitlonger.com/show/brph8m > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > __ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 21 10:31:09 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:31:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ginger, I don't know any more but below is what I wrote to a different list where this is being discussed and where the suggestion was made that Google might allow a 3rd party intermediary to offer "ombusdman" services as a recourse... At some point quantity becomes quality. The fact that Google is dominant (almost a monopoly) in certain crucial areas, that it is offering an increasingly seamless integration of crucial services which is very much a monopoly (no one else can offer that degree of transparent integration). These in itself, I think, put Google in a very special position in the cybersphere. It also presents it with very special responsibilities and I would argue (and I think many, including legislators might, once confronted with a situation such as this one, agree) with very significant social/public obligations. Identity "theft" is of course a serious crime, but what about a corporation "losing/destroying" what is in effect someone's identity -- by accident, by incompetence, by individual or corporate malpractice, or even by design but without recourse or appeal. This case seems to be someone in the US which makes it rather less complicated than if they were European for example, in which case it might be something that the European Parliament or the Commission might be very interested in taking a look at, with all the extra-territorial issues involved including differences in philosophical and practicla approaches to data and identitymanagement, privacy etc.etc. I don't think that this is the kind of thing that in the medium or longer term where Google will be able to "outsource" its responsibilty. M -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:02 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? I would like to hear more about this case, if someone can find specifics, or does any follow up on it. Thanks, Michael, for the link. Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu The latest from Diplo... Climate Change Diplomacy: It's current, it's controversial, and it's a top priority. Apply now for our online course at http://www.diplomacy. edu/Courses/Climate.asp On 21 July 2011 09:22, michael gurstein wrote: I have no idea of the truth or falsity of what is described in the below blogpost but whether or not the specific instance is accurate/truthful the overall description which is, I would think, potentially very real may raise some very serious issues including from a global internet governance perspective. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/brph8m ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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.roxana at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 13:03:28 2011 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:03:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> Message-ID: Absolutely in acordance with Deirdre, this is a crucial issue on Internet Governance. Please keep me informed about its follow up. Even if it is not true -what has been said by the damaged user-, there are many crucial issues, as Michel said, involved in this case. Such us ToS, dominant position, supra-national jurisdiction, harmonization of legal frameworks, user/consumer protection, corporate responsibilities, users representation and collective action (not only individual actions as someone said), among others. And all this issues gain a special meaning if we look at them through the glass of "human rights".... I see we have a lot of work to do ... facing IG LAC Prep meeting.....next August.... Best, Roxana 2011/7/21 Deirdre Williams > I would think that it is a fundamental internet governance issue going to > basic concerns like trust and responsibility and how these work "online". > Try reading the argument while leaving out any references to "Google" > specifically. > When the crunch comes it would appear that currently, legally, "we" have no > rights at all. > Deirdre > > > On 21 July 2011 10:16, Kerry Brown wrote: > >> I would be as outraged as the person writing the blog but I don't >> understand how this is an internet governance issue. It seems to me it is an >> issue between an individual and a company providing a service. Should we >> regulate how companies run their business or should we leave that up to the >> current legal system? Without a lot of thought I'd say leave it to the >> current legal system but I'd be very interested in hearing an alternate >> view. >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> > Behalf Of michael gurstein >> > Sent: July-21-11 6:53 AM >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet >> > Human Rights? >> > >> > >> > I have no idea of the truth or falsity of what is described in the below >> > blogpost but whether or not the specific instance is accurate/truthful >> the >> > overall description which is, I would think, potentially very real may >> raise >> > some very serious issues including from a global internet governance >> > perspective. >> > >> > http://www.twitlonger.com/show/brph8m >> > >> > __________________________________________________________ >> > __ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 22 03:49:31 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:49:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: (message from Kerry Brown on Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:16:52 +0000) References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> Message-ID: <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Kerry Brown wrote: >> http://www.twitlonger.com/show/brph8m > I would be as outraged as the person writing the blog but I don't > understand how this is an internet governance issue. In my view, it's clearly a governance issue to either decide that no action should be taken to protect people from this kind of risks, or to decide and implement measures to protect users of services like Google's from this kind of loss of their valuable personal data and online identity. If you don't classify this as "an internet governance issue", what kind of governance issue is it then? 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 Fri Jul 22 04:14:02 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:14:02 +0800 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4E29314A.7050306@ciroap.org> On 22/07/11 15:49, Norbert Bollow wrote: > In my view, it's clearly a governance issue to either decide that no > action should be taken to protect people from this kind of risks, or > to decide and implement measures to protect users of services like > Google's from this kind of loss of their valuable personal data and > online identity. > > If you don't classify this as "an internet governance issue", what > kind of governance issue is it then? For example, Consumers International is proposing that this sort of issue be the subject of an international guideline on consumer protection law: http://a2knetwork.org/guidelines/access-to-knowledge/#21 -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 22 04:58:21 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:58:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20110722074931.D82D615C19A at quill.bollow.ch>, at 09:49:31 on Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Norbert Bollow writes >In my view, it's clearly a governance issue to either decide that no >action should be taken to protect people from this kind of risks, or >to decide and implement measures to protect users of services like >Google's from this kind of loss of their valuable personal data and >online identity. > >If you don't classify this as "an internet governance issue", what >kind of governance issue is it then? If we aren't careful, then everything we do becomes an Internet Governance issue (if some aspect of the activity takes place on the Internet). Protecting "online identity" would be the place to start, and for DNS there's already some ICANN rules for registries and registrars that seek to protect the interests of end users. In the world of telephony, there are rules (in some jurisdictions) about the portability of numbers from one telco to another, but they don't go as far as requiring the 'old' telco to port the user's saved/unread voicemails to the 'new' telco. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jul 22 05:34:56 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:34:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <4E29314A.7050306@ciroap.org> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:14:02 +0800) References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <4E29314A.7050306@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20110722093456.EA2EF15C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 22/07/11 15:49, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > In my view, it's clearly a governance issue to either decide that no > > action should be taken to protect people from this kind of risks, or > > to decide and implement measures to protect users of services like > > Google's from this kind of loss of their valuable personal data and > > online identity. > > > > If you don't classify this as "an internet governance issue", what > > kind of governance issue is it then? > > For example, Consumers International is proposing that this sort of > issue be the subject of an international guideline on consumer > protection law: > > http://a2knetwork.org/guidelines/access-to-knowledge/#21 This link seems to indicate to me that there is a very significant intersection of consumer protection issues and internet governance issues that quite obviously cannot be addressed by national consumer protection laws alone, but need international internet governance action in addition. (As an aside, although the proposals at the link that you posted are good, and although it'll certainly be a good step forward to get these issues added to international guidelines on consumer protection law, as far as I can see, the current text there doesn't cover risks of loss of access to one's own personal data and loss of online identity due to "account closure".) 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 Fri Jul 22 05:37:49 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:37:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <20110722093456.EA2EF15C19A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <4E29314A.7050306@ciroap.org> <20110722093456.EA2EF15C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4E2944ED.7050501@ciroap.org> On 22/07/11 17:34, Norbert Bollow wrote: > This link seems to indicate to me that there is a very significant > intersection of consumer protection issues and internet governance > issues that quite obviously cannot be addressed by national consumer > protection laws alone, but need international internet governance > action in addition. I agree. After I posted, I realised that my email might be taken as saying "No it's not an Internet governance issue, it's a consumer protection issue." That is quite to the contrary of what I meant. > (As an aside, although the proposals at the link that you posted > are good, and although it'll certainly be a good step forward to > get these issues added to international guidelines on consumer > protection law, as far as I can see, the current text there doesn't > cover risks of loss of access to one's own personal data and loss of > online identity due to "account closure".) I also agree. However, the proposals remain open for comment until the end of next month and I would invite people to consider how they might be improved, and comment at the link given. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3762 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From philippe.blanchard at me.com Fri Jul 22 05:39:08 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:39:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC In-Reply-To: References: <013001cc4655$f1b75470$d6777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA@me.com> Message-ID: <8E655573-52C0-4AF3-9A33-B9E5D5081922@me.com> Dear Roland thank you for the follow-up. I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make it. I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is not !!! I will follow the outcomes through the net. Kind regards, Philippe On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 06:27:05 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:27:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC In-Reply-To: <8E655573-52C0-4AF3-9A33-B9E5D5081922@me.com> References: <013001cc4655$f1b75470$d6777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA@me.com> <8E655573-52C0-4AF3-9A33-B9E5D5081922@me.com> Message-ID: Hmmm wonder if someone can delegate and have you as their Proxy to the meeting. Would that work or make a difference? Sala On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Philippe Blanchard < philippe.blanchard at me.com> wrote: > Dear Roland > > thank you for the follow-up. > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make > it. > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is > not !!! > > I will follow the outcomes through the net. > > Kind regards, > Philippe > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? > > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. > > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 > > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. > > creditation.pdf> > > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. > > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 22 06:44:46 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:44:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC In-Reply-To: References: <013001cc4655$f1b75470$d6777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C2EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA@me.com> <8E655573-52C0-4AF3-9A33-B9E5D5081922@me.com> Message-ID: In message , at 22:27:05 on Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >Hmmm wonder if someone can delegate and have you as their Proxy to the >meeting. Would that work or make a difference That might have worked better before the closing date for badging on 27th June[1], but it's not uncommon for people to attach themselves to accredited delegations at events like this. [1] That rather early date is because this is already the third week of a long session. -- 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 renate.bloem at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 08:06:41 2011 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:06:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC In-Reply-To: <8E655573-52C0-4AF3-9A33-B9E5D5081922@me.com> Message-ID: <4e2967d5.46ead80a.1320.7ca2@mx.google.com> Hi Philippe, I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 Best Renate Renate Bloem Main Representative Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com skype: Renate.Bloem CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Blanchard Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC Dear Roland thank you for the follow-up. I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make it. I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is not !!! I will follow the outcomes through the net. Kind regards, Philippe On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From philippe.blanchard at me.com Fri Jul 22 08:35:59 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:35:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC In-Reply-To: <4e2967d5.46ead80a.1320.7ca2@mx.google.com> References: <4e2967d5.46ead80a.1320.7ca2@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <52CBEB42-04CA-4CD8-8072-8EF893515CA2@me.com> Dear Renate Thanks very much for the swift reaction. do you have any registration number for me to follow up with ? I am afraid our ECOSOC might be overwhelmed right now if I contact them on Friday pm... Otherwise, I will go and try to make my way through :-) Kind regards, Philippe On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: Hi Philippe, I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 Best Renate Renate Bloem Main Representative Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com skype: Renate.Bloem CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Blanchard Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC Dear Roland thank you for the follow-up. I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make it. I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is not !!! I will follow the outcomes through the net. Kind regards, Philippe On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 22 08:52:37 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:52:37 +1200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC In-Reply-To: <52CBEB42-04CA-4CD8-8072-8EF893515CA2@me.com> References: <4e2967d5.46ead80a.1320.7ca2@mx.google.com> <52CBEB42-04CA-4CD8-8072-8EF893515CA2@me.com> Message-ID: This is awesome Renate and I hope someone in Geneva at the ECOSOC can make it easier for Philippe. My fingers are crossed and very hopeful that you can get in easily On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Blanchard < philippe.blanchard at me.com> wrote: > Dear Renate > > Thanks very much for the swift reaction. do you have any registration > number for me to follow up with ? I am afraid our ECOSOC might be > overwhelmed right now if I contact them on Friday pm... > > Otherwise, I will go and try to make my way through :-) > > Kind regards, > Philippe > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > Hi Philippe, > > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 > Best > Renate > > Renate Bloem > Main Representative > Civicus UN Geneva > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > Mobile : +41763462310 > renate.bloem at civicus.org > renate.bloem at gmail.com > skype: Renate.Bloem > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > www.civicus.org > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf > Of Philippe Blanchard > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC > > Dear Roland > > thank you for the follow-up. > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make > it. > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, > is > not !!! > > I will follow the outcomes through the net. > > Kind regards, > Philippe > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? > > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. > > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 > > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. > > creditation.pdf> > > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. > > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From renate.bloem at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 09:48:50 2011 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:48:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECOSOC In-Reply-To: <52CBEB42-04CA-4CD8-8072-8EF893515CA2@me.com> Message-ID: <4e297fc7.10c6e30a.07d7.ffff8fa0@mx.google.com> Hi Philippe, It will be alright. You just come in Porte Prégny and ask to get your badge under CIVICUS. If there are any problems, give me a call, I will be there +41 76 346 2310 Best Renate -----Original Message----- From: Philippe Blanchard [mailto:philippe.blanchard at me.com] Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 14:36 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Renate Bloem (Gmail) Cc: 'Roland Perry' Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC Dear Renate Thanks very much for the swift reaction. do you have any registration number for me to follow up with ? I am afraid our ECOSOC might be overwhelmed right now if I contact them on Friday pm... Otherwise, I will go and try to make my way through :-) Kind regards, Philippe On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: Hi Philippe, I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 Best Renate Renate Bloem Main Representative Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com skype: Renate.Bloem CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Blanchard Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC Dear Roland thank you for the follow-up. I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make it. I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is not !!! I will follow the outcomes through the net. Kind regards, Philippe On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 10:16:52 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:16:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 7/22/11, Roland Perry wrote: > If we aren't careful, then everything we do becomes an Internet > Governance issue (if some aspect of the activity takes place on the > Internet). If we abstain from setting a protective policy, that is an internet policy as well. It's a style of internet governance: to abstain from public policy in favor of private or corporate rule-setting via contracts, terms of service, market forces, etc. I don't know if Roland Perry would go this far, but the line to be crossed to truly say something is "not an internet governance issue" is to show that either (1) the activity involved doesn't involve the internet or impact the internet, OR (2) the internet activity in question is beyond the legitimate power of any actual or potential governance entity (whether public or corporate), including being beyond any claims for the *reasonable* extension of some existing public or corporate power. The *full* application of presently existing human rights laws would be a good start. That process of course has started already. Of course, a more general set of legal commands such as human rights laws would arguably benefit in terms of specificity by a treaty that explains those rights in the specific new-ish contest of the internet. But, in most (if not all) cases, such a specific "new" law would just be a detailed application of pre-existing human rights laws and principles to the area of the internet. Thus, lawyers and judges would say that rights laws regarding the internet already exist, even if many or all of the specific holdings await argument and application of the human rights laws in appropriate courts with jurisdiction over a particular case. Provided such a court is limiting itself to application of a general legal right to a new context and not over-reaching (often a debatable line here), such a court is not making up new law but applying existing law in a newer or somewhat different context. One may note that courts applying principles to new contexts are occasionally accused of being "activist" courts and "making up" the law. Usually this kind of charge is made by a supporter of corporate rights and corporate governance, who know full well that whenever the government and/or the courts abstain from law-making or ruling in a certain area, the power to rule that particular area thus defaults to corporate or private powers, who make the laws applicable to it via contracts and terms of service, and so forth. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Fri Jul 22 10:50:49 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:50:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: > >If you don't classify this as "an internet governance issue", what kind > >of governance issue is it then? > > If we aren't careful, then everything we do becomes an Internet Governance > issue (if some aspect of the activity takes place on the Internet). > This is the key point in this discussion for me. The Internet is a communications medium. The reason for it's rapid adoption and success so far is it allows innovation on an unprecedented scale and has a very wide reach. One of the major contributing factors for this success is a relative lack of regulation on what you can do on the Internet. For me Internet Governance is about guidelines for how the Internet should work not about what you can do on the Internet. There is obviously a lot of overlap and disagreement about where to draw the line between how it works and what people can do on the Internet. I'd rather err on the side of less Internet Governance and allow governments to create laws and regulations on what is allowed to be done on the Internet in their jurisdiction. This is no different from other communication media like telephone, radio, television, newspapers, etc. Creating regulations restricting how people act on the Internet via Internet Governance will stifle innovation. It will also allow repressive governments to use these Internet Governance regulations in unforeseen ways that will allow them more control over the Internet. I agree 100% that the issues brought up in the original blog need to be addressed. These are legal issues though, not Internet Governance issues. One party contracted for a service and thinks the other party didn't supply the contracted service. The issues should certainly be discussed in Internet Governance forums and recommendations made as to what we think the regulations should be. The actual regulation should be left to the existing legal system in each country. This will allow innovation to continue and it will stop aggressive governments from expanding control of the Internet beyond their jurisdiction. This will create problems when cross jurisdictional issues like this arise but we already have systems in place for dealing with this. International business has been occurring for quite a while now. It predates the Internet :) Kerry Brown ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 22 12:12:15 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:12:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 10:16:52 on Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Paul Lehto writes >> If we aren't careful, then everything we do becomes an Internet >> Governance issue (if some aspect of the activity takes place on the >> Internet). > >If we abstain from setting a protective policy, that is an internet >policy as well. It's a style of internet governance: to abstain from >public policy in favor of private or corporate rule-setting via >contracts, terms of service, market forces, etc. The public policy might be to rely upon private/corporate rule making, but a large number of things (see my list below for some examples) have statutory policies in place, although often stronger within a single jurisdiction than when cross-border issues arise. >I don't know if Roland Perry would go this far, but the line to be >crossed to truly say something is "not an internet governance issue" >is to show that either > >(1) the activity involved doesn't involve the internet or impact the >internet, OR That's a given. >(2) the internet activity in question is beyond the legitimate power of >any actual or potential governance entity (whether public or >corporate), including being beyond any claims for the *reasonable* >extension of some existing public or corporate power. A lot of things which are very important to Internet users are included within existing (or reasonable extension of) of e.g. telecoms, consumer protection, tax, copyright or privacy regulation; and would seem to be excluded as a result. Is that really what you intended? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 22 12:16:41 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:16:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 14:50:49 on Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Kerry Brown writes >The Internet is a communications medium. The reason for it's rapid >adoption and success so far is it allows innovation on an unprecedented >scale and has a very wide reach. One of the major contributing factors >for this success is a relative lack of regulation on what you can do on >the Internet. And don't forget that a significant contributing factor has been those regulations whose affirmative action is to seek to remove liability from intermediaries and control monopolistic practices (especially amongst legacy telecoms organisations). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 12:57:24 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:57:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 7/22/11, Roland Perry wrote: >>OR, (2) the internet activity in question is beyond the legitimate power of >>any actual or potential governance entity (whether public or >>corporate), including being beyond any claims for the *reasonable* >>extension of some existing public or corporate power. > > A lot of things which are very important to Internet users are included > within existing (or reasonable extension of) of e.g. telecoms, consumer > protection, tax, copyright or privacy regulation; and would seem to be > excluded as a result. Is that really what you intended? If the issue is within a reasonable extension of a telecom, AND (instead of the previous "or") it impacts the internet, then we'd have to look for a constitutional or other bona fide limitation on power in order to exclude the issue as an internet governance issue. With this caveat, my answer is yes. But it's important to note that I'm identifying the scope of jurisdiction or potential power, and not saying in all or even most cases, necessarily, that it is best as a policy matter to exercise that power or to allow its exercise. This last caveat above should avoid your worst fears or concerns about overreaching power, presuming a majority of people are reasonable, or as is more likely, can be persuaded to be reasonable with public pressure. I'm merely pointing to the broadest possible outline of what is an "internet governance" issue, and noting that just because a governmental power or corporate power might exist, does not mean at all that it should or ought to be exercised.... The fact is, despite widely publicized disagreements elsewhere and on this list over where exactly the line should be drawn in terms of limiting government power, virtually everybody agrees on some important limitations or lines on government power. The problem in recognizing this reality occurs because the line or the limits for one side of the debate aren't usually identified -- because the issues don't play out in the vicinity of that line. In addition to disagreement about where the line should be on what government power is wise or prudent to exercise, there is also the issue of applying (or not) substantial (and often analogous to government restrictions) restrictions on private or corporate power as well. Those private or corporate powers exist as "default" rules whenever government doesn't act, or better yet, private or corporate power acts in the vacuum created by any government inaction. Of course, corporations being purely creatures of self-interest, it is hard indeed to get them to act in anything like the public interest except by force (law), or by a happy coincidence between business interests and the public interest. Paul Lehto, J.D. > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 13:02:25 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:02:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 7/22/11, Kerry Brown wrote: > I'd rather err on the side of less Internet Governance and allow > governments to create laws and regulations on what is allowed to be done on > the Internet in their jurisdiction. [snip] > These are legal issues though, not Internet Governance issues. You are using the word "governance" here in a very different sense, and arguably improperly. It is still governance to abstain from action for the time being, or permanently, and let teh status quo and market forces dictate the terms of commerce and communication. So, supporting "less government" doesn't equate to issues about whether the government should pass a law in a certain area NOT being "internet governance" -- it is still internet governance. Secondly, you distinguish "legal issues" and "internet governance issues." There's a great deal of overlap between the two. Not all legal issues are internet governance issues, but nearly all internet governance issues COULD BE legal issues (whether it is wise for them to be or not). If any area that you or others believe the government should not intervene in is therefore not an internet governance issue, arguably your thoughts along these lines are off topic on this list. I hardly think that is the case, so most of the trouble here is people such as yourself using the term "governance" in a very different sense of understanding. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Fri Jul 22 14:27:07 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:27:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: > Secondly, you distinguish "legal issues" and "internet governance issues." > There's a great deal of overlap between the two. I believe I mentioned this. I expressed where I thought the divide should be. Kerry Brown ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 14:32:59 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:32:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 7/22/11, Kerry Brown wrote: >> Secondly, you distinguish "legal issues" and "internet governance issues." >> There's a great deal of overlap between the two. > > I believe I mentioned this. I expressed where I thought the divide should > be. And the point is, just because you and other people believe that the government should not get involved in a particular issue does not mean that issue is not part of "internet governance." In English we borrow from French the term "laissez faire" to generally describe this kind of governance policy. It most certainly is an issue of internet governance, even if the laissez faire side wins the day on a given issue. So, did I misquote your prior message? Given my use of the term governance, do you still think that something is not an issue of "internet governance" if a laissez faire attitude is the actual approach taken, or if it is the "right" approach? -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 14:58:55 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:58:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] Help: MAG report? Message-ID: Hello everybody, Does anyone has the link to the report about the MAG that has been published in the IGF website some time ago? It seems that all docs related to mandate review and IGF improvement have been buried on that website. If someone saved it, I would also be happy to receive the archive on my personal e-mail. Thank you very much! Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Fri Jul 22 16:22:07 2011 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:22:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You've convinced me I need to broaden my definition of Internet Governance. I still believe the issue in the blog can't be solved by regulating the Internet but as you say the decision not to regulate is a form of governance, as would be giving input from Internet experts to bodies that can regulate the issue. Kerry Brown Paul - sorry for the double email. I forgot to click on Reply all the first time. On 11-07-22 10:02 AM, "Paul Lehto" wrote: >On 7/22/11, Kerry Brown wrote: >> I'd rather err on the side of less Internet Governance and allow >> governments to create laws and regulations on what is allowed to be >>done on >> the Internet in their jurisdiction. [snip] >> These are legal issues though, not Internet Governance issues. > >You are using the word "governance" here in a very different sense, >and arguably improperly. It is still governance to abstain from >action for the time being, or permanently, and let teh status quo and >market forces dictate the terms of commerce and communication. So, >supporting "less government" doesn't equate to issues about whether >the government should pass a law in a certain area NOT being "internet >governance" -- it is still internet governance. > >Secondly, you distinguish "legal issues" and "internet governance >issues." There's a great deal of overlap between the two. Not all >legal issues are internet governance issues, but nearly all internet >governance issues COULD BE legal issues (whether it is wise for them >to be or not). > >If any area that you or others believe the government should not >intervene in is therefore not an internet governance issue, arguably >your thoughts along these lines are off topic on this list. I hardly >think that is the case, so most of the trouble here is people such as >yourself using the term "governance" in a very different sense of >understanding. > >Paul Lehto, J.D. > > > > >-- >Paul R Lehto, J.D. >P.O. Box 1 >Ishpeming, MI 49849 >lehto.paul at gmail.com >906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 23 03:07:52 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:07:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] Request for Information [ICT4 health/ E Health] Message-ID: Dear List, I am not sure whether ICT for Health or e Health falls within internet governance, if it does not, I apologise in advance. I am working on a development project, we don't get paid to do this, it's just to help development in Fiji and in the Pacific. Our greatest limitation is language. I would like to access some illustrations of how ICT has been harnessed in your jurisdictions. I have accessed the material on WHO and WSIS and EU site and have accessed the strategies and policies. I would like to know how this has been utilised in your jurisdictions (Africa, Bulgaria, China, Canada, France, Germany, Russia, Latin America etc). You can email me [offlist], if you would like to see the draft document of what I have drafted (draft version 1 of Plan- email me offlist] Have a read of this Document and help by directing me to the appropriate places. Warm Regards, -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jul 23 03:30:25 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:00:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E2A7891.4020008@itforchange.net> This case is very much on the lines of the case of Taipei City government imposing a fine on google (which spawned an important discussion). Do Milton and others who seemed to have great reservation about appropriateness of Taipie city government's regulatory competence in that case still think, after reading about the case of unilateral withdrawal of google service, still think that users of these services should have no legal recourse with accountable public governance entity? If local or national governments should *not* be the entity that people should be able to turn to, and these governments should *not* have the regulatory competence, who should? I cannot see how can we have any coherent IG related position and any meaningful IG related discussion without clearly answering these questions, or at least strongly engaging with them. these questions are what really matter. It is even more inappropriate for those not to engage with these questions who live in countries where google is headquartered and they thus have legal recourse against such actions (even if much more circuitous and difficult than it should be), or those who live in places where google's economic interests are so deep that it readily responds to ad hoc strong signs from the governments. Is not a rule of law based on democratic principles the most appropriate response to these problems. To me, this is the most basic internet governance issue today. We need to know where we stand vis a vis this all-important question. Parminder On Thursday 21 July 2011 08:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Ginger, > I don't know any more but below is what I wrote to a different list > where this is being discussed and where the suggestion was made that > Google might allow a 3rd party intermediary to offer "ombusdman" > services as a recourse... > At some point quantity becomes quality. The fact that Google is > dominant (almost a monopoly) in certain crucial areas, that it is > offering an increasingly seamless integration of crucial services > which is very much a monopoly (no one else can offer that degree of > transparent integration). These in itself, I think, put Google in a > very special position in the cybersphere. It also presents it with > very special responsibilities and I would argue (and I think many, > including legislators might, once confronted with a situation such as > this one, agree) with very significant social/public obligations. > Identity "theft" is of course a serious crime, but what about a > corporation "losing/destroying" what is in effect someone's identity > -- by accident, by incompetence, by individual or corporate > malpractice, or even by design but without recourse or appeal. > This case seems to be someone in the US which makes it rather less > complicated than if they were European for example, in which case it > might be something that the European Parliament or the Commission > might be very interested in taking a look at, with all the > extra-territorial issues involved including differences in > philosophical and practicla approaches to data and identitymanagement, > privacy etc.etc. > I don't think that this is the kind of thing that in the medium or > longer term where Google will be able to "outsource" its responsibilty. > M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:02 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet > Governance/Internet Human Rights? > > I would like to hear more about this case, if someone can find > specifics, or does any follow up on it. > Thanks, Michael, for the link. > > Ginger > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > */The latest from Diplo... /*Climate Change Diplomacy: It's > current, it's controversial, and it's a top priority. Apply now > for our online course at http://www.diplomacy. > > edu/Courses/Climate.asp > > > > > On 21 July 2011 09:22, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > I have no idea of the truth or falsity of what is described in > the below > blogpost but whether or not the specific instance is > accurate/truthful the > overall description which is, I would think, potentially very > real may raise > some very serious issues including from a global internet > governance > perspective. > > http://www.twitlonger.com/show/brph8m > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jul 23 10:54:44 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:54:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 14:32:59 on Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Paul Lehto writes >And the point is, just because you and other people believe that the >government should not get involved in a particular issue does not mean >that issue is not part of "internet governance." Obviously, because governance can be done by various actors, not all of whom are governments. -- 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 Jul 23 11:00:48 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:00:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request for Information [ICT4 health/ E Health] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <$oZ2Yn8gIuKOFAHK@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 19:07:52 on Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >I am not sure whether ICT for Health or e Health falls within internet >governance, if it does not, I apologise in advance Assuring the quality of Internet connectivity for healthcare applications is definitely an Internet Governance issue. I remember many years ago talking to health authorities who wanted to use mobile phone SMS to tell where ambulances where to go (they call this activity "dispatching"). They became justifiably concerned when they couldn't find any QoS guarantees from the mobile phone operators about when those SMS might be delivered (you'd need "within a few seconds", probably; "within 4hrs" won't be much use). -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Jul 23 15:18:40 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Request for Information [ICT4 health/ E Health] Message-ID: <1311448720.91531.yint-ygo-j2me@web161018.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Ronald given a good example from real world.Actually txt sms method may not guarantee even its delivery. The alternate is constant session of mobile phone to the server, such as used during prepaid card charging or when you acquire account balance etc. But the important point in his example is that the network operators could not provide commitment of QoS even if the consumer (health authorities) has demand to save human life's and were demanding the implementation of Governance).I have an example opposite to his case, in a country of Asian Region, Telecom Authority has banned (since last two years) to use wireless networks on equipments of ISM frequency band (2.4/5.8 GHz) for using it more then 100 meter distance. Where as that kind of equipment are used for point to point data connectivity for long distance (e.g. 25km for 11mbps bandwidth)About 10,000 pairs were deployed since 1996 but now the investment of millions will become waste, even the ATM links of popular Banking Sectors will be stopped.Fortunately, an ISP of a Public Educational Institute has been allowed to deploy wireless network of same ISM frequency equipment to implement the e-Health project of their parent educational institute in rural areas.So called representatives (Slogan/Title holders) of that Country for Governance of Internet, Rights of the Consumers and Development of ICT are being still awarded with certificates and shields, but practically -ive policies implementation is their practice.However, we can say thanks to them for relaxing their rules for one the e-health project.I hope this will be an interesting story for you. Imran On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:00 PKT Roland Perry wrote: >In message , at 19:07:52 on Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >> I am not sure whether ICT for Health or e Health falls within internet governance, if it does not, I apologise in advance > >Assuring the quality of Internet connectivity for healthcare applications is definitely an Internet Governance issue. > >I remember many years ago talking to health authorities who wanted to use mobile phone SMS to tell where ambulances where to go (they call this activity "dispatching"). They became justifiably concerned when they couldn't find any QoS guarantees from the mobile phone operators about when those SMS might be delivered (you'd need "within a few seconds", probably; "within 4hrs" won't be much use). >-- 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Jul 23 16:26:51 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:26:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Request for Information [ICT4 health/ E Health] In-Reply-To: <1311448720.91531.yint-ygo-j2me@web161018.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1311448720.91531.yint-ygo-j2me@web161018.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B911@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> SMS is not Internet protocol. Just so there's no confusion. > -----Original Message----- > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:00 PKT Roland Perry wrote: > > >In message > >I remember many years ago talking to health authorities who wanted to > use mobile phone SMS to tell where ambulances where to go (they call > this activity "dispatching"). They became justifiably concerned when > they couldn't find any QoS guarantees from the mobile phone operators > about when those SMS might be delivered (you'd need "within a few > seconds", probably; "within 4hrs" won't be much use). > >-- Roland Perry [Milton L Mueller] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jul 23 16:34:45 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:34:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B912@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > You are using the word "governance" here in a very different sense, and > arguably improperly. It is still governance to abstain from action for > the time being, or permanently, and let teh status quo and market forces > dictate the terms of commerce and communication. Sure, markets and other forms of nongovernmental action can be considered "governance." But this is just a way of saying that any form of human organization is "governance." In that case, what matters is which form of governance one prefers, and what are the differences between the different forms. So it's perfectly valid for Kerry to say that he prefers non-governmental governance and it adds nothing to that debate to say that non-governmental governance is still governance. It is not helpful to blur the line between non-hierarchical, decentralized, non-coercive forms of governance and hierarchical regulation by national governments. They are quite distinct things with vastly different implications for the internet. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jul 23 17:20:35 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 22:20:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request for Information [ICT4 health/ E Health] In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B911@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <1311448720.91531.yint-ygo-j2me@web161018.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B911@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1I50QfKjszKOFAVw@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B911 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 16:26:51 on Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Milton L Mueller writes >SMS is not Internet protocol. Just so there's no confusion. Sure, but you would have the same issue if you decided to use Twitter or Skype to dispatch your ambulances. (I'm not saying any of these claim to be suitable for the application in question, but you'd be surprised how people make assumptions). And I'd expect most institutionalised SMS sending to be initiated "over the Internet" before it hits the mobile networks at an SMS message centre, so IP creeps into solutions like this almost inevitably. >> -----Original Message----- >> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:00 PKT Roland Perry wrote: >> >> >In message >> >I remember many years ago talking to health authorities who wanted to >> use mobile phone SMS to tell where ambulances where to go (they call >> this activity "dispatching"). They became justifiably concerned when >> they couldn't find any QoS guarantees from the mobile phone operators >> about when those SMS might be delivered (you'd need "within a few >> seconds", probably; "within 4hrs" won't be much use). >> >-- Roland Perry >[Milton L Mueller] > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Jul 23 17:24:25 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <4E2A7891.4020008@itforchange.net> References: <4E2A7891.4020008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Let's look at the details of the case. Taipei said it wanted Android platform users to comply with local regulations regarding trial periods and refunds. Google said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw Android market service from Taipei. To me, that seems fair enough. An agreement to disagree; a failure to transact. That should be the end of the story. Those who are complaining about this result seem to be either disconnected from economic reality or, at worst, hypocritical believers in having your cake and eating it, too. Apparently, they want to tell Google: you CANNOT offer services here on terms that you find necessary to meet your needs as a supplier, but if you withdraw service we will whine about it and imply that you should be forced to offer service in a locality you do not want to do business in. There is a very simple form of governance at work here, it's called rational mutual adjustments to local circumstances. The Taipei government says, "we will impose regulations on what you do." Google says, in response, "well, those regulations are too costly to us, we shall choose not to do business there." This kind of choice occurs in thousands of different industries in thousands of different ways. You don't want to live in a world in which that kind of adjustment is not possible. This process of choice provides checks and balances on both players. If Google is too unreasonable in its unwillingness to comply with local consumer regulations, it will be barred from many markets and lose out to others. If Taipei is too unreasonable in its demands on external businesses, it will only prevent its citizens from getting access to many valuable products and services. Please tell me what is a better alternative? Should a local government have the authority to tell a supplier based in another country that it MUST offer its services in its locality, under terms and conditions it does not find profitable or sustainable? Aside from being impractical, it sounds self-evidently crazy to me, but if it doesn't seem so to you consider what would happen if that kind of obligation were established. So, there's a company in Hong Kong offering 1 Gb broadband at US$20/month. I'd like the Syracuse city govt to tell them they HAVE TO offer it to my home. Never mind the fact that cost conditions in Syracuse, with US-style suburban homes spaced hundreds of feet apart aren't quite the same as HK high rises, where one fiber can serve thousands of small apartments. I want my 1 Gb broadband for $20, and I bet 80-90% of other Syracusans do too. OK, so that involves non-transportable physical infrastructure, rather than virtual services, so maybe you think it's not a valid example. So let's go with local/national regulation involving a potentially global, virtual service. Let's say the national government of China says to Google, "we think you have the best search engine so we want it here, but we want it to comply with our censorship regime. So you MUST offer Google search here, but all your servers serving the china market MUST be in the country, all your Gmail accounts MUST provide backdoor access to the public security bureau, and all search results MUST implement our censorship by allowing our censors direct access to your results display process." Under my preferred regime, Google has the right to say, "sorry, no deal." In the Parmindered world, what happens? They MUST go in? So here is a more direct answer to this question: Do Milton and others who seemed to have great reservation about appropriateness of Taipie city government's regulatory competence in that case still think, after reading about the case of unilateral withdrawal of google service, still think that users of these services should have no legal recourse with accountable public governance entity? [Milton L Mueller] First, they do have recourse. They can insist that their government apply local regulations. This may drive the multinationals out altogether. Or they can get their local government to avoid applying those local regulations, or to adjust them, in order to gain access to the services. There are two parties at interest here. There is no requirement to transact at all if either's needs are not met. If local or national governments should *not* be the entity that people should be able to turn to, and these governments should *not* have the regulatory competence, who should? [Milton L Mueller] As usual, you over-dichotomize and -polarize the options. Our real disagreement is on the nature and scope of the regulations. You seem to think that any demand placed on a supplier by a consumer or a government is de facto legitimate and right. I am saying that there are constraints. Suppliers of services cannot be taken for granted as a natural resource, just sitting there waiting to be milked. People produce Internet services, and the people who produce them have legitimate incentives and needs that have to be met, otherwise they will withdraw their services from the market (or die a slow death in the market). Governments that assert controls and regulations in a globalized economy have to face the fact that unfair or overly burdensome regulations will lead private actors to withdraw from their market. Full stop. Likewise, corporations who do things that lots of locally responsive governments can't allow them to do will be barred from many local markets, limiting their growth and profit. What's wrong with that exchange? --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 23 17:32:22 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:32:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] Request for Information [ICT4 health/ E Health] In-Reply-To: <1I50QfKjszKOFAVw@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <1311448720.91531.yint-ygo-j2me@web161018.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B911@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1I50QfKjszKOFAVw@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: *Question* If the "sms" runs and is facilitated across the IP Core (such as NGNs) does this qualify it to be part of the internet? On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F**0D71750B1B911 at SUEX07-MBX-04.** > ad.syr.edu<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B911 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>>, > at 16:26:51 on Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Milton L Mueller writes > > SMS is not Internet protocol. Just so there's no confusion. >> > > Sure, but you would have the same issue if you decided to use Twitter or > Skype to dispatch your ambulances. > > (I'm not saying any of these claim to be suitable for the application in > question, but you'd be surprised how people make assumptions). > > And I'd expect most institutionalised SMS sending to be initiated "over the > Internet" before it hits the mobile networks at an SMS message centre, so IP > creeps into solutions like this almost inevitably. > > > -----Original Message----- >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:00 PKT Roland Perry wrote: >>> >>> >In message >>> >I remember many years ago talking to health authorities who wanted to >>> use mobile phone SMS to tell where ambulances where to go (they call >>> this activity "dispatching"). They became justifiably concerned when >>> they couldn't find any QoS guarantees from the mobile phone operators >>> about when those SMS might be delivered (you'd need "within a few >>> seconds", probably; "within 4hrs" won't be much use). >>> >-- Roland Perry >>> >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance >> To 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 > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 23 17:41:46 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:41:46 +1200 Subject: [governance] Request for Information [ICT4 health/ E Health] In-Reply-To: References: <1311448720.91531.yint-ygo-j2me@web161018.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B911@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1I50QfKjszKOFAVw@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: I ask this because the PSTN (legacy technology) has been replaced in some parts of the world by NGN where the layers are reduced to Access, IP Core, Control and Transport. With functions such as sms or Apps are built into the NGN system, does this then become part of the internet or does it not? On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > *Question* > > If the "sms" runs and is facilitated across the IP Core (such as NGNs) does > this qualify it to be part of the internet? > > > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F**0D71750B1B911 at SUEX07-MBX-04.** >> ad.syr.edu<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B911 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>>, >> at 16:26:51 on Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Milton L Mueller >> writes >> >> SMS is not Internet protocol. Just so there's no confusion. >>> >> >> Sure, but you would have the same issue if you decided to use Twitter or >> Skype to dispatch your ambulances. >> >> (I'm not saying any of these claim to be suitable for the application in >> question, but you'd be surprised how people make assumptions). >> >> And I'd expect most institutionalised SMS sending to be initiated "over >> the Internet" before it hits the mobile networks at an SMS message centre, >> so IP creeps into solutions like this almost inevitably. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:00 PKT Roland Perry wrote: >>>> >>>> >In message >>>> >I remember many years ago talking to health authorities who wanted to >>>> use mobile phone SMS to tell where ambulances where to go (they call >>>> this activity "dispatching"). They became justifiably concerned when >>>> they couldn't find any QoS guarantees from the mobile phone operators >>>> about when those SMS might be delivered (you'd need "within a few >>>> seconds", probably; "within 4hrs" won't be much use). >>>> >-- Roland Perry >>>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> > > > -- > Sala > > "Stillness in the midst of the noise". > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Jul 23 17:46:11 2011 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:46:11 +1000 Subject: [governance] Request for Information [ICT4 health/ E Health] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:32:22 +1200 To: , Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Request for Information [ICT4 health/ E Health] Question If the "sms" runs and is facilitated across the IP Core (such as NGNs) does this qualify it to be part of the internet? On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B911 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu > > >, at 16:26:51 on Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Milton L Mueller writes > >> SMS is not Internet protocol. Just so there's no confusion. > > Sure, but you would have the same issue if you decided to use Twitter or Skype > to dispatch your ambulances. > > (I'm not saying any of these claim to be suitable for the application in > question, but you'd be surprised how people make assumptions). > > And I'd expect most institutionalised SMS sending to be initiated "over the > Internet" before it hits the mobile networks at an SMS message centre, so IP > creeps into solutions like this almost inevitably. > > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:00 PKT Roland Perry wrote: >>> >>>> >In message >>>> >I remember many years ago talking to health authorities who wanted to >>> use mobile phone SMS to tell where ambulances where to go (they call >>> this activity "dispatching"). They became justifiably concerned when >>> they couldn't find any QoS guarantees from the mobile phone operators >>> about when those SMS might be delivered (you'd need "within a few >>> seconds", probably; "within 4hrs" won't be much use). >>>> >-- Roland Perry >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> To 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 > > -- Sala   "Stillness in the midst of the noise". ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sat Jul 23 19:33:25 2011 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 06:33:25 +0700 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E2A7891.4020008@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E2B5A45.3040006@gmx.net> On 7/24/2011 4:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Let’s look at the details of the case. > > Taipei said it wanted Android platform users to comply with local regulations regarding trial periods and refunds. > > Google said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw Android market service from Taipei. > > To me, that seems fair enough. An agreement to disagree; a failure to transact. That should be the end of the story. > > Those who are complaining about this result seem to be either disconnected from economic reality or, at worst, hypocritical believers in having your cake and eating it, too. Apparently, they want to tell Google: you CANNOT offer services here on terms that you find necessary to meet your needs as a supplier, but if you withdraw service we will whine about it and imply that you should be forced to offer service in a locality you do not want to do business in. > > There is a very simple form of governance at work here, it’s called rational mutual adjustments to local circumstances. > > The Taipei government says, “we will impose regulations on what you do.” Google says, in response, “well, those regulations are too costly to us, we shall choose not to do business there.” This kind of choice occurs in thousands of different industries in thousands of different ways. You don’t want to live in a world in which that kind of adjustment is not possible. > > This process of choice provides checks and balances on both players. If Google is too unreasonable in its unwillingness to comply with local consumer regulations, it will be barred from many markets and lose out to others. If Taipei is too unreasonable in its demands on external businesses, it will only prevent its citizens from getting access to many valuable products and services. > > Please tell me what is a better alternative? Not an alternative in the strict sense of the word - but a third (future) option: Open Standards Hardware. Years ago, many "experts" did not think Linux and the applications that run on this Open Source system would achieve the development achieved so far. A few years ago I was in contact with a group of technicians who were working on an Open Standards definition for the hardware for a mobile phone and a lot of other functions which we find in different Symbian, Microsoft etc. mobile devices. Surely to develop Open Standards Hardware is not as easy as developing Open Source software. And the major players at the existing hardware markets would probably not be keen to get involved soon - just as the mayor players on the market for proprietary software were not keen to see the share of Open Source software expanding. But it does. Norbert Klein -- A while ago, I started a new blog: ...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia http://www.thinking21.org/ continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia. Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net Phnom Penh / Cambodia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 23 22:17:09 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:17:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <687424FC7D47430FB827CD98A9DCB8EE@userPC> Milton, I think there are two issues that militate against a primitive market approach as you are articulating for this context/these examples. The first is that since these are Internet based services/products they are by their nature both of every jurisdiction and of no jurisdiction. For reasons various folks have already mentioned the matter of what jurisdiction might have regulatory/taxation authority is most definitely not a simple one as it would be in the case of a physical product--and as is becoming quite evident now is as requiring of a solution/response as global as the services/products to which they would be applied. The second issue reinforces the first which is that for a variety of reasons for Internet based services/products such as those offered by Google quantity has in fact become quality. The effeciencies and additional effectivenesses/functionalities of these services/products have become so successful that they have become constituative of a number of the conditions for participation in daily life in the 21st century. The absence of these services/products (with no reasonable alternatives available) denies those without these "capabilities" the means to participate in daily life as they might reasonably have expectations and to which they have a natural right (life, liberty... peace, order.. etc.etc.-take your pick) That certain products/services in this time have come to achieve this status was certainly not the intent of the providers. They were, as you indicated below simply offering a product/service like thousands of other industries. That they have been so successful with their products/services that they have become a codition of modern life while not something they wished for should be evident from the tale of the individual attempting to deal with Google among other similar such stories. Combine both of these and what you have are Internet based services/products which are too big (necessary) to be allowed to fail (or be at the whim of any single company) but yet for which there is no evident jurisdiction within which they or the product/service can be held account. That is the challenge--and tossing free market primitivism at it isn't going to make it go away. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:24 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? Let's look at the details of the case. Taipei said it wanted Android platform users to comply with local regulations regarding trial periods and refunds. Google said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw Android market service from Taipei. To me, that seems fair enough. An agreement to disagree; a failure to transact. That should be the end of the story. Those who are complaining about this result seem to be either disconnected from economic reality or, at worst, hypocritical believers in having your cake and eating it, too. Apparently, they want to tell Google: you CANNOT offer services here on terms that you find necessary to meet your needs as a supplier, but if you withdraw service we will whine about it and imply that you should be forced to offer service in a locality you do not want to do business in. There is a very simple form of governance at work here, it's called rational mutual adjustments to local circumstances. The Taipei government says, "we will impose regulations on what you do." Google says, in response, "well, those regulations are too costly to us, we shall choose not to do business there." This kind of choice occurs in thousands of different industries in thousands of different ways. You don't want to live in a world in which that kind of adjustment is not possible. This process of choice provides checks and balances on both players. If Google is too unreasonable in its unwillingness to comply with local consumer regulations, it will be barred from many markets and lose out to others. If Taipei is too unreasonable in its demands on external businesses, it will only prevent its citizens from getting access to many valuable products and services. Please tell me what is a better alternative? Should a local government have the authority to tell a supplier based in another country that it MUST offer its services in its locality, under terms and conditions it does not find profitable or sustainable? Aside from being impractical, it sounds self-evidently crazy to me, but if it doesn't seem so to you consider what would happen if that kind of obligation were established. So, there's a company in Hong Kong offering 1 Gb broadband at US$20/month. I'd like the Syracuse city govt to tell them they HAVE TO offer it to my home. Never mind the fact that cost conditions in Syracuse, with US-style suburban homes spaced hundreds of feet apart aren't quite the same as HK high rises, where one fiber can serve thousands of small apartments. I want my 1 Gb broadband for $20, and I bet 80-90% of other Syracusans do too. OK, so that involves non-transportable physical infrastructure, rather than virtual services, so maybe you think it's not a valid example. So let's go with local/national regulation involving a potentially global, virtual service. Let's say the national government of China says to Google, "we think you have the best search engine so we want it here, but we want it to comply with our censorship regime. So you MUST offer Google search here, but all your servers serving the china market MUST be in the country, all your Gmail accounts MUST provide backdoor access to the public security bureau, and all search results MUST implement our censorship by allowing our censors direct access to your results display process." Under my preferred regime, Google has the right to say, "sorry, no deal." In the Parmindered world, what happens? They MUST go in? So here is a more direct answer to this question: Do Milton and others who seemed to have great reservation about appropriateness of Taipie city government's regulatory competence in that case still think, after reading about the case of unilateral withdrawal of google service, still think that users of these services should have no legal recourse with accountable public governance entity? [Milton L Mueller] First, they do have recourse. They can insist that their government apply local regulations. This may drive the multinationals out altogether. Or they can get their local government to avoid applying those local regulations, or to adjust them, in order to gain access to the services. There are two parties at interest here. There is no requirement to transact at all if either's needs are not met. If local or national governments should *not* be the entity that people should be able to turn to, and these governments should *not* have the regulatory competence, who should? [Milton L Mueller] As usual, you over-dichotomize and -polarize the options. Our real disagreement is on the nature and scope of the regulations. You seem to think that any demand placed on a supplier by a consumer or a government is de facto legitimate and right. I am saying that there are constraints. Suppliers of services cannot be taken for granted as a natural resource, just sitting there waiting to be milked. People produce Internet services, and the people who produce them have legitimate incentives and needs that have to be met, otherwise they will withdraw their services from the market (or die a slow death in the market). Governments that assert controls and regulations in a globalized economy have to face the fact that unfair or overly burdensome regulations will lead private actors to withdraw from their market. Full stop. Likewise, corporations who do things that lots of locally responsive governments can't allow them to do will be barred from many local markets, limiting their growth and profit. What's wrong with that exchange? --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Sun Jul 24 06:57:58 2011 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:27:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <4E2B5A45.3040006@gmx.net> References: <4E2A7891.4020008@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E2B5A45.3040006@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4E2BFAB6.5040805@ITforChange.net> I agree with Norbert. In most cases (domains), while companies compete in providing products and services, the standards that their products comply with are 'open' or 'public'. This prevents a 'lock-in' into the product of any one company. However, in case of the tech sector, the company that has managed to acquire a large user/consumer base often creates proprietary standards which are owned/controlled by it. This gives the company an unfair advantage, since standards in some sense influence the 'rules of the game' Thus Microsoft uses proprietary formats which it changes at its own will (.doc to .docx) and by virtue of being a near monopoly 'locks-in' consumers to its products. This is a clear barrier to new entrants. Though in many countries, the ODF standard has been adopted, the progress to actually implement it is slow due to the prior dominance of Microsoft. Microsoft also does not implement ODF standard in its own Office product (though this is not any technological challenge for it), simply to discourage the use of ODF and ensure its proprietary formats continue to be seen as the de facto standard. Similar issue with Facebook not letting google access contact information. In the case of Google, while android is apparently an 'open' platform, recently there was a news item about how google is able to influence the development of android to a significant degree (see for instance http://www.betanews.com/article/Internal-emails-show-Googles-tight-control-over-Android/1304973434). That apart the might of google (its prowess as a search engine is as much a function of the huge superiority it has through its large number of data servers as of its proprietary algorithm) ensures no level playing field, an essential attribute of a 'free market'. It seems that the market is no panacea for our challenges in IG, on the contrary, the presence of large monopolies/oligopolies makes the market a threat to IG goals. Enforcing open standards is one step by which governments/IG institutions could address this threat. India is one of the few countries to have adopted a clear policy favoring open standards in IT in governance (http://egovstandards.gov.in/policy/policy-on-open-standards-for-e-governance/policy_doc_and_manual_used_in_printing__recd_on_Nov_12.pdf/at_download/file) though this is still largely on paper. Having and enforcing open standards can make the field bit more level playing... regards, Guru On 24/07/11 05:03, Norbert Klein wrote: > On 7/24/2011 4:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Let’s look at the details of the case. >> >> Taipei said it wanted Android platform users to comply with local > regulations regarding trial periods and refunds. >> >> Google said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw Android > market service from Taipei. >> >> To me, that seems fair enough. An agreement to disagree; a failure to > transact. That should be the end of the story. >> >> Those who are complaining about this result seem to be either > disconnected from economic reality or, at worst, hypocritical > believers in having your cake and eating it, too. Apparently, they > want to tell Google: you CANNOT offer services here on terms that you > find necessary to meet your needs as a supplier, but if you withdraw > service we will whine about it and imply that you should be forced to > offer service in a locality you do not want to do business in. >> >> There is a very simple form of governance at work here, it’s called > rational mutual adjustments to local circumstances. >> >> The Taipei government says, “we will impose regulations on what you > do.” Google says, in response, “well, those regulations are too costly > to us, we shall choose not to do business there.” This kind of choice > occurs in thousands of different industries in thousands of different > ways. You don’t want to live in a world in which that kind of > adjustment is not possible. >> >> This process of choice provides checks and balances on both players. > If Google is too unreasonable in its unwillingness to comply with > local consumer regulations, it will be barred from many markets and > lose out to others. If Taipei is too unreasonable in its demands on > external businesses, it will only prevent its citizens from getting > access to many valuable products and services. >> >> Please tell me what is a better alternative? > > > Not an alternative in the strict sense of the word - but a third > (future) option: Open Standards Hardware. > > Years ago, many "experts" did not think Linux and the applications > that run on this Open Source system would achieve the development > achieved so far. > > A few years ago I was in contact with a group of technicians who were > working on an Open Standards definition for the hardware for a mobile > phone and a lot of other functions which we find in different Symbian, > Microsoft etc. mobile devices. > > Surely to develop Open Standards Hardware is not as easy as developing > Open Source software. And the major players at the existing hardware > markets would probably not be keen to get involved soon - just as the > mayor players on the market for proprietary software were not keen to > see the share of Open Source software expanding. But it does. > > > Norbert Klein > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 24 08:19:37 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:19:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <4E2B5A45.3040006@gmx.net> References: <4E2A7891.4020008@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4E2B5A45.3040006@gmx.net> Message-ID: In message <4E2B5A45.3040006 at gmx.net>, at 06:33:25 on Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Norbert Klein writes >Not an alternative in the strict sense of the word - but a third >(future) option: Open Standards Hardware. > >Years ago, many "experts" did not think Linux and the applications that >run on this Open Source system would achieve the development achieved >so far. Partly because the benefits were over-sold. Every year we were apparently on the verge of a 'breakthrough' which would make *nix systems more attractive than MSDOS and Windows. But it never seemed to happen. This was the late 1980's, by the way. At the time, the hardware being developed for was the so-called "PC Clone", which although originally intended to be IBM-proprietary became an open hardware standard very rapidly. It's interesting that there's not a well developed market in (eg) iPhone clones, and people selling iPhone applications that would run on them, but have never been submitted to Apple's approval process. But looking at things from the other end of the telescope, I'm currently a bit concerned about Android applications which turn out to be malware. Who does the average user expect is going to protect them from that? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jul 24 08:25:20 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:25:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request for Information [ICT4 health/ E Health] In-Reply-To: References: <1311448720.91531.yint-ygo-j2me@web161018.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B911@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1I50QfKjszKOFAVw@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 09:32:22 on Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >If the "sms" runs and is facilitated across the IP Core (such as NGNs) >does this qualify it to be part of the internet We looked into this kind of issue ten years ago when debating how to draft the UK Communications Act. People were worried that regulation designed for broadcast television would inadvertently apply to the Internet. Other were worried that if you specifically excluded IP services from the law, then TV companies would send their content from studio to transmitter by IP, and escape regulation. The answer seemed to be that one should ignore the technology, and concentrate on what the service were. Which is why it's of concern if "Internet Governance" is thought to be the same as "TCP/IP governance". Both content and conveyance need governance, although it's very clear that people's worries about the exact same content can be coloured by the conveyance by which it arrives. -- 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 Jul 24 08:29:59 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:29:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E2A7891.4020008@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 17:24:25 on Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Milton L Mueller writes >Let?s look at the details of the case. > >Taipei said it wanted Android platform users to comply with local >regulations regarding trial periods and refunds. > >Google said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw Android >market service from Taipei. > >To me, that seems fair enough. An agreement to disagree; a failure to >transact. That should be the end of the story. > >Those who are complaining about this result seem to be either >disconnected from economic reality or, at worst, hypocritical believers >in having your cake and eating it, too. Apparently, they want to tell >Google: you CANNOT offer services here on terms that you find necessary >to meet your needs as a supplier, but if you withdraw service we will >whine about it and imply that you should be forced to offer service in >a locality you do not want to do business in. No apologies for bringing in another telephone analogy. Very similar concerns were raised when the market for "ring-tones" emerged. There are already consumer protection laws (in Europe) about buying things electronically, but for some reason there was quite a slow start when it came to applying these laws to purchases made, by phone, for a phone. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Jul 24 16:35:11 2011 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:35:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <687424FC7D47430FB827CD98A9DCB8EE@userPC> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <687424FC7D47430FB827CD98A9DCB8EE@userPC> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B93D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Primitive, eh? Nice. Michael, try to get over the shock you always seem to feel when confronted with a rational, well-informed economic liberal; I know such creatures are not supposed to exist in your world, they are all supposed to be Neanderthals, but that's just an artifact of the intellectual homogeneity of Canadian universities. Don't hold me responsible for that, and don't impose your dated stereotypes on this list. Your argument is that access to the Android marketplace is a precondition of modern life. Withdrawal of that service by Google will, I guess, leave Taiwanese denuded, bereft, cast out on a desert isle. Well, bollocks. First, the Android marketplace has hardly existed for a year and has not even come close to establishing some kind of necessity. I have managed to live without it until June 7, 2011, and have used it, oh maybe 3 times since. Second, many android apps can be accessed directly from their maker who (if it was Taiwanese) could choose to comply with the local refund policy, e.g., a local bank. The Android market simply aggregates them for convenience. Yes, there is great power and benefit in that aggregation, but its absence is not a complete roadblock to transacting. Third, there are competitive substitutes. Sorry for reminding you about that "primitive" market stuff, but have you ever heard of the iPhone and the Apple platform? Microsoft and Windows Mobile 7? HP and WebOS? I came very close to not buying an Android phone, which would have opted me out of the Android marketplace altogether. Yikes! I suppose if I had chosen an Apple phone Google would have been depriving me of access to something I deserve, and thus guilty of a crime . . . or, hmmm, am I the one committing a crime against Google? I guess I'm just too primitive to figure that one out. --MM From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:17 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? Milton, I think there are two issues that militate against a primitive market approach as you are articulating for this context/these examples. The first is that since these are Internet based services/products they are by their nature both of every jurisdiction and of no jurisdiction. For reasons various folks have already mentioned the matter of what jurisdiction might have regulatory/taxation authority is most definitely not a simple one as it would be in the case of a physical product--and as is becoming quite evident now is as requiring of a solution/response as global as the services/products to which they would be applied. The second issue reinforces the first which is that for a variety of reasons for Internet based services/products such as those offered by Google quantity has in fact become quality. The effeciencies and additional effectivenesses/functionalities of these services/products have become so successful that they have become constituative of a number of the conditions for participation in daily life in the 21st century. The absence of these services/products (with no reasonable alternatives available) denies those without these "capabilities" the means to participate in daily life as they might reasonably have expectations and to which they have a natural right (life, liberty... peace, order.. etc.etc.-take your pick) That certain products/services in this time have come to achieve this status was certainly not the intent of the providers. They were, as you indicated below simply offering a product/service like thousands of other industries. That they have been so successful with their products/services that they have become a codition of modern life while not something they wished for should be evident from the tale of the individual attempting to deal with Google among other similar such stories. Combine both of these and what you have are Internet based services/products which are too big (necessary) to be allowed to fail (or be at the whim of any single company) but yet for which there is no evident jurisdiction within which they or the product/service can be held account. That is the challenge--and tossing free market primitivism at it isn't going to make it go away. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:24 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? Let's look at the details of the case. Taipei said it wanted Android platform users to comply with local regulations regarding trial periods and refunds. Google said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw Android market service from Taipei. To me, that seems fair enough. An agreement to disagree; a failure to transact. That should be the end of the story. Those who are complaining about this result seem to be either disconnected from economic reality or, at worst, hypocritical believers in having your cake and eating it, too. Apparently, they want to tell Google: you CANNOT offer services here on terms that you find necessary to meet your needs as a supplier, but if you withdraw service we will whine about it and imply that you should be forced to offer service in a locality you do not want to do business in. There is a very simple form of governance at work here, it's called rational mutual adjustments to local circumstances. The Taipei government says, "we will impose regulations on what you do." Google says, in response, "well, those regulations are too costly to us, we shall choose not to do business there." This kind of choice occurs in thousands of different industries in thousands of different ways. You don't want to live in a world in which that kind of adjustment is not possible. This process of choice provides checks and balances on both players. If Google is too unreasonable in its unwillingness to comply with local consumer regulations, it will be barred from many markets and lose out to others. If Taipei is too unreasonable in its demands on external businesses, it will only prevent its citizens from getting access to many valuable products and services. Please tell me what is a better alternative? Should a local government have the authority to tell a supplier based in another country that it MUST offer its services in its locality, under terms and conditions it does not find profitable or sustainable? Aside from being impractical, it sounds self-evidently crazy to me, but if it doesn't seem so to you consider what would happen if that kind of obligation were established. So, there's a company in Hong Kong offering 1 Gb broadband at US$20/month. I'd like the Syracuse city govt to tell them they HAVE TO offer it to my home. Never mind the fact that cost conditions in Syracuse, with US-style suburban homes spaced hundreds of feet apart aren't quite the same as HK high rises, where one fiber can serve thousands of small apartments. I want my 1 Gb broadband for $20, and I bet 80-90% of other Syracusans do too. OK, so that involves non-transportable physical infrastructure, rather than virtual services, so maybe you think it's not a valid example. So let's go with local/national regulation involving a potentially global, virtual service. Let's say the national government of China says to Google, "we think you have the best search engine so we want it here, but we want it to comply with our censorship regime. So you MUST offer Google search here, but all your servers serving the china market MUST be in the country, all your Gmail accounts MUST provide backdoor access to the public security bureau, and all search results MUST implement our censorship by allowing our censors direct access to your results display process." Under my preferred regime, Google has the right to say, "sorry, no deal." In the Parmindered world, what happens? They MUST go in? So here is a more direct answer to this question: Do Milton and others who seemed to have great reservation about appropriateness of Taipie city government's regulatory competence in that case still think, after reading about the case of unilateral withdrawal of google service, still think that users of these services should have no legal recourse with accountable public governance entity? [Milton L Mueller] First, they do have recourse. They can insist that their government apply local regulations. This may drive the multinationals out altogether. Or they can get their local government to avoid applying those local regulations, or to adjust them, in order to gain access to the services. There are two parties at interest here. There is no requirement to transact at all if either's needs are not met. If local or national governments should *not* be the entity that people should be able to turn to, and these governments should *not* have the regulatory competence, who should? [Milton L Mueller] As usual, you over-dichotomize and -polarize the options. Our real disagreement is on the nature and scope of the regulations. You seem to think that any demand placed on a supplier by a consumer or a government is de facto legitimate and right. I am saying that there are constraints. Suppliers of services cannot be taken for granted as a natural resource, just sitting there waiting to be milked. People produce Internet services, and the people who produce them have legitimate incentives and needs that have to be met, otherwise they will withdraw their services from the market (or die a slow death in the market). Governments that assert controls and regulations in a globalized economy have to face the fact that unfair or overly burdensome regulations will lead private actors to withdraw from their market. Full stop. Likewise, corporations who do things that lots of locally responsive governments can't allow them to do will be barred from many local markets, limiting their growth and profit. What's wrong with that exchange? --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jul 24 17:35:20 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:35:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B93D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6478992935794CA3A9090E23BC596F25@userPC> Hi Milton, Strong argument, wrong Michael? Good luck with your Android. MG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 4:35 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? Primitive, eh? Nice. Michael, try to get over the shock you always seem to feel when confronted with a rational, well-informed economic liberal; I know such creatures are not supposed to exist in your world, they are all supposed to be Neanderthals, but that's just an artifact of the intellectual homogeneity of Canadian universities. Don't hold me responsible for that, and don't impose your dated stereotypes on this list. Your argument is that access to the Android marketplace is a precondition of modern life. Withdrawal of that service by Google will, I guess, leave Taiwanese denuded, bereft, cast out on a desert isle. Well, bollocks. First, the Android marketplace has hardly existed for a year and has not even come close to establishing some kind of necessity. I have managed to live without it until June 7, 2011, and have used it, oh maybe 3 times since. Second, many android apps can be accessed directly from their maker who (if it was Taiwanese) could choose to comply with the local refund policy, e.g., a local bank. The Android market simply aggregates them for convenience. Yes, there is great power and benefit in that aggregation, but its absence is not a complete roadblock to transacting. Third, there are competitive substitutes. Sorry for reminding you about that "primitive" market stuff, but have you ever heard of the iPhone and the Apple platform? Microsoft and Windows Mobile 7? HP and WebOS? I came very close to not buying an Android phone, which would have opted me out of the Android marketplace altogether. Yikes! I suppose if I had chosen an Apple phone Google would have been depriving me of access to something I deserve, and thus guilty of a crime . . . or, hmmm, am I the one committing a crime against Google? I guess I'm just too primitive to figure that one out. --MM From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:17 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? Milton, I think there are two issues that militate against a primitive market approach as you are articulating for this context/these examples. The first is that since these are Internet based services/products they are by their nature both of every jurisdiction and of no jurisdiction. For reasons various folks have already mentioned the matter of what jurisdiction might have regulatory/taxation authority is most definitely not a simple one as it would be in the case of a physical product--and as is becoming quite evident now is as requiring of a solution/response as global as the services/products to which they would be applied. The second issue reinforces the first which is that for a variety of reasons for Internet based services/products such as those offered by Google quantity has in fact become quality. The effeciencies and additional effectivenesses/functionalities of these services/products have become so successful that they have become constituative of a number of the conditions for participation in daily life in the 21st century. The absence of these services/products (with no reasonable alternatives available) denies those without these "capabilities" the means to participate in daily life as they might reasonably have expectations and to which they have a natural right (life, liberty... peace, order.. etc.etc.-take your pick) That certain products/services in this time have come to achieve this status was certainly not the intent of the providers. They were, as you indicated below simply offering a product/service like thousands of other industries. That they have been so successful with their products/services that they have become a codition of modern life while not something they wished for should be evident from the tale of the individual attempting to deal with Google among other similar such stories. Combine both of these and what you have are Internet based services/products which are too big (necessary) to be allowed to fail (or be at the whim of any single company) but yet for which there is no evident jurisdiction within which they or the product/service can be held account. That is the challenge--and tossing free market primitivism at it isn't going to make it go away. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:24 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? Let's look at the details of the case. Taipei said it wanted Android platform users to comply with local regulations regarding trial periods and refunds. Google said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw Android market service from Taipei. To me, that seems fair enough. An agreement to disagree; a failure to transact. That should be the end of the story. Those who are complaining about this result seem to be either disconnected from economic reality or, at worst, hypocritical believers in having your cake and eating it, too. Apparently, they want to tell Google: you CANNOT offer services here on terms that you find necessary to meet your needs as a supplier, but if you withdraw service we will whine about it and imply that you should be forced to offer service in a locality you do not want to do business in. There is a very simple form of governance at work here, it's called rational mutual adjustments to local circumstances. The Taipei government says, "we will impose regulations on what you do." Google says, in response, "well, those regulations are too costly to us, we shall choose not to do business there." This kind of choice occurs in thousands of different industries in thousands of different ways. You don't want to live in a world in which that kind of adjustment is not possible. This process of choice provides checks and balances on both players. If Google is too unreasonable in its unwillingness to comply with local consumer regulations, it will be barred from many markets and lose out to others. If Taipei is too unreasonable in its demands on external businesses, it will only prevent its citizens from getting access to many valuable products and services. Please tell me what is a better alternative? Should a local government have the authority to tell a supplier based in another country that it MUST offer its services in its locality, under terms and conditions it does not find profitable or sustainable? Aside from being impractical, it sounds self-evidently crazy to me, but if it doesn't seem so to you consider what would happen if that kind of obligation were established. So, there's a company in Hong Kong offering 1 Gb broadband at US$20/month. I'd like the Syracuse city govt to tell them they HAVE TO offer it to my home. Never mind the fact that cost conditions in Syracuse, with US-style suburban homes spaced hundreds of feet apart aren't quite the same as HK high rises, where one fiber can serve thousands of small apartments. I want my 1 Gb broadband for $20, and I bet 80-90% of other Syracusans do too. OK, so that involves non-transportable physical infrastructure, rather than virtual services, so maybe you think it's not a valid example. So let's go with local/national regulation involving a potentially global, virtual service. Let's say the national government of China says to Google, "we think you have the best search engine so we want it here, but we want it to comply with our censorship regime. So you MUST offer Google search here, but all your servers serving the china market MUST be in the country, all your Gmail accounts MUST provide backdoor access to the public security bureau, and all search results MUST implement our censorship by allowing our censors direct access to your results display process." Under my preferred regime, Google has the right to say, "sorry, no deal." In the Parmindered world, what happens? They MUST go in? So here is a more direct answer to this question: Do Milton and others who seemed to have great reservation about appropriateness of Taipie city government's regulatory competence in that case still think, after reading about the case of unilateral withdrawal of google service, still think that users of these services should have no legal recourse with accountable public governance entity? [Milton L Mueller] First, they do have recourse. They can insist that their government apply local regulations. This may drive the multinationals out altogether. Or they can get their local government to avoid applying those local regulations, or to adjust them, in order to gain access to the services. There are two parties at interest here. There is no requirement to transact at all if either's needs are not met. If local or national governments should *not* be the entity that people should be able to turn to, and these governments should *not* have the regulatory competence, who should? [Milton L Mueller] As usual, you over-dichotomize and -polarize the options. Our real disagreement is on the nature and scope of the regulations. You seem to think that any demand placed on a supplier by a consumer or a government is de facto legitimate and right. I am saying that there are constraints. Suppliers of services cannot be taken for granted as a natural resource, just sitting there waiting to be milked. People produce Internet services, and the people who produce them have legitimate incentives and needs that have to be met, otherwise they will withdraw their services from the market (or die a slow death in the market). Governments that assert controls and regulations in a globalized economy have to face the fact that unfair or overly burdensome regulations will lead private actors to withdraw from their market. Full stop. Likewise, corporations who do things that lots of locally responsive governments can't allow them to do will be barred from many local markets, limiting their growth and profit. What's wrong with that exchange? --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Jul 25 07:23:34 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:23:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <4E29314A.7050306@ciroap.org> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <4E29314A.7050306@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear All, This is coming very late, but - Reading the list that Jeremy sent made me wonder again about the separation between Freedom of [government] Information and Access to Knowledge. Part of the issue is the wording. Tomorrow I will be attending a validation exercise on the amendments proposed for Saint Lucia's Freedom of Information Act, where freedom of information seems to equate with access to knowledge, but access to a restricted range of knowledge. I often find it helpful to try to look at issues from a different angle - what if "information" and "knowledge" were conflated, and a set of provisions suggested to regulate the negotiations between the "general public" and the "owners" of the information/knowledge? I felt that Jeremy's list tends towards my "what if" proposal above. Does anyone have ideas about this? Deirdre On 22 July 2011 04:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ** > On 22/07/11 15:49, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > In my view, it's clearly a governance issue to either decide that no > action should be taken to protect people from this kind of risks, or > to decide and implement measures to protect users of services like > Google's from this kind of loss of their valuable personal data and > online identity. > > If you don't classify this as "an internet governance issue", what > kind of governance issue is it then? > > > For example, Consumers International is proposing that this sort of issue > be the subject of an international guideline on consumer protection law: > > http://a2knetwork.org/guidelines/access-to-knowledge/#21 > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > *www.consumersinternational.org* > *Twitter @ConsumersInt * > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jul 25 09:03:28 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:03:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 12:55:47 on Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Baudouin SCHOMBE writes >A matter of understanding. Following your argument, it is assumed that >application of international instruments such as human rights, a >country already has a body of legislation and appropriate legal use of >digital technology? That's an important observation. Does Internet Governance only apply to those activities which for whatever reason their "Digital technology law" has failed to address, or all digital technology that has some flavour of the Internet? If it's the first, who decides if it really has failed, rather than succeeded in following policy principles other than those they would have preferred? Roland. >2011/7/22 Paul Lehto > >> On 7/22/11, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> > If we aren't careful, then everything we do becomes an Internet >> > Governance issue (if some aspect of the activity takes place on the >> > Internet). >> >> If we abstain from setting a protective policy, that is an internet >> policy as well. It's a style of internet governance: to abstain from >> public policy in favor of private or corporate rule-setting via >> contracts, terms of service, market forces, etc. >> >> I don't know if Roland Perry would go this far, but the line to be >> crossed to truly say something is "not an internet governance issue" >> is to show that either >> >> (1) the activity involved doesn't involve the internet or impact the >> internet, OR >> >> (2) the internet activity in question is beyond the legitimate power >> of any actual or potential governance entity (whether public or >> corporate), including being beyond any claims for the *reasonable* >> extension of some existing public or corporate power. >> >> The *full* application of presently existing human rights laws would >> be a good start. That process of course has started already. >> >> Of course, a more general set of legal commands such as human rights >> laws would arguably benefit in terms of specificity by a treaty that >> explains those rights in the specific new-ish contest of the internet. >> But, in most (if not all) cases, such a specific "new" law would just >> be a detailed application of pre-existing human rights laws and >> principles to the area of the internet. Thus, lawyers and judges >> would say that rights laws regarding the internet already exist, even >> if many or all of the specific holdings await argument and application >> of the human rights laws in appropriate courts with jurisdiction over >> a particular case. Provided such a court is limiting itself to >> application of a general legal right to a new context and not >> over-reaching (often a debatable line here), such a court is not >> making up new law but applying existing law in a newer or somewhat >> different context. >> >> One may note that courts applying principles to new contexts are >> occasionally accused of being "activist" courts and "making up" the >> law. Usually this kind of charge is made by a supporter of corporate >> rights and corporate governance, who know full well that whenever the >> government and/or the courts abstain from law-making or ruling in a >> certain area, the power to rule that particular area thus defaults to >> corporate or private powers, who make the laws applicable to it via >> contracts and terms of service, and so forth. >> >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-4026 (cell) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jul 26 10:19:26 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:19:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: > at > 14:32:59 on Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Paul Lehto writes: >>And the point is, just because you and other people believe that the >>government should not get involved in a particular issue does not mean >>that issue is not part of "internet governance." On 7/23/11, Roland Perry wrote: > Obviously, because governance can be done by various actors, not all of > whom are governments. But governance can not be done by non-governmental, and especially corporate, actors without major consequences. I've addressed the highlights of those major consequences in posts over the last couple weeks. As a policy wonk, Roland, I would think that you would be somewhat averse to such simple statements as it's "obvious" that governance can be done by various actors, when such a statement sets up a very large series of important policy and rights issues. No matter which side you take on those issues, it would seem that internet policy is your cup of tea, and informed accuracy your goal at all times, so (perhaps in other forums outside the limits of email) hopefully you will address them in detail at some other time, and make statements within places like this email thread that leave openings for that later discussion, such as: "Obviously, because governance can be done by various actors, not all of whom are governments, the field of "internet governance" is quite large indeed, and the identity of the actor providing the governance itself raises important questions of internet governance." Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jul 26 10:47:54 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:47:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 7/25/11, Roland Perry wrote: > Does Internet Governance only apply to those activities which for > whatever reason their "Digital technology law" has failed to address, or > all digital technology that has some flavour of the Internet? > > If it's the first, who decides if it really has failed, rather than > succeeded in following policy principles other than those they would > have preferred? Human rights law was prior to the internet, and globally applicable. There could be no policy "choice" to ignore human rights law in favor of some vision of "digital technology law". Such digital technology policies or laws would be mere statutes, and would have to fall whenever inconsistent with (higher) humans rights laws. To carve out an exception for the internet, a law at the same level as human rights laws (an amendment to human rights laws) or at a higher level (somehow) would have to be effected. Here, Roland implies that the clash between human rights laws and corporate governance of the internet has already been consciously worked out, and that human rights approaches somehow lost. It is far more accurate to say human rights laws are often unapplied, or violated, in the context of the internet. It is quite often the case that human rights are ignored and violated even for centuries (e.g. slavery, etc.). That does not mean that the human rights law is inapplicable or not the highest law, nor does it mean that the debate about human rights on the internet has somehow been settled in favor of corporate "slavery" so to speak, or settled against whatever human rights law violation is at stake in a particular internet context. It is quite often the case that illegal or unconstitutional actions against human rights or any other laws continue on not just for years but occasionally for decades or even centuries before enforcement of the law catches up with social practices that violate those laws. We still struggle with things like discrimination, many types of which are clearly against the law and have been for some time. As to any specific example of human rights laws applied to the internet, Roland's suggestion that the debate has already been settled in favor of private practices is not a point well taken. This point would work just as well (which is to say, not at all...) if someone were to suggest that discrimination on the internet, (because it exists and has existed for some time now, and is also engaged in by those in public or private "governance" positions) has "succeeded in following policy principles other than those they would have preferred." Assertions in the above *form* used by Roland suggest among other things that we should no longer worry about things such as discrimination, because discrimination has been "successful." Does the existence of internet discrimination mean we've lost the debate against discrimination? Hardly. But discrimination is something of human rights concern, and its continuance or "success" could be easily taken as the kind of endorsement or "win" for "policy principles" that Roland directly suggests occurred with regard to internet governance's shift from government-based public policy to private corporate laissez faire governance. Because every other human rights concern on the internet is at the same general level as the human rights concern about discrimination, I believe my substitution of the word discrimination -- in order to test Roland's argument and logic - is a fair substitution. And thinking about the same argument in the context of discrimination shows clearly why the existence of some pattern of conduct does not mean that this conduct won in a fair democratic debate and that some "choice" has been made. Legislatures make "choices" to pass unconstitutional laws routinely, and nothing insulates those laws from constitutional or human rights attack. But here, such a conscious choice has typically not been made. We've skated over much thin ice to get to corporate governance without any real examination of the issues involved, and without much real conscious debate, followed by choice. Democracy is 100% process, and without proper process, the outcomes are invalid. This applies with force to the corporate governance regime that presently rules over the internet. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jul 26 11:35:15 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:35:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 10:19:26 on Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Paul Lehto writes >On 7/23/11, Roland Perry wrote: >> Obviously, because governance can be done by various actors, not all of >> whom are governments. > >But governance can not be done by non-governmental, and especially >corporate, actors without major consequences. Major *bad* consequences? >I've addressed the highlights of those major consequences in posts over >the last couple weeks. As a policy wonk, Roland, I would think that >you would be somewhat averse to such simple statements as it's >"obvious" that governance can be done by various actors, when such a >statement sets up a very large series of important policy and rights >issues. A great deal of governance in the UK at least is done on the basis of self-regulation. And important Internet Governance institutions such as Nominet are non-governmental. Several aspects of content regulation are done by relying upon the Terms and Conditions applying to commercial services, rather than a law enforcement official. >No matter which side you take on those issues, it would seem that >internet policy is your cup of tea, and informed accuracy your goal at >all times, so (perhaps in other forums outside the limits of email) >hopefully you will address them in detail at some other time, and make >statements within places like this email thread that leave openings for >that later discussion, such as: > >"Obviously, because governance can be done by various actors, not all >of whom are governments, the field of "internet governance" is quite >large indeed, and the identity of the actor providing the governance >itself raises important questions of internet governance." Yes, it is a policy decision in its own right to decide which actors are going to be empowered. For the avoidance of doubt, the Government can decide that (eg) a Private Sector actor is the most appropriate. Quite often, when the Government "steps in" it's a sign that existing measures are going a bit wrong (we've had some issues with newspaper regulation recently). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jul 26 11:46:00 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:46:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message Q2eQw at mail.gmail.com<1OveO97kHfTY%2BYQA6AyDMyrXb5PmzZoVAfoZ9dxMR_Q2eQw at mail.gmail.com>>, > at 10:19:26 on Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Paul Lehto writes > > On 7/23/11, Roland Perry > >> wrote: >> >>> Obviously, because governance can be done by various actors, not all of >>> whom are governments. >>> >> >> But governance can not be done by non-governmental, and especially >> corporate, actors without major consequences. >> > > Major *bad* consequences? > > > I've addressed the highlights of those major consequences in posts over the >> last couple weeks. As a policy wonk, Roland, I would think that you would >> be somewhat averse to such simple statements as it's "obvious" that >> governance can be done by various actors, when such a statement sets up a >> very large series of important policy and rights issues. >> > > A great deal of governance in the UK at least is done on the basis of > self-regulation. And important Internet Governance institutions such as > Nominet are non-governmental. Not to mention the IETF, RIRs, W3C, ICANN and all the other acronymic governance bodies that have helped to make the Internet the success it has become over the last 40 years. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jul 26 11:45:30 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:45:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 10:47:54 on Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Paul Lehto writes >On 7/25/11, Roland Perry wrote: >> Does Internet Governance only apply to those activities which for >> whatever reason their "Digital technology law" has failed to address, or >> all digital technology that has some flavour of the Internet? >> >> If it's the first, who decides if it really has failed, rather than >> succeeded in following policy principles other than those they would >> have preferred? > >Human rights law was prior to the internet, and globally applicable. >There could be no policy "choice" to ignore human rights law in favor >of some vision of "digital technology law". I certainly didn't have Human Rights law especially in mind (even though earlier correspondents mentioned it), I'm interested here in a method to distinguish between those things which we need to think of as *Internet* governance, and those things which are perhaps Universal governance and the Internet is simply part of that universe. Only then can we discuss the kind of detail you go into later (and which I have not previously commented on very much as far as I recall, so I'm not sure how you deduce my alleged position with such certainty). -- 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 Tue Jul 26 17:17:50 2011 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:17:50 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan Universal Service Fund in Jeopardy Message-ID: A wave of shock and protest has hit the Pakistani ICT and Internet Communities and Industry as well as all other related sectors over the federal govt's interest in reallocating the USF for funding programs other than what the USF was originally created for and has the mandate to do. Move to use Rs45 bn of telecom companies for Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP). Source: DAILY NEWS PAKISTAN Abrar Mustafa Monday, July 25, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=7644&Cat=13&dt=7/25/2011 ISLAMABAD: A wave of apprehensions has taken over the telecom sector amid reports that Telecom Act 1996 was being amended, raising doubts that funds of telecom sector organisations will be spent for Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP). The Finance Ministry has decided to transfer funds of telecom companies amounting to over Rs45 billion to the accounts of the federal government. Sources disclosed the Finance Ministry has informed the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom that it was going to amend Article 33 E(1)(A) of the Telecom (Reorganization) Act 1996, which reads: “Universal Services Fund and Research and Development Fund accounts shall be deposited in the Public Accounts of the Federation which will be operated in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the federal government”. The Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom has started consultations with the relevant quarters for the amendment. The Universal Services Funds (USF) and Research and Development (R&D) Fund operate in the shape of two companies under the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom. All revenue accrued from mobile phones and other telecom organizations go to these companies that are administered jointly by directors of the companies and government officials. Any expenditure or investment from funds accumulated in the USF and R&D Funds is sanctioned by a high-powered three-member committee, which comprises of federal secretaries of finance and two other ministries. The funds of USF are used for provision of telephone and Internet services to the backward and under developed areas of the country whereas scholarships are being given to more than 10,000 students. Moreover research is being made in the field of information technology. Accounts of both the organizations are subject to internal and external arrangements. Attempts were made to take hold of these funds when Sardar Latif Khosa was an adviser to the prime minister. However that could not materialise in the presence of rules and regulations. After that efforts were made to change the board of directors and get a CEO of choice appointed. However, the telecom sector had opposed the move tooth and nail, and the matter was taken to a court of law. Sardar Latif Khosa had to lose his powers as well as job. There are strong reservations about the reported move to amend the Telecom Act. The move to transfer funds of telecom companies to the federal government would deprive telecom sector of the funds so vital for their development and other programmes. It is said that telecom sector gives billions of rupees to the government in the shape of taxes and excise duties; therefore, it would be out of question to give these companies under the control of federal government. Telecom sector is of the opinion that these funds are generated by them and are voluntarily given to government. They threatened that if the proposed amendment is not withdrawn, the move would be strongly resisted on every front. Responsible officials of the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom confided that discussion is being held with companies and telecom organizations and a suitable reply to the Ministry of Finance would be sent after that. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jul 26 19:36:03 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:36:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 7/26/11, Roland Perry wrote: > I certainly didn't have Human Rights law especially in mind (even though > earlier correspondents mentioned it), I'm interested here in a method to > distinguish between those things which we need to think of as *Internet* > governance, and those things which are perhaps Universal governance and > the Internet is simply part of that universe. There's some danger that these types of approaches lead to a result, whether intended or not, that "universal governance" is considered inapplicable to the internet. INstead, the proper view is that Constitutional or human rights law is a normal part of contract law (no contracts to be a slave, for example) and Constitutional or human rights law is part of property law and every other branch of law including "internet law" which is really a combination of contract, free speech, property and IP laws all applied in a specific new type of technological context. > Only then can we discuss the kind of detail you go into later (and which > I have not previously commented on very much as far as I recall, so I'm > not sure how you deduce my alleged position with such certainty). 1. As an internet policy expert, you should be in those areas of constitutional and human rights laws now, since they are part of contract, property and IP laws in addition to being fields of their own, and they all impact the internet. 2. Re: Deducing your "alleged position." Roland, I am merely assuming you are an internet policy expert (which implies awareness of all significant factors affecting internet governance) and in that context I am responding to the specific words you have recently written, which don't leave much if any room for the topics you acknowledge I've written about on this internet governance listserv. So, if your position (when it is revealed in more detail) differs substantially from what it appears to be today, I would of course have to say that I was wrong in my interpretation of your position. But then I would also, because I went only with the clear meaning of your words and their lack of any appropriate qualifications, have to decide if fault doesn't also lay with unclear or imprecise writing on your part. Or, perhaps, an unclear or imprecise reading on my part. But, I'm not trying to divine your position by telepathy or assumptions. I am, instead, responding to the words you choose to place on the internet email "page" and then I presume, since you're an internet policy expert, that what you publish via this listserv is consistent with the rest of your thoughts and writings, and therefore appropriately nuanced in wording in order to harmonize it with the rest of your work. I guess another possibility is that you are taking a recreational and somewhat unprofessional "shoot from the hip" approach in what you write here on this listserv and therefore not carefully crafting your sentences to be consistent with other areas of your thinking. I am obviously not thinking that myself at the present time, because I am taking your words and phrases seriously (and understand that you are a native English speaker, as am I). The good news is that I care about what you write here. Perhaps too much? :) I think not, because internetpolicyagency.com should want everyone to carefully weigh and consider everything it says about the internet. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From philippe.blanchard at me.com Wed Jul 27 04:07:35 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:07:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4e2967d5.46ead80a.1320.7ca2@mx.google.com> References: <4e2967d5.46ead80a.1320.7ca2@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <88516D0A-D49D-410A-A5ED-60E6541088C3@me.com> Dear All, please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. Kind regards, Philippe Data Author : Philippe Blanchard Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on information society » and « internet governance forum » 1. Referential documents Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet activity related reports : • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) 2. Points of interest I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy,…) and the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing…) and on some risks (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no mention of key elements such as “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction”… I fear those elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be addressed once the e-governance principles have been set. · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed in a co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential process. · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce). · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on his report. (seidler at isoc.org) We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the fact it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being struck in some diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and e-life. Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global facility” from a State representative (Venezuela, I think) · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” also appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the Working group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a “official platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or not. This platform would support more effectively the developing countries actions and would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”. Points of interest (cont’d) We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably my “If you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I wasn’t listening carefully enough. · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the political and economical stakes… but it is core. We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. Conclusion Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting room was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more politically sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign. I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to spend 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 for a meeting starting at 10:00. ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she brought challenging food for thought. Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: Hi Philippe, I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 Best Renate Renate Bloem Main Representative Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com skype: Renate.Bloem CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Blanchard Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC Dear Roland thank you for the follow-up. I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make it. I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is not !!! I will follow the outcomes through the net. Kind regards, Philippe On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MR ECOSOC report UN PBD 2011-07-27 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 57856 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 05:05:48 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:05:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] Pakistan Universal Service Fund in Jeopardy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Fouad, I am sorry to hear this. This is nightmarish. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > A wave of shock and protest has hit the Pakistani ICT and Internet > Communities and Industry as well as all other related sectors over the > federal govt's interest in reallocating the USF for funding programs > other than what the USF was originally created for and has the mandate > to do. > > Move to use Rs45 bn of telecom companies for Benazir Income Support > Programme (BISP). > Source: DAILY NEWS PAKISTAN > Abrar Mustafa > Monday, July 25, 2011 > > http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=7644&Cat=13&dt=7/25/2011 > ISLAMABAD: A wave of apprehensions has taken over the telecom sector > amid reports that Telecom Act 1996 was being amended, raising doubts > that funds of telecom sector organisations will be spent for Benazir > Income Support Programme (BISP). > > The Finance Ministry has decided to transfer funds of telecom > companies amounting to over Rs45 billion to the accounts of the > federal government. > > Sources disclosed the Finance Ministry has informed the Ministry of > Information Technology and Telecom that it was going to amend Article > 33 E(1)(A) of the Telecom (Reorganization) Act 1996, which reads: > “Universal Services Fund and Research and Development Fund accounts > shall be deposited in the Public Accounts of the Federation which will > be operated in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the > federal government”. > > The Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom has started > consultations with the relevant quarters for the amendment. > > The Universal Services Funds (USF) and Research and Development (R&D) > Fund operate in the shape of two companies under the Ministry of > Information Technology and Telecom. All revenue accrued from mobile > phones and other telecom organizations go to these companies that are > administered jointly by directors of the companies and government > officials. > > Any expenditure or investment from funds accumulated in the USF and > R&D Funds is sanctioned by a high-powered three-member committee, > which comprises of federal secretaries of finance and two other > ministries. The funds of USF are used for provision of telephone and > Internet services to the backward and under developed areas of the > country whereas scholarships are being given to more than 10,000 > students. > > Moreover research is being made in the field of information > technology. Accounts of both the organizations are subject to internal > and external arrangements. Attempts were made to take hold of these > funds when Sardar Latif Khosa was an adviser to the prime minister. > However that could not materialise in the presence of rules and > regulations. After that efforts were made to change the board of > directors and get a CEO of choice appointed. However, the telecom > sector had opposed the move tooth and nail, and the matter was taken > to a court of law. Sardar Latif Khosa had to lose his powers as well > as job. > > There are strong reservations about the reported move to amend the > Telecom Act. The move to transfer funds of telecom companies to the > federal government would deprive telecom sector of the funds so vital > for their development and other programmes. It is said that telecom > sector gives billions of rupees to the government in the shape of > taxes and excise duties; therefore, it would be out of question to > give these companies under the control of federal government. > > Telecom sector is of the opinion that these funds are generated by > them and are voluntarily given to government. They threatened that if > the proposed amendment is not withdrawn, the move would be strongly > resisted on every front. > > Responsible officials of the Ministry of Information Technology and > Telecom confided that discussion is being held with companies and > telecom organizations and a suitable reply to the Ministry of Finance > would be sent after that. > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 06:49:42 2011 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:49:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 2011/7/27 Baudouin SCHOMBE > Reading Roland and Paul, I wonder if it is not an issue of belonging to a > particular school. The problem of law, as we all know, is relative > depending on the context of each country and according to the realities of > human communities. > In the context of the Internet, national and international landscape is > undeniably embedded to the extent that legal provisions do not stop within > a country and must be in harmony with all other countries in subregional, > regional and international levels. The Internet has no borders and has no > owner. One of the most widely used instruments is the human rights through the > world and in almost all countries, even those who say the contest. > I admire the quality of debate but it is answering in your development > environment. For countries like ours in Africa, this kind of debate is > accessible and possible for around 10% of the population. Even in the sphere > of decision making, this type of debate is not very noticeable and even > less in the academic environment. > > > > "But governance can not be done by non-governmental, and especially > corporate, actors without major consequences" (Paul Lehto,26 juillet 2011 > 15:19) > > > I am immersed in an unopened confusion by reading the argument of Paul > above. Can give more clarification? > > Baudouin > > > > 2011/7/27 Paul Lehto > >> On 7/26/11, Roland Perry wrote: >> > I certainly didn't have Human Rights law especially in mind (even though >> > earlier correspondents mentioned it), I'm interested here in a method to >> > distinguish between those things which we need to think of as *Internet* >> > governance, and those things which are perhaps Universal governance and >> > the Internet is simply part of that universe. >> >> There's some danger that these types of approaches lead to a result, >> whether intended or not, that "universal governance" is considered >> inapplicable to the internet. INstead, the proper view is that >> Constitutional or human rights law is a normal part of contract law >> (no contracts to be a slave, for example) and Constitutional or human >> rights law is part of property law and every other branch of law >> including "internet law" which is really a combination of contract, >> free speech, property and IP laws all applied in a specific new type >> of technological context. >> >> > Only then can we discuss the kind of detail you go into later (and which >> > I have not previously commented on very much as far as I recall, so I'm >> > not sure how you deduce my alleged position with such certainty). >> >> 1. As an internet policy expert, you should be in those areas of >> constitutional and human rights laws now, since they are part of >> contract, property and IP laws in addition to being fields of their >> own, and they all impact the internet. >> >> 2. Re: Deducing your "alleged position." Roland, I am merely >> assuming you are an internet policy expert (which implies awareness of >> all significant factors affecting internet governance) and in that >> context I am responding to the specific words you have recently >> written, which don't leave much if any room for the topics you >> acknowledge I've written about on this internet governance listserv. >> So, if your position (when it is revealed in more detail) differs >> substantially from what it appears to be today, I would of course have >> to say that I was wrong in my interpretation of your position. But >> then I would also, because I went only with the clear meaning of your >> words and their lack of any appropriate qualifications, have to decide >> if fault doesn't also lay with unclear or imprecise writing on your >> part. Or, perhaps, an unclear or imprecise reading on my part. >> >> But, I'm not trying to divine your position by telepathy or >> assumptions. I am, instead, responding to the words you choose to >> place on the internet email "page" and then I presume, since you're an >> internet policy expert, that what you publish via this listserv is >> consistent with the rest of your thoughts and writings, and therefore >> appropriately nuanced in wording in order to harmonize it with the >> rest of your work. >> >> I guess another possibility is that you are taking a recreational and >> somewhat unprofessional "shoot from the hip" approach in what you >> write here on this listserv and therefore not carefully crafting your >> sentences to be consistent with other areas of your thinking. I am >> obviously not thinking that myself at the present time, because I am >> taking your words and phrases seriously (and understand that you are a >> native English speaker, as am I). >> >> The good news is that I care about what you write here. Perhaps too >> much? :) I think not, because internetpolicyagency.com should want >> everyone to carefully weigh and consider everything it says about the >> internet. >> >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-4026 (cell) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ > ACADEMIE DES TIC > FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com > baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Wed Jul 27 09:31:02 2011 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:31:02 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] Pakistan Universal Service Fund in Jeopardy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <040701cc4c61$706815f0$513841d0$@uol.com.br> Looks like the whole world is becoming more intable than ever. Hope not a preannounce of worse days Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Enviada em: quarta-feira, 27 de julho de 2011 06:06 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa Assunto: Re: [governance] Pakistan Universal Service Fund in Jeopardy Dear Fouad, I am sorry to hear this. This is nightmarish. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: A wave of shock and protest has hit the Pakistani ICT and Internet Communities and Industry as well as all other related sectors over the federal govt's interest in reallocating the USF for funding programs other than what the USF was originally created for and has the mandate to do. Move to use Rs45 bn of telecom companies for Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP). Source: DAILY NEWS PAKISTAN Abrar Mustafa Monday, July 25, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=7644 &Cat=13&dt=7/25/2011 ISLAMABAD: A wave of apprehensions has taken over the telecom sector amid reports that Telecom Act 1996 was being amended, raising doubts that funds of telecom sector organisations will be spent for Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP). The Finance Ministry has decided to transfer funds of telecom companies amounting to over Rs45 billion to the accounts of the federal government. Sources disclosed the Finance Ministry has informed the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom that it was going to amend Article 33 E(1)(A) of the Telecom (Reorganization) Act 1996, which reads: “Universal Services Fund and Research and Development Fund accounts shall be deposited in the Public Accounts of the Federation which will be operated in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the federal government”. The Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom has started consultations with the relevant quarters for the amendment. The Universal Services Funds (USF) and Research and Development (R&D) Fund operate in the shape of two companies under the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom. All revenue accrued from mobile phones and other telecom organizations go to these companies that are administered jointly by directors of the companies and government officials. Any expenditure or investment from funds accumulated in the USF and R&D Funds is sanctioned by a high-powered three-member committee, which comprises of federal secretaries of finance and two other ministries. The funds of USF are used for provision of telephone and Internet services to the backward and under developed areas of the country whereas scholarships are being given to more than 10,000 students. Moreover research is being made in the field of information technology. Accounts of both the organizations are subject to internal and external arrangements. Attempts were made to take hold of these funds when Sardar Latif Khosa was an adviser to the prime minister. However that could not materialise in the presence of rules and regulations. After that efforts were made to change the board of directors and get a CEO of choice appointed. However, the telecom sector had opposed the move tooth and nail, and the matter was taken to a court of law. Sardar Latif Khosa had to lose his powers as well as job. There are strong reservations about the reported move to amend the Telecom Act. The move to transfer funds of telecom companies to the federal government would deprive telecom sector of the funds so vital for their development and other programmes. It is said that telecom sector gives billions of rupees to the government in the shape of taxes and excise duties; therefore, it would be out of question to give these companies under the control of federal government. Telecom sector is of the opinion that these funds are generated by them and are voluntarily given to government. They threatened that if the proposed amendment is not withdrawn, the move would be strongly resisted on every front. Responsible officials of the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom confided that discussion is being held with companies and telecom organizations and a suitable reply to the Ministry of Finance would be sent after that. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2817 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1020 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 13:29:55 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:29:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Major Consequences of Tolerating Corporate Governance Message-ID: On 7/27/11, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > 2011/7/27 Baudouin SCHOMBE > >> Reading Roland and Paul, I wonder if it is not an issue of belonging to a >> particular school. The problem of law, as we all know, is relative >> depending on the context of each country and according to the realities of >> human communities. It is probably true that we come from different schools. But the school that I consciously come from is the democracy school -- to always keep in mind the requirements of human freedom, equality and self-government that are the basic requirements and features of democracy. From that standpoint, I believe everyone (until I am otherwise advised) is or wants to be a member of the Democracy School. The other choices of "schools" at this level are historically quite discredited. Of course, democracy also has its "problems" -- it doesn't work as fast as some would like, and so on. But it remains the best of the systems available, and it is the only system that at least tries or claims to exist to guarantee the equal human rights of every person that it governs. > The Internet has no borders and has no >> owner. One of the most widely used instruments is the human rights through >> the >> world and in almost all countries, [...] This is another good reason why human rights law is the most naturally suited law for the internet - both are global in nature already. That being said, we do not have to "choose" to apply human rights law to the internet, it already contains the internet within its global jurisdiction. We need only to enforce human rights law. The two ways to enforce laws are an executive or regulatory type enforcement agency (which presently doesn't exist at a specifically global level, only the national levels and a little international) and on a more or less case by case level via lawsuits (a slower method that more or less does exist globally, provided the plaintiffs have the resources and interest and a court recognizes its own jurisdiction). Based on this, we do need to "choose" to support and expand the mechanisms for legal *remedies* based on law that already exists and applies (human rights laws). A detailed treaty on "rights of the internet" would be *helpful* to such mechanisms for enforcement, but not necessary. Such a treaty would only provide helpful detail in terms of thinking out how general human rights laws apply more specifically to the internet, but courts can and do answer these kinds of questions in the normal course of things. The danger with such a treaty of detail regarding the internet is it ends up being, in effect even if not intended to be, a way of rolling back human rights laws on the internet, such as if various types of exceptions are put into the treaty. If a "stakeholder" model is used for such treaty negotiation, because the internet is right now so heavily corporate, it is highly likely that a corporate-style treaty would result that would be more friendly to corporate interests than to human rights laws, and thus would cut back on human rights in the internet. Thus, whether an internet treaty is a desirable thing or not depends upon seeing the details of the treaty, which won't be available until the treaty is completed. As I see it, an internet treaty, while possibly desirable, is not absolutely necessary (because law already exists) and could well be a step backwards rather than forwards. >> I admire the quality of debate but it is answering in your development >> environment. For countries like ours in Africa, this kind of debate is >> accessible and possible for around 10% of the population. Even in the >> sphere >> of decision making, this type of debate is not very noticeable and even >> less in the academic environment. A nice compliment to the list. But in my country (USA) I would say this level of debate is experienced by less than 10% of the population, much less. (In theory, because internet access is much higher than 10%, it can be accessed or possible by much more). But I think the hope is, both in Africa and Asia and Europe and the Americas, is that those on lists like this take what they learn and spread it around to others, even those without access to this list, so that the 10% or less becomes 10% plus much more. Sometimes this is called "the diffusion of education" and it is probably the most important function we all can have in the long run. >> >> "But governance can not be done by non-governmental, and especially >> corporate, actors without major consequences" (Paul Lehto,26 juillet 2011 >> 15:19) >> >> >> I am immersed in an unopened confusion by reading the argument of Paul >> above. Can give more clarification? >> Baudouin The quote that Baudoin makes from my prior post is really a topic sentence, more or less, that summarizes everything I've written in the last week or two here. Those posts, if anyone is interested, can be reviewed with that in mind. But I will give some highlights here: 1. The debate started, for me, with my response to a post suggesting that we keep government "out" of the internet. First, I pointed to the fact that keeping government "out" of the internet does not mean that law, or free speech suppression, or unfairness of any kind stays out of the internet. This is because the "law of the internet", without government involvement, is set by contracts and terms of service with largely corporate powers. These are very detailed and complicated, and if they were added up would weigh much more in kilos of paper printouts than government regulation does or would. All contracts can be brought to court to try to enforce them, so the "law of the internet" without government involvement, is set by private and mostly corporate actors, but still enforceable in government courts. Thus, to keep government out of the internet does not mean that we keep force out of the internet: Contracts are private law so to speak, and can be forced or enforced in courts. 2. If we keep government "out" of the internet, we still have law and governance, it's just not democratically-derived, it's set by private actors, mostly corporations. This is a big issue in my view, and is often out of view in part because "governance" is a somewhat broader term than government, because "governance" includes private corporate control/government. The very fact that we use the term "governance" even to name this list is a "frame" that helps to hide very big issues because it includes both corporations and government within the circle of what is presumably good "governance". Some questions or consequences of corporate governance include but are not limited to: (1) When, if at all, should corporations or other private actors be able to set the law of the internet? (2) Is setting the law of the internet on a piece by piece basis, as always happens with individual contract approaches, a good idea? (3) Does that lead to predictability or uniformity of governance? Here, by way of example on this list, we happened to have a person elected to the board of a private corporation providing nation-based governance of internet domains. In a series of posts, I pointed to how this corporation has set up its own judicial system and made its own laws. It does not feel it needs to trace its own power to the people like in democracy, its members are limited to those who own domains. Its rules of arbitration provide that no democratically-derived laws of procedure shall apply -- even if both sides of the case and the arbitrator agree! That is remarkable in my view, and shows how this corporate governor-corporation is protecting its perceived area of power or "turf." (3) Conclusion: Keeping government out does not guarantee freedom at all, and in fact guarantees non-democratic corporate government/governance. What is needed is to constrain government to limit its activities to consumer protection and "structuring" activities that create a fair playing field for all, but to not allow government or any corporation to reduce or eliminate free speech. (Corporations are great at eliminating or limiting free speech) (4) When we see posts or news that points to the "specter" of heavy governmental involvement, we all oppose that, but this does not mean we can oppose proper government role in the internet. That is the same, in effect, as opposing democracy and human rights, because without government laws, the law is not democratic (it is contractual), and without governmental courts that apply laws evenly we do not have just judicial systems that apply all the laws, including human rights laws, that freely elected governments have chosen to endorse. (5) The irony is that opposing possible future governmental wrongdoing in effect even if not in intent, hides the private corporate wrongdoing for which we have even less recourse or things we can do about it than we do with governments. (6) Someone will always govern the internet, will it be democratic, or will it be privately and thus non-democratically controlled? (Even when "private"-controlled, the democratic laws of contract and such are still used, but they are second-class laws and the drafters of the contracts are really in control). Let me know if the above is not clear. You ask a very good question and I have not figured out the best way to explain. Another thing to look at is Parminder's post that also quoted something I had just written and he thought it was clear in explaining the consequences of further entrenching corporate governance. The choice of corporate governance should be a conscious one -- even if one supports the present corporate regime of governance! Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 27 14:29:40 2011 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:29:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5OyXhNKUkFMOFAEe@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 19:36:03 on Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Paul Lehto writes >On 7/26/11, Roland Perry wrote: >> I certainly didn't have Human Rights law especially in mind (even though >> earlier correspondents mentioned it), I'm interested here in a method to >> distinguish between those things which we need to think of as *Internet* >> governance, and those things which are perhaps Universal governance and >> the Internet is simply part of that universe. > >There's some danger that these types of approaches lead to a result, >whether intended or not, that "universal governance" is considered >inapplicable to the internet. There were people who claimed that the Internet was separate entity called "Cyberspace" and that normal laws didn't apply. I think that's pretty much in the past now. >1. As an internet policy expert, you should be in those areas of >constitutional and human rights laws now, since they are part of >contract, property and IP laws in addition to being fields of their >own, and they all impact the internet. I'm more interested in competition law (or deregulation as it's often called). And data protection/lawful disclosure issues. Admittedly, this is because those issues are the ones which affect network operators the most, and without network operators you don't have an Internet. >...I presume, since you're an internet policy expert, that what you >publish via this listserv is consistent with the rest of your thoughts >and writings, and therefore appropriately nuanced in wording in order >to harmonize it with the rest of your work. Consistency is very important to me. I don't think I change position on things very much, because the same issues (and often a lack of solutions) are all around us now, as they were ten years ago. -- 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 Jul 28 00:38:03 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:08:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4E2A7891.4020008@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71750B1B916@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4E30E7AB.1000102@itforchange.net> Milton My question for which I sought a direct answer from you was whether people should not have any legal recourse with an accountable public governance entity regarding issues concerning their commercial dealing with some kinds of corporations selling digital services across borders. This question directly arose from your assertion in response to the news item on google- taipei government stand off, which I quote Local governments have a lot to do with local things. Or have you forgotten about things like roads, schools, crime and law enforcement, etc.? Local govts that try to parasitize virtual businesses tend not to focus on what they need to be doing. (Milton) It is clear that you questioned Taipei government's right to do what it did (calling it parasitizing), when many of us thought that it was a perfectly legitimate and justified stand of the Taipie government to safegaurd its citizen's interests. . You empathetically reasserted your strong opposition to application of any such local jurisdictions to global sale of digital services in response to a email by Lee Keep in mind that the original discussion was not about taxation per se, but about_regulation_. No one in their right mind would support the idea that mere publication of an app by an innovator in, say, Mexico City should make that publisher subject to the regulations of a Thai municipality (and 100,000 other jurisdictions) simply because someone in Thailand accessed it over the internet. That is almost a perfect reduction ad absurdum of territorial government. I reiterate my perhaps blunt and deliberatel;y strong but fundamentally accurate charge that anyone who advocates such a thing is anti-internet, anti-growth, anti-economy and/or has no clue regarding the practical consequences of what they are saying. (MILTON) And now you suddenly seem to say that Taipei said it wanted Android platform users to comply with local regulations regarding trial periods and refunds. Google said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw Android market service from Taipei.To me, *that seems fair enough* (emphasis added). An agreement to disagree; a failure to transact. That should be the end of the story. (Milton) and, later in the email First, they (citizens of Taipie) do have recourse. They can insist that their government apply local regulations. (Milton) Whereby, now you are trying to give the impression that you never opposed such assertion of territorial jurisdiction (as long as later one doesnt whine that Google has therefore withdrawn its services). Sorry, Milton, as is evident from your quoted emails, you clearly, and strongly, opposed any application of territorial jurisdiction on digital services made available from across the borders. In trying to respond to my 'legal recourse' question', you cannot completely reverse that stance since it is this specific stance you took which alone brought up the question that I posed to you. parminder On Sunday 24 July 2011 02:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Let's look at the details of the case. > > Taipei said it wanted Android platform users to comply with local > regulations regarding trial periods and refunds. > > Google said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw Android > market service from Taipei. > > To me, that seems fair enough. An agreement to disagree; a failure to > transact. That should be the end of the story. > > Those who are complaining about this result seem to be either > disconnected from economic reality or, at worst, hypocritical > believers in having your cake and eating it, too. Apparently, they > want to tell Google: you CANNOT offer services here on terms that you > find necessary to meet your needs as a supplier, but if you withdraw > service we will whine about it and imply that you should be forced to > offer service in a locality you do not want to do business in. > > There is a very simple form of governance at work here, it's called > rational mutual adjustments to local circumstances. > > The Taipei government says, "we will impose regulations on what you > do." Google says, in response, "well, those regulations are too costly > to us, we shall choose not to do business there." This kind of choice > occurs in thousands of different industries in thousands of different > ways. You don't want to live in a world in which that kind of > adjustment is not possible. > > This process of choice provides checks and balances on both players. > If Google is too unreasonable in its unwillingness to comply with > local consumer regulations, it will be barred from many markets and > lose out to others. If Taipei is too unreasonable in its demands on > external businesses, it will only prevent its citizens from getting > access to many valuable products and services. > > Please tell me what is a better alternative? > > Should a local government have the authority to tell a supplier based > in another country that it MUST offer its services in its locality, > under terms and conditions it does not find profitable or sustainable? > Aside from being impractical, it sounds self-evidently crazy to me, > but if it doesn't seem so to you consider what would happen if that > kind of obligation were established. > > So, there's a company in Hong Kong offering 1 Gb broadband at > US$20/month. I'd like the Syracuse city govt to tell them they HAVE TO > offer it to my home. Never mind the fact that cost conditions in > Syracuse, with US-style suburban homes spaced hundreds of feet apart > aren't quite the same as HK high rises, where one fiber can serve > thousands of small apartments. I want my 1 Gb broadband for $20, and I > bet 80-90% of other Syracusans do too. > > OK, so that involves non-transportable physical infrastructure, rather > than virtual services, so maybe you think it's not a valid example. So > let's go with local/national regulation involving a potentially > global, virtual service. Let's say the national government of China > says to Google, "we think you have the best search engine so we want > it here, but we want it to comply with our censorship regime. So you > MUST offer Google search here, but all your servers serving the china > market MUST be in the country, all your Gmail accounts MUST provide > backdoor access to the public security bureau, and all search results > MUST implement our censorship by allowing our censors direct access to > your results display process." Under my preferred regime, Google has > the right to say, "sorry, no deal." In the Parmindered world, what > happens? They MUST go in? > > So here is a more direct answer to this question: > > Do Milton and others who seemed to have great reservation about > appropriateness of Taipie city government's regulatory competence in > that case still think, after reading about the case of unilateral > withdrawal of google service, still think that users of these services > should have no legal recourse with accountable public governance entity? > > */[Milton L Mueller] /* > > *//* > > First, they do have recourse. They can insist that their government > apply local regulations. This may drive the multinationals out > altogether. Or they can get their local government to avoid applying > those local regulations, or to adjust them, in order to gain access to > the services. There are two parties at interest here. There is no > requirement to transact at all if either's needs are not met. > > If local or national governments should *not* be the entity that > people should be able to turn to, and these governments should *not* > have the regulatory competence, who should? > > */[Milton L Mueller] /* > > *//* > > As usual, you over-dichotomize and -polarize the options. Our real > disagreement is on the nature and scope of the regulations. You seem > to think that any demand placed on a supplier by a consumer or a > government is de facto legitimate and right. I am saying that there > are constraints. Suppliers of services cannot be taken for granted as > a natural resource, just sitting there waiting to be milked. People > produce Internet services, and the people who produce them have > legitimate incentives and needs that have to be met, otherwise they > will withdraw their services from the market (or die a slow death in > the market). Governments that assert controls and regulations in a > globalized economy have to face the fact that unfair or overly > burdensome regulations will lead private actors to withdraw from their > market. Full stop. Likewise, corporations who do things that lots of > locally responsive governments can't allow them to do will be barred > from many local markets, limiting their growth and profit. > > What's wrong with that exchange? > > --MM > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From philippe.blanchard at me.com Thu Jul 28 03:34:40 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:34:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4e310798.84cae30a.511e.19af@mx.google.com> References: <4e310798.84cae30a.511e.19af@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Chers tous, Dear all Some of you seemed unable to even open the email and since I have seen some requests for a more open and portable document, please find a PDF which should be a better solution. I hope it will spark some discussion amongst us. Best (and open :-) ) regards, Philippe From: Philippe Blanchard [mailto:philippe.blanchard at me.com] Sent: mercredi, 27. juillet 2011 10:08 To: Cc: Renate Bloem (Gmail) Subject: Meeting report ECOSOC presentations Dear All, please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. Kind regards, Philippe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MR ECOSOC report UN PBD 2011-07-27.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 78386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 28 03:49:54 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:49:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <4e310798.84cae30a.511e.19af@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear Philippe, Thank you for taking such excellent notes. Best Regards, Sala On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Philippe Blanchard < philippe.blanchard at me.com> wrote: > Chers tous, Dear all > > Some of you seemed unable to even open the email and since I have seen some > requests for a more open and portable document, please find a PDF which > should be a better solution. > > I hope it will spark some discussion amongst us. > > Best (and open :-) ) regards, > > Philippe > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Philippe Blanchard [mailto:philippe.blanchard at me.com] > *Sent:* mercredi, 27. juillet 2011 10:08 > *To:* > *Cc:* Renate Bloem (Gmail) > *Subject:* Meeting report ECOSOC presentations**** > ** ** > Dear All,**** > ** ** > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For > reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document.**** > Kind regards,**** > Philippe**** > ** ** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Jul 28 04:44:49 2011 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:44:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <88516D0A-D49D-410A-A5ED-60E6541088C3@me.com> References: <4e2967d5.46ead80a.1320.7ca2@mx.google.com> <88516D0A-D49D-410A-A5ED-60E6541088C3@me.com> Message-ID: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> Dear members of the list Philippe wrote : < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).> I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.> Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a "biased attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I would like to know is how many true CS delegates attended these meetings and which organisatiions they represented. Additionnally it'd be interesting to know how DCs were represented in these meetings : governement, regional orgs, CS and private sector. Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could provide us these data. Many thanks in advance. Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT          > Message du 27/07/11 10:11 > De : "Philippe Blanchard" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > Dear All, > > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. > Kind regards, > Philippe > > > > Data > > Author : Philippe Blanchard > > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on information society » and « internet governance forum » > > > > > > 1. Referential documents > > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet activity related reports : > > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) > > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) > > > > > > > > > 2. Points of interest > > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. > > > > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy,…) and the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing…) and on some risks (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no mention of key elements such as “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction”… I fear those elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be addressed once the e-governance principles have been set. > > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed in a co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential process. > > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. > > > > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce). > > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on his report. (seidler at isoc.org) > > > > > > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the fact it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being struck in some diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). > > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and e-life. Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global facility” from a State representative (Venezuela, I think) > > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” also appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. > > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the Working group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a “official platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or not. This platform would support more effectively the developing countries actions and would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”. > > > > > > > > Points of interest (cont’d) > > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably my “If you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). > > > > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I wasn’t listening carefully enough. > > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the political and economical stakes… but it is core. > > > > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conclusion > > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting room was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more politically sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign. > > > > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: > > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to spend 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 for a meeting starting at 10:00. > > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she brought challenging food for thought. > > > > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > Hi Philippe, > > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 > Best > Renate > > Renate Bloem > Main Representative > Civicus UN Geneva > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > Mobile : +41763462310 > renate.bloem at civicus.org > renate.bloem at gmail.com > skype: Renate.Bloem > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > www.civicus.org > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Philippe Blanchard > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC > > Dear Roland > > thank you for the follow-up. > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make > it. > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is > not !!! > > I will follow the outcomes through the net. > > Kind regards, > Philippe > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? > > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. > > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 > > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. > > > creditation.pdf> > > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. > > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From philippe.blanchard at me.com Thu Jul 28 05:38:08 2011 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:38:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> References: <4e2967d5.46ead80a.1320.7ca2@mx.google.com> <88516D0A-D49D-410A-A5ED-60E6541088C3@me.com> <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> Message-ID: <097D6098-4D9B-4A6D-813A-2C872D8BA30C@me.com> Dear Jean-Louis, I understand your very legitimate concern. However : 1/ I only mentioned the organisations I was aware of and they were also several participants I did not know previously... Maybe even participants to that list :-9 2/ in terms of appraising the attendance, unless you have the precise headcount, it is only a gross estimate. If I compare with other international meetings, I confirm this was on the right side of the balance. I would like to stress this was mainly a formal report presentation meeting. Attendance and collaboration are definitely more core in the contribution phases. Your point is then key regarding the improvement of the participation process and how can we enhance : 1/ data collection, (which taxonomy and ontology ? validity of the sensors..) 2/ knowledge elicitation and formalization of bad / good practices (as I mentioned in the report, which key performance indicators ? And how to make sure that we balance quantitative / qualitative elements, tangibles vs intangibles....) 3/ presentation of the recommendations and arbitrage 4/ Definition of the implementation plan 5/ Implementation and monitoring 6/ feedback and... go straight to number One :-) For me, as far as I understood, it will be the responsibility of the Internet Governance Forum to set the field of play and make sure the process is as efficient as possible. INclusivity will definitely be key when it comes to Civil society participation and commitment... but we will have to cope with reality constraints... Regards, Philippe On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: Dear members of the list Philippe wrote : < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).> I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.> Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a "biased attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I would like to know is how many true CS delegates attended these meetings and which organisatiions they represented. Additionnally it'd be interesting to know how DCs were represented in these meetings : governement, regional orgs, CS and private sector. Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could provide us these data. Many thanks in advance. Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 27/07/11 10:11 > De : "Philippe Blanchard" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > Dear All, > > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. > Kind regards, > Philippe > > > > Data > > Author : Philippe Blanchard > > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on information society » and « internet governance forum » > > > > > > 1. Referential documents > > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet activity related reports : > > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) > > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) > > > > > > > > > 2. Points of interest > > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. > > > > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy,…) and the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing…) and on some risks (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no mention of key elements such as “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction”… I fear those elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be addressed once the e-governance principles have been set. > > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed in a co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential process. > > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. > > > > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce). > > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on his report. (seidler at isoc.org) > > > > > > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the fact it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being struck in some diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). > > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and e-life. Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global facility” from a State representative (Venezuela, I think) > > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” also appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. > > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the Working group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a “official platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or not. This platform would support more effectively the developing countries actions and would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”. > > > > > > > > Points of interest (cont’d) > > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably my “If you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). > > > > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I wasn’t listening carefully enough. > > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the political and economical stakes… but it is core. > > > > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conclusion > > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting room was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more politically sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign. > > > > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: > > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to spend 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 for a meeting starting at 10:00. > > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she brought challenging food for thought. > > > > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > Hi Philippe, > > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 > Best > Renate > > Renate Bloem > Main Representative > Civicus UN Geneva > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > Mobile : +41763462310 > renate.bloem at civicus.org > renate.bloem at gmail.com > skype: Renate.Bloem > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > www.civicus.org > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Philippe Blanchard > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC > > Dear Roland > > thank you for the follow-up. > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make > it. > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is > not !!! > > I will follow the outcomes through the net. > > Kind regards, > Philippe > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? > > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. > > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 > > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. > > > creditation.pdf> > > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. > > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jul 28 06:56:48 2011 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:56:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> Message-ID: <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Dear Philippe and Jean-Louis, Let me first thank Philippe for his kind words and his report. Just to add: South Africa, on behalf of India and Brazil, made a strong statement in calling for an intergovernmental mechanism for enhanced cooperation, separate from but in close cooperation with the IGF. Otherwise ECOSOC adopted without vote all the decisions from its subsidiary body the CSTD, including “Participation on non-governmental organizations and civil society entities not accredited to WSIS in the work of CSTD”, taking down the last barrier for participation in the Commission. However, participation in ECOSOC itself is still restricted to ECOSOC NGOs. But these 4 week long substantive sessions in July, alternating between NY and Geneva, are seen by many NGOs/CSOs just as rubberstamping exercises, apart from the High level segment at the beginning, and therefore not worth their attendance (I have a slightly different opinion) , except for Geneva or NY based entities for sections of their interest. Jean Louis, this may explain the low attendance of CSOs. But the relative high attendance of Governments at least indicates interest in the issues. NGOs are invited and can also take the floor on any item. Best Renate _____ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Louis FULLSACK Sent: jeudi, 28. juillet 2011 10:45 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Philippe Blanchard Subject: re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations Dear members of the list Philippe wrote : < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).> I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.> Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a "biased attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I would like to know is how many true CS delegates attended these meetings and which organisatiions they represented. Additionnally it'd be interesting to know how DCs were represented in these meetings : governement, regional orgs, CS and private sector. Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could provide us these data. Many thanks in advance. Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 27/07/11 10:11 > De : "Philippe Blanchard" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > Dear All, > > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. > Kind regards, > Philippe > > > > Data > > Author : Philippe Blanchard > > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on information society » and « internet governance forum » > > > > > > 1. Referential documents > > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet activity related reports : > > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) > > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) > > > > > > > > > 2. Points of interest > > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. > > > > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy, ) and the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing ) and on some risks (fraudulent use ; espionage ). But no mention of key elements such as “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction” I fear those elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be addressed once the e-governance principles have been set. > > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed in a co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential process. > > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. > > > > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce). > > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on his report. (seidler at isoc.org) > > > > > > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the fact it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being struck in some diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). > > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and e-life. Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global facility” from a State representative (Venezuela, I think) > > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” also appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. > > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the Working group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a “official platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or not. This platform would support more effectively the developing countries actions and would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”. > > > > > > > > Points of interest (cont’d) > > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably my “If you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). > > > > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I wasn’t listening carefully enough. > > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the political and economical stakes but it is core. > > > > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conclusion > > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting room was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more politically sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign. > > > > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: > > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to spend 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 for a meeting starting at 10:00. > > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she brought challenging food for thought. > > > > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > Hi Philippe, > > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 > Best > Renate > > Renate Bloem > Main Representative > Civicus UN Geneva > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > Mobile : +41763462310 > renate.bloem at civicus.org > renate.bloem at gmail.com > skype: Renate.Bloem > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > www.civicus.org > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Philippe Blanchard > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC > > Dear Roland > > thank you for the follow-up. > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make > it. > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is > not !!! > > I will follow the outcomes through the net. > > Kind regards, > Philippe > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? > > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. > > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 > > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. > > > creditation.pdf> > > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. > > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jul 28 08:03:10 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:03:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: (message from Paul Lehto on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:47:54 -0400) References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> Paul Lehto wrote: > Democracy is 100% process, and without proper process, the outcomes > are invalid. This applies with force to the corporate governance > regime that presently rules over the internet. It also applies with force to just about all internet governance activities currently undertaken by governments, including in particular widespread efforts of governments in various countries to set up infrastructures for near-Orwellian surveillance of internet communication, while paying only lip service to human rights. Is there *any* country whose government is not guilty of this? 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Jul 28 07:22:44 2011 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:22:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google again Message-ID: Related to, but not (?) the same issue as the earlier message about Google, here's an item from the BBC website about Google+, a demand for "real" names, and the suspension of accounts that don't have them http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14312047 Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 28 12:53:19 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:23:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> References: <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4E3193FF.2080202@itforchange.net> On Thursday 28 July 2011 04:26 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > Dear Philippe and Jean-Louis, > > Let me first thank Philippe for his kind words and his report. Just to > add: South Africa, on behalf of India and Brazil, made a strong > statement in calling for an intergovernmental mechanism for enhanced > cooperation, separate from but in close cooperation with the IGF.in > While there should be some significant institutional innovations to a traditional inter-governmental platform for global IG (some such innovations were suggested by my organisation in its submission to the consultation on enhanced cooperation in Dec 2010), I find the demand for a new platform for democratic global Internet policy making very welcome especially in its being conceptualised to be in close cooperation/ connection with the IGF. It is especially so if the IGF can reform itself to be able to channel multistakeholder inputs purposively into this new policy making platform (and these three countires have indeed sought such improvements in the IGF whereas developed countries, along with many civil society actors from developing countries, have opposed them). I completely fail to understand how those who enthusiastically engage with OECD kind of inter-governmental poliy-making processes, whose processes of multistakeholder input are patently much less open and democratic than the above EC-IGF connection scheme, can be against this kind of policy making system for the global stage. How do they justify it? I know I have asked this question of simple democratic equity and fairness several times but I am yet to get a proper answer to it. I earnestly hope that those to whom I direct this question will engage with it in the open discursive spirit that is the hallmark of civil society, and its principle basis of legitimacy. parminder > Otherwise ECOSOC adopted without vote all the decisions from its > subsidiary body the CSTD, including “Participation on non-governmental > organizations and civil society entities not accredited to WSIS in the > work of CSTD”, taking down the last barrier for participation in the > Commission. > > However, participation in ECOSOC itself is still restricted to ECOSOC > NGOs. But these 4 week long substantive sessions in July, alternating > between NY and Geneva, are seen by many NGOs/CSOs just as > rubberstamping exercises, apart from the High level segment at the > beginning, and therefore not worth their attendance (I have a slightly > different opinion) , except for Geneva or NY based entities for > sections of their interest. Jean Louis, this may explain the low > attendance of CSOs. But the relative high attendance of Governments at > least indicates interest in the issues. NGOs are invited and can also > take the floor on any item. > > Best > > Renate > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] > *On Behalf Of *Jean-Louis FULLSACK > *Sent:* jeudi, 28. juillet 2011 10:45 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Philippe Blanchard > *Subject:* re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > Dear members of the list > > > Philippe wrote : > < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society > (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).> > > I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some > complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence > < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.> > > Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a "biased > attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I would > like to know is how many true CS delegates attended these meetings and > which organisatiions they represented. Additionnally it'd be > interesting to know how DCs were represented in these meetings : > governement, regional orgs, CS and private sector. > > Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could > provide us these data. Many thanks in advance. > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT > > > > > > > > > Message du 27/07/11 10:11 > > De : "Philippe Blanchard" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" > > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > > > Dear All, > > > > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. > For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. > > Kind regards, > > Philippe > > > > > > > > Data > > > > Author : Philippe Blanchard > > > > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on > information society » and « internet governance forum » > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Referential documents > > > > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet > activity related reports : > > > > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the > implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on > the Information Society at the regional and international levels > (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) > > > > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet > Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Points of interest > > > > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just > taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. > > > > > > > > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy,…) > and the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing…) and on some > risks (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no mention of key elements > such as “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction”… I fear > those elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be > addressed once the e-governance principles have been set. > > > > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level > (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed > in a co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential > process. > > > > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. > > > > > > > > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are > clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s > presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the > civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers > of Commerce). > > > > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on > his report. (seidler at isoc.org) > > > > > > > > > > > > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the > “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously > recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the > fact it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being > struck in some diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). > > > > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet > eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the > existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and > e-life. Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global > facility” from a State representative (Venezuela, I think) > > > > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” > also appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. > > > > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the > Working group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a > “official platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or > not. This platform would support more effectively the developing > countries actions and would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Points of interest (cont’d) > > > > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by > the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and > monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably > my “If you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). > > > > > > > > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I > wasn’t listening carefully enough. > > > > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the > political and economical stakes… but it is core. > > > > > > > > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s > previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conclusion > > > > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting > room was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more > politically sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. > And that is definitely a good sign. > > > > > > > > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: > > > > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no > piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to > spend 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 > for a meeting starting at 10:00. > > > > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she > brought challenging food for thought. > > > > > > > > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > > > Hi Philippe, > > > > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late > > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 > > Best > > Renate > > > > Renate Bloem > > Main Representative > > Civicus UN Geneva > > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > > Mobile : +41763462310 > > renate.bloem at civicus.org > > renate.bloem at gmail.com > > skype: Renate.Bloem > > > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > > www.civicus.org > > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society > > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) > > > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf > > Of Philippe Blanchard > > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC > > > > Dear Roland > > > > thank you for the follow-up. > > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make > > it. > > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome > > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN > recognition, is > > not !!! > > > > I will follow the outcomes through the net. > > > > Kind regards, > > Philippe > > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on > > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > > > > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? > > > > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. > > > > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 > > > > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. > > > > > creditation.pdf> > > > > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still > > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. > > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. > > > > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf > > -- > > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 28 13:08:32 2011 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:38:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4E3193FF.2080202@itforchange.net> References: <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E3193FF.2080202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E319790.6040802@itforchange.net> On Thursday 28 July 2011 10:23 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Thursday 28 July 2011 04:26 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: >> >> Dear Philippe and Jean-Louis, >> >> Let me first thank Philippe for his kind words and his report. Just >> to add: South Africa, on behalf of India and Brazil, made a strong >> statement in calling for an intergovernmental mechanism for enhanced >> cooperation, separate from but in close cooperation with the IGF.in >> > > While there should be some significant institutional innovations to a > traditional inter-governmental platform for global IG (some such > innovations were suggested by my organisation in its submission to the > consultation on enhanced cooperation in Dec 2010), I find the demand > for a new platform for democratic global Internet policy making very > welcome especially in its being conceptualised to be in close > cooperation/ connection with the IGF. > > It is especially so if the IGF can reform itself to be able to channel > multistakeholder inputs purposively into this new policy making > platform (and these three countires have indeed sought such > improvements in the IGF whereas developed countries, along with many > civil society actors from developing countries, have opposed them). i mean, '..... along with many civil society actors from *developed* (and not developing) countries have opposed them'. > > I completely fail to understand how those who enthusiastically engage > with OECD kind of inter-governmental poliy-making processes, whose > processes of multistakeholder input are patently much less open and > democratic than the above EC-IGF connection scheme, can be against > this kind of policy making system for the global stage. How do they > justify it? I know I have asked this question of simple democratic > equity and fairness several times but I am yet to get a proper answer > to it. I earnestly hope that those to whom I direct this question will > engage with it in the open discursive spirit that is the hallmark of > civil society, and its principle basis of legitimacy. > > parminder > > >> Otherwise ECOSOC adopted without vote all the decisions from its >> subsidiary body the CSTD, including “Participation on >> non-governmental organizations and civil society entities not >> accredited to WSIS in the work of CSTD”, taking down the last barrier >> for participation in the Commission. >> >> However, participation in ECOSOC itself is still restricted to ECOSOC >> NGOs. But these 4 week long substantive sessions in July, alternating >> between NY and Geneva, are seen by many NGOs/CSOs just as >> rubberstamping exercises, apart from the High level segment at the >> beginning, and therefore not worth their attendance (I have a >> slightly different opinion) , except for Geneva or NY based entities >> for sections of their interest. Jean Louis, this may explain the low >> attendance of CSOs. But the relative high attendance of Governments >> at least indicates interest in the issues. NGOs are invited and can >> also take the floor on any item. >> >> Best >> >> Renate >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:*governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> *Sent:* jeudi, 28. juillet 2011 10:45 >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Philippe Blanchard >> *Subject:* re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations >> >> Dear members of the list >> >> >> Philippe wrote : >> < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society >> (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).> >> >> I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some >> complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence >> < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.> >> >> Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a >> "biased attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I >> would like to know is how many true CS delegates attended these >> meetings and which organisatiions they represented. Additionnally >> it'd be interesting to know how DCs were represented in these >> meetings : governement, regional orgs, CS and private sector. >> >> Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could >> provide us these data. Many thanks in advance. >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> CSDPTT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 27/07/11 10:11 >> > De : "Philippe Blanchard" >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" >> > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC >> presentations. For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the >> Word document. >> > Kind regards, >> > Philippe >> > >> > >> > >> > Data >> > >> > Author : Philippe Blanchard >> > >> > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit >> on information society » and « internet governance forum » >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 1. Referential documents >> > >> > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet >> activity related reports : >> > >> > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the >> implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit >> on the Information Society at the regional and international levels >> (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) >> > >> > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet >> Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2. Points of interest >> > >> > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just >> taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. >> > >> > >> > >> > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level >> (privacy,…) and the economical level (growth factor, cloud >> computing…) and on some risks (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no >> mention of key elements such as “freedom of speech”, “local vs >> universal jurisdiction”… I fear those elements are definitely more >> controversial and will be/must be addressed once the e-governance >> principles have been set. >> > >> > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level >> (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed >> in a co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential >> process. >> > >> > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. >> > >> > >> > >> > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are >> clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s >> presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the >> civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers >> of Commerce). >> > >> > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on >> his report. (seidler at isoc.org) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and >> the “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is >> unanimously recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative >> role” and the fact it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and >> avoid being struck in some diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). >> > >> > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet >> eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the >> existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and >> e-life. Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global >> facility” from a State representative (Venezuela, I think) >> > >> > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” >> also appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. >> > >> > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the >> Working group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a >> “official platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or >> not. This platform would support more effectively the developing >> countries actions and would bring up “processes to enhance >> collaboration”. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Points of interest (cont’d) >> > >> > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon >> by the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared >> and monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is >> probably my “If you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). >> > >> > >> > >> > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I >> wasn’t listening carefully enough. >> > >> > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the >> political and economical stakes… but it is core. >> > >> > >> > >> > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s >> previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Conclusion >> > >> > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting >> room was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more >> politically sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. >> And that is definitely a good sign. >> > >> > >> > >> > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: >> > >> > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no >> piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had >> to spend 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at >> 10:02 for a meeting starting at 10:00. >> > >> > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she >> brought challenging food for thought. >> > >> > >> > >> > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: >> > >> > Hi Philippe, >> > >> > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late >> > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, >> 10h00-11h030 >> > Best >> > Renate >> > >> > Renate Bloem >> > Main Representative >> > Civicus UN Geneva >> > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 >> > Mobile : +41763462310 >> > renate.bloem at civicus.org >> > renate.bloem at gmail.com >> > skype: Renate.Bloem >> > >> > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation >> > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa >> > www.civicus.org >> > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society >> > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) >> > >> > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] >> On Behalf >> > Of Philippe Blanchard >> > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry >> > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC >> > >> > Dear Roland >> > >> > thank you for the follow-up. >> > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can >> make >> > it. >> > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome >> > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN >> recognition, is >> > not !!! >> > >> > I will follow the outcomes through the net. >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > Philippe >> > >> > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> > >> > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on >> > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes >> > >> > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? >> > >> > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. >> > >> > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 >> > >> > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. >> > >> > > creditation.pdf> >> > >> > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still >> > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. >> > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. >> > >> > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf >> > -- >> > Roland Perry >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jul 28 13:16:50 2011 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:16:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4E3193FF.2080202@itforchange.net> References: <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E3193FF.2080202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:53 PM, parminder wrote: > ** > > > On Thursday 28 July 2011 04:26 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > ** ** > > Dear Philippe and Jean-Louis,**** > > ** ** > > Let me first thank Philippe for his kind words and his report. Just to add: > **South Africa**, on behalf of **India** and ****Brazil****, made a strong > statement in calling for an intergovernmental mechanism for enhanced > cooperation, separate from but in close cooperation with the IGF.in > **** > > > While there should be some significant institutional innovations to a > traditional inter-governmental platform for global IG (some such innovations > were suggested by my organisation in its submission to the consultation on > enhanced cooperation in Dec 2010), I find the demand for a new platform for > democratic global Internet policy making very welcome especially in its > being conceptualised to be in close cooperation/ connection with the IGF. > > It is especially so if the IGF can reform itself to be able to channel > multistakeholder inputs purposively into this new policy making platform > (and these three countires have indeed sought such improvements in the IGF > whereas developed countries, along with many civil society actors from > developing countries, have opposed them). > > I completely fail to understand how those who enthusiastically engage with > OECD kind of inter-governmental poliy-making processes, whose processes of > multistakeholder input are patently much less open and democratic than the > above EC-IGF connection scheme, can be against this kind of policy making > system for the global stage. How do they justify it? I know I have asked > this question of simple democratic equity and fairness several times but I > am yet to get a proper answer to it. > I seem to recall several answers, they just aren't something you are willing to accept/listen to for whatever reasons. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Jul 28 15:17:25 2011 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:17:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] icann -- code of conduct? In-Reply-To: References: <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> <4E3193FF.2080202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E31B5C5.1080907@cafonso.ca> Quite timely article (link below) by CIRA's head, Byron Holland, on the quick jump by Mr Dengate-Thrush from ICANN's chairmanship to lead Minds+Machines. The title: "Does ICANN Need to Evolve Its Code of Conduct?" I thing the answer is a big YES -- actually ICANN needs a code of conduct since, for situations like this, it seems to have none. --c.a. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110728_does_icann_need_to_evolve_its_code_of_conduct/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 28 20:05:11 2011 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:05:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Felicity Lawrence: A mere state can't restrain a corporation like Murdoch's (The Guardian) Message-ID: <9F54DF62CD554378908328311CB4C0CB@userPC> In case anyone needed reminding about the reality of governance in this part of the 21st century. M -----Original Message----- From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of Patrice Riemens Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 3:11 AM To: nettime-l at kein.org Subject: Felicity Lawrence: A mere state can't restrain a corporation like Murdoch's (The Guardian) original to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/28/murdoch-news-corp-banks- transnationals A mere state can't restrain a corporation like Murdoch's Whether News Corp, banks or food giants, transnationals are not so much a state within a state as a power beyond it The deep corruption of power revealed by the phone-hacking scandal has led many to question how Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation could establish "a state within a state". MPs have trumpeted their determination to make sure it never happens again. They will struggle. As if to rub the point in, BSkyB's board announced it was back to business as usual on Thursday. Despite parliament's question mark over the integrity of its chairman, James Murdoch, the rest of the board said they fully supported him. A few hours later the Guardian reported a new low in the saga - allegations that Sarah Payne's mother's phone may have been hacked. But the corporation marches on. The fact is that the modern globalised corporation is not a state within a state so much as a power above and beyond the state. International development experts stopped talking about multinationals years ago, preferring instead the tag of transnational corporations (TNCs), because these companies now transcend national authorities. Developing countries, dealing with corporations whose revenue often exceeds their own GDPs, have long been aware of their own lack of power. They are familiar with the way world trade rules have been written to benefit corporations and limit what any one country can impose on them. They know about the transnationals' tendency to oligopoly; and their ability to penetrate the heart of government with lobbying. For an affluent country like the UK, it has come as more of a shock. While traditional multinationals identified with a national home, TNCs have no such loyalty. Territorial borders are no longer important. This had been the whole thrust of World Trade Organisation treaties in the past decades. Transnationals can now take advantage of the free movement of capital and the ease of shifting production from country to country to choose the regulatory framework that suits them best. If restrained by legitimate legislative authorities, they can appeal to WTO rules to enforce their rights, as the tobacco company Philip Morris has threatened recently. It says it will sue the Australian government for billions of dollars for violating its intellectual property rights if it goes ahead with its plan to ban branding on cigarette packets. TNCs can and do locate their profits offshore to thwart any individual country's efforts to take revenue from them. The ability to raise taxes to provide services is a core function of democratic government, yet governments have been reduced to supplicants, cutting their tax rates further and further to woo corporates. Meanwhile, as the Rowntree visionary Geoff Tansey has pointed out, transnationals have used patents and intellectual property rights to create their own system of private taxation. If labour laws or environmental regulations become too onerous for them, they can move operations to less regulated jurisdictions. So globalised food and garment manufacturers can move to cheaper centres of production when governments introduce minimum wages or unions win workers' rights. If financial rules curb their ability to invent complex, risky new products to sell, they can set up shop elsewhere. The transnational banks have been past masters at playing off one jurisdiction against another and using the threat of relocation to resist government controls. Much of their activity still takes place in a shadow system beyond the states that have bailed them out. Nearly three years on from the near collapse of the whole system, the structural reform that everyone agreed was needed has not materialised. Lobbying at the heart of governments in Europe and the US has seen off calls for the separation of investment banking from the retail banking that takes ordinary people's deposits. So the banks remain too big and too interconnected to fail. Vince Cable, the business secretary, who still argued forcefully this week for that separation, is nevertheless reduced to hoping that the ringfencing of functions preferred by the big corporates will work. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel - wanting to make sure private banking corporations would share the pain for the Greek loans they made as that country hovers around default - was threatened with not just relocation but with the whole banking system being brought down again. Not surprisingly, she backed off. The most effective checks on transnationals are as likely to come from NGOs and consumers as individual governments these days. Campaigners have found new forms of asymmetric engagement that enable them to take on corporations whose resources dwarf their own. Harnessing the same advances in technology and instant globalised communication that TNCs have used to build up their control, activists have brought together shared interest groups across borders to challenge them. So for example, direct action groups such as Greenpeace have been able to connect protesters against transnational soya traders in the Amazon, with activists across European countries in highly effective simultaneous campaigns against the brands that buy from them. When the Murdochs initially refused to appear before parliament to account for their corporate behaviour, there was much anxious consultation of ancient rules to see if these two foreign citizens could be forced or not. In the end, it was probably the market that got them there, as the damage limitation gurus advised that a dose of humble pie would be the most effective strategy for restoring shareholder confidence. After the Milly Dowler phone-hacking revelation, it was neither our compromised elected representatives nor our law enforcers the police, but activists on Twitter that brought them down. Attacking not just the brands owned by the Murdochs but those owned by their advertisers until they withdrew from the News of the World's pages, they played by the globalised market's rulebook. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org !DSPAM:2676,4e31e13140305657011374! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Jul 28 20:17:42 2011 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 21:17:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] FW: Felicity Lawrence: A mere state can't restrain a corporation like Murdoch's (The Guardian) In-Reply-To: <9F54DF62CD554378908328311CB4C0CB@userPC> References: <9F54DF62CD554378908328311CB4C0CB@userPC> Message-ID: Here's a good article by prof. Gunther Teubner about this reality! Best, Ivar On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 21:05, michael gurstein wrote: > In case anyone needed reminding about the reality of governance in this > part > of the 21st century. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org > [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of Patrice Riemens > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 3:11 AM > To: nettime-l at kein.org > Subject: Felicity Lawrence: A mere state can't restrain a > corporation like Murdoch's (The Guardian) > > > original to: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/28/murdoch-news-corp-banks- > transnationals > > A mere state can't restrain a corporation like Murdoch's > > Whether News Corp, banks or food giants, transnationals are not so much a > state within a state as a power beyond it > > > The deep corruption of power revealed by the phone-hacking scandal has led > many to question how Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation could establish "a > state within a state". MPs have trumpeted their determination to make sure > it never happens again. They will struggle. > > As if to rub the point in, BSkyB's board announced it was back to business > as usual on Thursday. Despite parliament's question mark over the integrity > of its chairman, James Murdoch, the rest of the board said they fully > supported him. A few hours later the Guardian reported a new low in the > saga > - allegations that Sarah Payne's mother's phone may have been hacked. But > the corporation marches on. > > The fact is that the modern globalised corporation is not a state within a > state so much as a power above and beyond the state. International > development experts stopped talking about multinationals years ago, > preferring instead the tag of transnational corporations (TNCs), because > these companies now transcend national authorities. > > Developing countries, dealing with corporations whose revenue often exceeds > their own GDPs, have long been aware of their own lack of power. They are > familiar with the way world trade rules have been written to benefit > corporations and limit what any one country can impose on them. They know > about the transnationals' tendency to oligopoly; and their ability to > penetrate the heart of government with lobbying. For an affluent country > like the UK, it has come as more of a shock. > > While traditional multinationals identified with a national home, TNCs have > no such loyalty. Territorial borders are no longer important. This had been > the whole thrust of World Trade Organisation treaties in the past decades. > Transnationals can now take advantage of the free movement of capital and > the ease of shifting production from country to country to choose the > regulatory framework that suits them best. If restrained by legitimate > legislative authorities, they can appeal to WTO rules to enforce their > rights, as the tobacco company Philip Morris has threatened recently. It > says it will sue the Australian government for billions of dollars for > violating its intellectual property rights if it goes ahead with its plan > to > ban branding on cigarette packets. > > TNCs can and do locate their profits offshore to thwart any individual > country's efforts to take revenue from them. The ability to raise taxes to > provide services is a core function of democratic government, yet > governments have been reduced to supplicants, cutting their tax rates > further and further to woo corporates. Meanwhile, as the Rowntree visionary > Geoff Tansey has pointed out, transnationals have used patents and > intellectual property rights to create their own system of private > taxation. > > If labour laws or environmental regulations become too onerous for them, > they can move operations to less regulated jurisdictions. So globalised > food > and garment manufacturers can move to cheaper centres of production when > governments introduce minimum wages or unions win workers' rights. If > financial rules curb their ability to invent complex, risky new products to > sell, they can set up shop elsewhere. The transnational banks have been > past > masters at playing off one jurisdiction against another and using the > threat > of relocation to resist government controls. Much of their activity still > takes place in a shadow system beyond the states that have bailed them out. > > Nearly three years on from the near collapse of the whole system, the > structural reform that everyone agreed was needed has not materialised. > Lobbying at the heart of governments in Europe and the US has seen off > calls > for the separation of investment banking from the retail banking that takes > ordinary people's deposits. > > So the banks remain too big and too interconnected to fail. Vince Cable, > the > business secretary, who still argued forcefully this week for that > separation, is nevertheless reduced to hoping that the ringfencing of > functions preferred by the big corporates will work. The German chancellor, > Angela Merkel - wanting to make sure private banking corporations would > share the pain for the Greek loans they made as that country hovers around > default - was threatened with not just relocation but with the whole > banking > system being brought down again. Not surprisingly, she backed off. > > The most effective checks on transnationals are as likely to come from NGOs > and consumers as individual governments these days. Campaigners have found > new forms of asymmetric engagement that enable them to take on corporations > whose resources dwarf their own. Harnessing the same advances in technology > and instant globalised communication that TNCs have used to build up their > control, activists have brought together shared interest groups across > borders to challenge them. So for example, direct action groups such as > Greenpeace have been able to connect protesters against transnational soya > traders in the Amazon, with activists across European countries in highly > effective simultaneous campaigns against the brands that buy from them. > > When the Murdochs initially refused to appear before parliament to account > for their corporate behaviour, there was much anxious consultation of > ancient rules to see if these two foreign citizens could be forced or not. > In the end, it was probably the market that got them there, as the damage > limitation gurus advised that a dose of humble pie would be the most > effective strategy for restoring shareholder confidence. After the Milly > Dowler phone-hacking revelation, it was neither our compromised elected > representatives nor our law enforcers the police, but activists on Twitter > that brought them down. Attacking not just the brands owned by the Murdochs > but those owned by their advertisers until they withdrew from the News of > the World's pages, they played by the globalised market's rulebook. > > > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # > is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative > text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: > http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org > > > !DSPAM:2676,4e31e13140305657011374! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Jul 28 20:38:31 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:38:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 7/28/11, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Paul Lehto wrote: > >> Democracy is 100% process, and without proper process, the outcomes >> are invalid. This applies with force to the corporate governance >> regime that presently rules over the internet. > > It also applies with force to just about all internet governance > activities currently undertaken by governments, including in > particular widespread efforts of governments in various countries > to set up infrastructures for near-Orwellian surveillance of > internet communication, while paying only lip service to human > rights. Is there *any* country whose government is not guilty of > this? As between the only two choices available -- governmental governance and corporate governance, the only choice in which the people have a fighting chance even in theory is Government. With corporate governance, there is no accountability in corporations to the people even in theory, nor any natural reason for corporations to serve the people. The sole exceptions that can be argued with corporations involve situations where it just coincidentally happens to be in the profitability interest of the corporation to do something that can be mistaken for being accountable to or responsive to what people want. Democracy, as they say, isn't perfect, but its better than all other systems available or tried. What we have worldwide are serious breakdowns in democratic systems such that they purport to be democratic but have ceased to be such in fact. This reality does not constitute a rational reason for preferring a clearly undemocratic system like corporate governance. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Jul 28 21:58:40 2011 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:58:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] Job Opportunity @ EFF - International Outreach Coordinator In-Reply-To: <4E321392.7070509@eff.org> References: <4E321392.7070509@eff.org> Message-ID: <4E3213D0.5030701@eff.org> EFF is hiring.... International Outreach Coordinator The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco's Mission District, is looking for a full-time International Outreach Coordinator. Job responsibilities include: · Communicating our sometimes complex technical and policy issues to "mom and pop" in a clear, compelling and concise voice; · Writing blog posts about EFF’s international work quickly as events unfold; · Providing home support for other members of the international team when they are on the road (which may require being awake, efficient and cheerful at 2:00 a.m.); · Developing innovative Internet activism campaigns that engage EFF's membership, our international partner organizations, and the general public; · Monitoring emerging trends and developments in the areas of international freedom of expression, privacy, digital consumer rights and innovation via social networks, Twitter, traditional media outlets, etc.; · Determining when issues deserve EFF attention and convincing others of their importance; and · Maintaining the content of EFF's international webpages. Required: · Strong knowledge of one or more issues related to international freedom of expression, privacy, digital consumer rights, and/or innovation; · Openness and ability to learn new issues quickly and comprehensively; · Intellectual curiosity; · Ability to write clearly, persuasively, and quickly for a range of audiences; · Experience maintaining and contributing to a blog; · Team player with strong interpersonal skills who also can work independently and is self-motivated; and · Willingness to do some international travel (no more than 10%). In addition, knowledge of or experience with any of the following would be advantageous: · Fluency in language other than English; and · Degree in communications or public policy. This is a full-time position based in EFF's office in San Francisco, CA. To apply, send a cover letter and resume to intljob at eff.org. Please include links to at least two writing samples. No phone calls please! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Jul 29 01:51:19 2011 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:51:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4E324A57.2020203@digsys.bg> On 29.07.11 03:38, Paul Lehto wrote: > As between the only two choices available -- governmental governance > and corporate governance, the only choice in which the people have a > fighting chance even in theory is Government. Very interesting. You still ignore private, non-corporate governance. There isn't much difference between governments and large corporations, except that some corporations are much richer than most governments, and sometimes much more effective. Both types are subject to great corruption. By the way, one pretty much votes for a corporation with their purchases. > Democracy, as they say, isn't perfect, but its better than all other > systems available or tried. Democracy was something they tried in Greece thousands years ago. It probably lasted longer than the current reiteration. It is pretty much obvious the current system of governance has reached a point where it is clearly not viable any more. The private governance system has existed longer in human history than any other experiment. With any of the other system, you essentially give up few or more of your rights, in exchange of promises. History shows these promises were never, ever kept. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 29 02:36:25 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:36:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement In-Reply-To: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> References: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000301cc4db9$dd56e610$9804b230$@yahoo.com> May I have some additional comments to finalize the following statement for the support of "developing economies" in new gTLD Program. May I have some response from the coordinators, please? Thanks Imran Ahmad Shah From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; ivarhartmann at gmail.com; imran at uisoc.org; imran at igfpak.org Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement IGC CS Members, Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN's Board resolution # 20 of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc). Reference context is the abstract from ICANN's following Resolution (#20) of Nairobi Meeting: "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs." Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pd f) and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were submitted from Africa. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that ".all of the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors, leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing country entrepreneurs.". Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report (Revised ver. 13 May 2011 http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11 -en.pdf), which deals with a very important issue: "How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?". The public comments period will be closed on 29th July 2011. Previous discussion thread title subject were "RE: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was." and "Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary?". This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other members. "With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN's end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched, fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic Diversity on Internet. (Imran)" . Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah Executive Member & Founder Urdu Internet Society/ Council Internet Governance of Pakistan -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary? In message < 700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria < avri at ella.com> writes >- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure. > Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD. I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75% discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 29 02:59:16 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:59:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement References: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000801cc4dbd$0c999050$25ccb0f0$@yahoo.com> >1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest, including one or more of the following characteristics > Service in an under‐served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited One more question arises that how the applicant would be able to show the revenue (or ROI) if the scope of the service (new gTLD) in being demonstrated to the area of “Under-served” language, where the Internet has been limited? How the commitment or financial analysis be provided to pay back the fee of US$25K per annum. From: Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:36 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Imran Ahmed Shah' Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; 'ivarhartmann at gmail.com'; 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org' Subject: RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement May I have some additional comments to finalize the following statement for the support of “developing economies” in new gTLD Program. May I have some response from the coordinators, please? Thanks Imran Ahmad Shah From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; ivarhartmann at gmail.com; imran at uisoc.org; imran at igfpak.org Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement IGC CS Members, Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN’s Board resolution # 20 of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc). Reference context is the abstract from ICANN’s following Resolution (#20) of Nairobi Meeting: "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs." Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pd f) and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were submitted from Africa. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that “…all of the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors, leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing country entrepreneurs…”. Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report (Revised ver. 13 May 2011 http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11 -en.pdf), which deals with a very important issue: “How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?”. The public comments period will be closed on 29th July 2011. Previous discussion thread title subject were “RE: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was…” and “Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary?”. This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other members. “With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN’s end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched, fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic Diversity on Internet. (Imran)” . Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah Executive Member & Founder Urdu Internet Society/ Council Internet Governance of Pakistan -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary? In message < 700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria < avri at ella.com> writes >- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure. > Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD. I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75% discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 29 03:28:22 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:28:22 +0500 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement References: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001f01cc4dc1$21000ca0$630025e0$@yahoo.com> >1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest, including one or more of the following characteristics > Service in an under‐served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited One more question arises that how the applicant would be able to show the revenue (or ROI) if the scope of the service (new gTLD) in being demonstrated to the area of “Under-served” language, where the Internet has been limited? How the commitment or financial analysis be provided to pay back the fee of US$25K per annum. >3. The Application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: >* A TLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark (ie. a "dot brand" TLD) >* A string that is, or is based on, a geographic name One more question arises that why it is being proposed to exclude the trademark holders of the Developing Economies to be granted with the compensation in the fee and other relaxation, do they are getting the commercial earning equal to the brands/trademark holders of the Developed Economies? Similarly, it is also proposed by JAS WG that applicants from the Developing Economies (and prospective beneficiaries of the compensation) may not able to choose the geographic name, why? Just, to leave the options of geographic name for the richest economies? Again would referred to the comments recorded against above points (1) of under-served language - digitally divided corners of the globe will not be able to get benefit from the actual theme, the basic concept of the equal opportunities for everyone. P.S. It seems to leave the business opportunities of geographical gTLDs for the M+M and Neustar and TLDH. From: Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:36 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Imran Ahmed Shah' Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; 'ivarhartmann at gmail.com'; 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org' Subject: RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement May I have some additional comments to finalize the following statement for the support of “developing economies” in new gTLD Program. May I have some response from the coordinators, please? Thanks Imran Ahmad Shah From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; ivarhartmann at gmail.com; imran at uisoc.org; imran at igfpak.org Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement IGC CS Members, Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN’s Board resolution # 20 of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc). Reference context is the abstract from ICANN’s following Resolution (#20) of Nairobi Meeting: "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs." Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pd f) and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were submitted from Africa. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that “…all of the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors, leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing country entrepreneurs…”. Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report (Revised ver. 13 May 2011 http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11 -en.pdf), which deals with a very important issue: “How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?”. The public comments period will be closed on 29th July 2011. Previous discussion thread title subject were “RE: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was…” and “Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary?”. This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other members. “With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN’s end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched, fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic Diversity on Internet. (Imran)” . Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah Executive Member & Founder Urdu Internet Society/ Council Internet Governance of Pakistan -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary? In message < 700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria < avri at ella.com> writes >- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure. > Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD. I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75% discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage. -- 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 kabani at isd-rc.org Fri Jul 29 04:56:44 2011 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:56:44 +0500 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement In-Reply-To: <001f01cc4dc1$21000ca0$630025e0$@yahoo.com> References: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> <001f01cc4dc1$21000ca0$630025e0$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Imran, Good input on the subject, We must all discuss the more in this important forum / List Regards 2011/7/29 Imran Ahmed Shah > >1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest, > including one or more of the following characteristics**** > > > Service in an under‐served language, the presence of which on the > Internet has been limited**** > > ** ** > > One more question arises that how the applicant would be able to show the > revenue (or ROI) if the scope of the service (new gTLD) in being > demonstrated to the area of “Under-served” language, where the Internet has > been limited? How the commitment or financial analysis be provided to pay > back the fee of US$25K per annum.**** > > ** ** > > >3. The Application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: ** > ** > > >• A TLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark (ie. a "dot > brand" TLD) **** > > >• A string that is, or is based on, a geographic name**** > > ** ** > > One more question arises that why it is being proposed to exclude the > trademark holders of the Developing Economies to be granted with the > compensation in the fee and other relaxation, do they are getting the > commercial earning equal to the brands/trademark holders of the Developed > Economies? Similarly, it is also proposed by JAS WG that applicants from the > Developing Economies (and prospective beneficiaries of the compensation) may > not able to choose the geographic name, why? Just, to leave the options of > geographic name for the richest economies? Again would referred to the > comments recorded against above points (1) of under-served language - > digitally divided corners of the globe will not be able to get benefit from > the actual theme, the basic concept of the equal opportunities for everyone. > **** > > ** ** > > P.S. It seems to leave the business opportunities of geographical gTLDs for > the M+M and Neustar and TLDH.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2011 11:36 AM > *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Imran Ahmed Shah' > *Cc:* 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; 'ivarhartmann at gmail.com'; > 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for > IGC Statement**** > > ** ** > > May I have some additional comments to finalize the following statement for > the support of “developing economies” in new gTLD Program.**** > > May I have some response from the coordinators, please? > Thanks**** > > Imran Ahmad Shah**** > > *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On > Behalf Of *Imran Ahmed Shah > *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:24 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Cc:* 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; ivarhartmann at gmail.com; > imran at uisoc.org; imran at igfpak.org > *Subject:* [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC > Statement**** > > ** ** > > IGC CS Members,**** > > ** ** > > Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet > infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN’s Board resolution # 20 > of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding > participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies > of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension > of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business > user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc).**** > > ** ** > > Reference context is the abstract from ICANN’s following Resolution (#20) > of Nairobi Meeting:**** > > "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants > requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs."**** > > ** ** > > Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations > (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in > late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010 ( > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pdf) > and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but > after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were > submitted from Africa. > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm**** > > ** ** > > The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that “…all of > the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors, > leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing > country entrepreneurs…”.**** > > ** ** > > Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report > (Revised ver. 13 May 2011 > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11-en.pdf), > which deals with a very important issue: “How can ICANN assist applicants > from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic > Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?”. The public comments period will be > closed on 29th July 2011.**** > > ** ** > > Previous discussion thread title subject were “RE: [governance] Details on > the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was…” and “Re: [] Can Icann really be > necessary?”.**** > > ** ** > > This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking > for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other > members.**** > > ** ** > > different forums including the ICANN’s main source to listen “Public > Participation through Public Comments”>**** > > ** ** > > “With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced > them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full > funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to > convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as > well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I > insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that > instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and > Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets > and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a > fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and > text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD > mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN’s > end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched, > fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were > also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request > for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has > developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the > countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic > Diversity on Internet. (Imran)”**** > > ** ** > > .**** > > ** ** > > > **** > > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Thanking you and Best Regards**** > > ** ** > > Imran Ahmad Shah**** > > Executive Member & Founder**** > > Urdu Internet Society/ Council**** > > Internet Governance of Pakistan**** > > ** ** > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Roland Perry > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: [] > Can Icann really be necessary?**** > > ** ** > > In message <700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on > Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria writes**** > > ** ** > > >- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure.**** > > > Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD.**** > > ** ** > > I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75% > discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding > it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage.**** > > --**** > > 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**** > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jul 29 08:35:58 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:35:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: (message from Paul Lehto on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:38:31 -0400) References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20110729123558.23D5015C252@quill.bollow.ch> Paul Lehto wrote: > As between the only two choices available -- governmental governance > and corporate governance, the only choice in which the people have a > fighting chance even in theory is Government. But how much is a theoretic fighting chance worth in practice? Also note than in any reasonably well-established country with a government that is approximately democratic for most kinds of high-profile issues (like governments typically are in "Western" countries), and that has a reasonably well-functioning court system in which reasonable principles of law (including human rights) are respected to a significant degree, if in such a country corporate governance is abused too badly, there are effective remedies available against the abuse. Enforcing the law against one's own government is in practice often more difficult than enforcing it against non-governmental entities. So I would argue that unless governments are reformed first to make them verifiably suitable for handling internet governance functions well, the change that you propose would not be beneficial. 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 29 10:07:34 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:07:34 +0500 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement In-Reply-To: <001f01cc4dc1$21000ca0$630025e0$@yahoo.com> References: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> <001f01cc4dc1$21000ca0$630025e0$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000901cc4df8$dfc883b0$9f598b10$@yahoo.com> >1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest, including one or more of the following characteristics > Service in an under�\served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited One more question arises that how the applicant would be able to show the revenue (or ROI) if the scope of the service (new gTLD) in being demonstrated to the area of ��Under-served�� language, where the Internet has been limited? How the commitment or financial analysis be provided to pay back the fee of US$25K per annum. >3. The Application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: >* A TLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark (ie. a "dot brand" TLD) >* A string that is, or is based on, a geographic name One more question arises that why it is being proposed to exclude the trademark holders of the Developing Economies to be granted with the compensation in the fee and other relaxation, do they are getting the commercial earning equal to the brands/trademark holders of the Developed Economies? Similarly, it is also proposed by JAS WG that applicants from the Developing Economies (and prospective beneficiaries of the compensation) may not able to choose the geographic name, why? Just, to leave the options of geographic name for the richest economies? Again would referred to the comments recorded against above points (1) of under-served language - digitally divided corners of the globe will not be able to get benefit from the actual theme, the basic concept of the equal opportunities for everyone. P.S. It seems to leave the business opportunities of geographical gTLDs for the M+M and Neustar and TLDH. >4.1.1�� >��. >Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or under�\ served languages. How much cost reduction is going to be recommended to encourage IDNs name spaces? The applicants from under-served language areas should also be grated the financial and technical support to develop the IDN-Conversion tools, Plugins, IDN-Web-Components, Browsers-IDN-Tool-Bars and Resellers-APIs. >Further reductions recommended >* Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation to 6 �\12 months It is suggested that the reduction of the Financial obligations should be 24-36 months instead of just for 6-12 months, because the developing economies would not be able to spend huge funds on the advertisement and publicity, arranging to signing the contract with maximum registrars and appointing the resellers. (to cover the worldwide market, as comparing to the other competitors) >Application Period: As the WG report repeatedly mentioning that further subsequent round is not confirmed, it is suggested that the application period for the Developing Economies should be expanded to at least 9 �C to 12 months instead of just 3 months. This is because, normally the ratio of the technology awareness penetration is very slow in the developing economies. That is why the most of the prospective clients will be thinking to enter in this new gTLD business but as the learning curve is slow, they would not become confident enough to overcome on the weakness, unless they are educated. >Overall Application Fee Structure: I would insist to reconsider the following proposal of Application Fee Structure on the basis of the selection of shorter Name Script. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-04jan10-en.pdf QUOTE IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs. To promote the selection of fewer characters for IDN gTLDs (and ccTLDs), thereby reducing time and resource costs for Internet users, the first round application fee should be charged according to the number of characters (i.e., a basic fee for two letters; 50% additional for 3 letters; 100% additional for 4 letters; 150% for five letters; and 100% for every extra letter for longer scripts). I.A. Shah (9 Dec. 2009). UNQUOTE Similar option may please be considered for Commercial & Non-Commercial name script, for both Developing and Developed Economies. > Support the Ideas from Developing Economies (related to Social Welfare name script) Again I would insist to reconsider the support of the Idea Generator, that if the name script is satisfy the means for social & public welfare, and in any case the originator (applicant) may not be able to proceed the TLD Registry application, the name script should be adopted by the ICANN or its subsidiary/ working group and the idea generator should be compensated with a royalty scheme. he could not continue to http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-04jan10-en.pdf QUOTE ����. If the noncommercial name��s usefulness is ensured by the public comment/survey process, the name should become a �Dlive�� TLD even if the applicant (aka the �Didea generator��) is not going to host or manage the registry for it, in which case it can be offered to other registry operators, an ICANN subsidiary or operated through the ICANN L-root server. ICANN could allocate a minimum amount of the registration fee to be paid to the idea generator. UNQUOTE From: Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:36 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Imran Ahmed Shah' Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; 'ivarhartmann at gmail.com'; 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org' Subject: RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement May I have some additional comments to finalize the following statement for the support of ��developing economies�� in new gTLD Program. May I have some response from the coordinators, please? Thanks Imran Ahmad Shah From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; ivarhartmann at gmail.com; imran at uisoc.org; imran at igfpak.org Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement IGC CS Members, Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN��s Board resolution # 20 of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc). Reference context is the abstract from ICANN��s following Resolution (#20) of Nairobi Meeting: "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs." Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pd f) and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were submitted from Africa. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that ����all of the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors, leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing country entrepreneurs����. Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report (Revised ver. 13 May 2011 http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11 -en.pdf), which deals with a very important issue: ��How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?��. The public comments period will be closed on 29th July 2011. Previous discussion thread title subject were ��RE: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was���� and ��Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary?��. This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other members. ��With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN��s end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched, fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic Diversity on Internet. (Imran)�� . Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah Executive Member & Founder Urdu Internet Society/ Council Internet Governance of Pakistan -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary? In message < 700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria < avri at ella.com> writes >- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure. > Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD. I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75% discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 29 10:16:46 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:16:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement References: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> <001f01cc4dc1$21000ca0$630025e0$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001701cc4dfa$27e7d7d0$77b78770$@yahoo.com> >Financial support ���� If the ICANN allow to 100% waiver of the fee and other costs for the applicants of the Developing Economies, there will not be a huge burden on the shoulders of the funding support organization and that will also encourage more applicants, name scripts�� applications from Developing Economies. Ultimately, the Developing Economies would be strengthen through a little support. From: Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 07:08 PM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Cc: 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org' Subject: RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement >1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest, including one or more of the following characteristics > Service in an under�\served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited One more question arises that how the applicant would be able to show the revenue (or ROI) if the scope of the service (new gTLD) in being demonstrated to the area of ��Under-served�� language, where the Internet has been limited? How the commitment or financial analysis be provided to pay back the fee of US$25K per annum. >3. The Application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: >* A TLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark (ie. a "dot brand" TLD) >* A string that is, or is based on, a geographic name One more question arises that why it is being proposed to exclude the trademark holders of the Developing Economies to be granted with the compensation in the fee and other relaxation, do they are getting the commercial earning equal to the brands/trademark holders of the Developed Economies? Similarly, it is also proposed by JAS WG that applicants from the Developing Economies (and prospective beneficiaries of the compensation) may not able to choose the geographic name, why? Just, to leave the options of geographic name for the richest economies? Again would referred to the comments recorded against above points (1) of under-served language - digitally divided corners of the globe will not be able to get benefit from the actual theme, the basic concept of the equal opportunities for everyone. P.S. It seems to leave the business opportunities of geographical gTLDs for the M+M and Neustar and TLDH. >4.1.1�� >��. >Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or under�\ served languages. How much cost reduction is going to be recommended to encourage IDNs name spaces? The applicants from under-served language areas should also be grated the financial and technical support to develop the IDN-Conversion tools, Plugins, IDN-Web-Components, Browsers-IDN-Tool-Bars and Resellers-APIs. >Further reductions recommended >* Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation to 6 �\12 months It is suggested that the reduction of the Financial obligations should be 24-36 months instead of just for 6-12 months, because the developing economies would not be able to spend huge funds on the advertisement and publicity, arranging to signing the contract with maximum registrars and appointing the resellers. (to cover the worldwide market, as comparing to the other competitors) >Application Period: As the WG report repeatedly mentioning that further subsequent round is not confirmed, it is suggested that the application period for the Developing Economies should be expanded to at least 9 �C to 12 months instead of just 3 months. This is because, normally the ratio of the technology awareness penetration is very slow in the developing economies. That is why the most of the prospective clients will be thinking to enter in this new gTLD business but as the learning curve is slow, they would not become confident enough to overcome on the weakness, unless they are educated. >Overall Application Fee Structure: I would insist to reconsider the following proposal of Application Fee Structure on the basis of the selection of shorter Name Script. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-04jan10-en.pdf QUOTE IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs. To promote the selection of fewer characters for IDN gTLDs (and ccTLDs), thereby reducing time and resource costs for Internet users, the first round application fee should be charged according to the number of characters (i.e., a basic fee for two letters; 50% additional for 3 letters; 100% additional for 4 letters; 150% for five letters; and 100% for every extra letter for longer scripts). I.A. Shah (9 Dec. 2009). UNQUOTE Similar option may please be considered for Commercial & Non-Commercial name script, for both Developing and Developed Economies. > Support the Ideas from Developing Economies (related to Social Welfare name script) Again I would insist to reconsider the support of the Idea Generator, that if the name script is satisfy the means for social & public welfare, and in any case the originator (applicant) may not be able to proceed the TLD Registry application, the name script should be adopted by the ICANN or its subsidiary/ working group and the idea generator should be compensated with a royalty scheme. he could not continue to http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-04jan10-en.pdf QUOTE ����. If the noncommercial name��s usefulness is ensured by the public comment/survey process, the name should become a �Dlive�� TLD even if the applicant (aka the �Didea generator��) is not going to host or manage the registry for it, in which case it can be offered to other registry operators, an ICANN subsidiary or operated through the ICANN L-root server. ICANN could allocate a minimum amount of the registration fee to be paid to the idea generator. UNQUOTE From: Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:36 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Imran Ahmed Shah' Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; 'ivarhartmann at gmail.com'; 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org' Subject: RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement May I have some additional comments to finalize the following statement for the support of ��developing economies�� in new gTLD Program. May I have some response from the coordinators, please? Thanks Imran Ahmad Shah From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; ivarhartmann at gmail.com; imran at uisoc.org; imran at igfpak.org Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement IGC CS Members, Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN��s Board resolution # 20 of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc). Reference context is the abstract from ICANN��s following Resolution (#20) of Nairobi Meeting: "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs." Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pd f) and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were submitted from Africa. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that ����all of the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors, leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing country entrepreneurs����. Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report (Revised ver. 13 May 2011 http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11 -en.pdf), which deals with a very important issue: ��How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?��. The public comments period will be closed on 29th July 2011. Previous discussion thread title subject were ��RE: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was���� and ��Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary?��. This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other members. ��With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN��s end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched, fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic Diversity on Internet. (Imran)�� . Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah Executive Member & Founder Urdu Internet Society/ Council Internet Governance of Pakistan -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary? In message < 700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria < avri at ella.com> writes >- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure. > Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD. I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75% discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jul 29 10:18:45 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:18:45 +1200 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement In-Reply-To: <001701cc4dfa$27e7d7d0$77b78770$@yahoo.com> References: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> <001f01cc4dc1$21000ca0$630025e0$@yahoo.com> <001701cc4dfa$27e7d7d0$77b78770$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: * * *Submissions to the Joint Working Group on Applicant Support, also known as the "JAS WG".* *To : Chair of Joint Working Group on Applicant Support, ICANN* *Cc: Pacific Internet Society Chapter, Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum* *From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro* This is a response to the call for Applications by the JAS WG which is co-chartered by GNSO and ALAC. This is strictly my individual view and not necessarily the view of my employer or affiliations and associations. 1. *Differential Pricing for Applicants in need of assistance* There should be differential pricing assessed for Applicants in need of assistance. 1. *Lowering of Barriers for Developing Economies* It is critical and in the interest of equitable and fair participation that the barrier is lowered for developing economies to ensure that it is truly and global and inclusive community. ICANN Board Resolution 2010.03.12.46�\47 clearly expressed the need to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive. The lowering of barriers should not only be limited to reducing application costs and ICANN Fellowships for people from developing countries and should include the following:- *a) **Research* o to be done by Consultants approved by an independent committee Chaired by George dissenting member of the ICANN Board when the GTLD was put to the vote; o These consultants must be from developing countries and in no way associated or linked with any of the players who have interests in this space, they must be neutral; o Terms of reference of the research should include, the impact of gTLD on developing economies and considerations including but not limited to market competitive disadvantage of under�\served communities increases; o Budget should include research, consultations, transportation; *b) **Reduction of Costs* o There should be an additional levy 40% on Domain Name Application Fees that goes towards a pool of fund that are strictly to be used for the following purposes:- �� Costs to enable developing economies to object before the ICANN authorised arbitrators. These costs should include the costs of initiating the disputes, such as arbitration costs, court costs, transportation costs, legal costs and select panel of legal counsel from around the world to enable advocacy at this level. �� Outreach done throughout the developing world and not just for governments but in a multi-stakeholder fashion in coordination with regional organisations around the world; c) *Reservation *; o d) Capacity Development; e) Mentoring; *Comments* 1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest, including one or more of the following characteristics * Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities *Care must be taken to identify ALL stakeholders that would be affected and calls for submissions must go to the equivalent of various Ministries of Culture and all other stakeholders within the respective countries and adequate time must be given for ICANN representatives to conduct outreach on the matter. The process should not be rushed and whilst it can appear to be inclusive in not allowing sufficient time for outreach, there will be communities who are marginalised. The material and training should be done in the language or medium of communication of the countries etc. There should be a paid documentary on the subject on every TV channel in each country showing the various diverse impacts of gTLDs to enable and allow "fair play". This is part of the development of internet policies becoming inclusive and protects from future fragmentation over the internet if general overswell becomes disgruntled.* * * *As such, there must be an extension of time before 2012 where ICANN organises outreach in each country through coordinating the same with GAC members in the respective countries. This is critical if we are interested in acquiring a wide perspective of the matter. The outreach must not be limited to Internet Societies but to be multi-stakeholder within countries to include governments, private sector, various Government Ministries, civil society etc.* * Service in an under�\served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited * Operation in an emerging market or nation in a manner that provides genuine local social benefit * Sponsored by non�\profit, civil society and non�\governmental organizations in a manner consistent with the organizations' social service mission(s) * Operated by local entrepreneur, providing demonstrable social benefit in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult AND 2. The Applicant must demonstrate financial capabilities and need 3. The Application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: m * From a governmental or para�\statal applicant (subject to review, see below) * A TLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark (ie. a "dot brand" TLD) * A string that is, or is based on, a geographic name *There are some inconsistencies expressed within policies of Registries and also judgments from certain registries. For eg. Rulings where companies are able to take precedence and priority over family names presents unprecedented preposterous challenges. The fees and costs of objecting to certain applications are too expensive. Also applicants should be made to advertise through every tv station in a prime time slot and broadcast through radio and gazette through newspapers and magazines in every language to invite objections. Costs in this regard should not be viewed as an impediment as this is a resource that will have infinite proprietorship". * 2011/7/30 Imran Ahmed Shah > *>Financial support ......***** > > If the ICANN allow to 100% waiver of the fee and other costs for the applicants > of the Developing Economies, there will not be a huge burden on the > shoulders of the funding support organization and that will also encourage > more applicants, name scripts' applications from Developing Economies. > Ultimately, the Developing Economies would be strengthen through a little > support. **** > > *From:* Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2011 07:08 PM > > *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > *Cc:* 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org' > > *Subject:* RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for > IGC Statement**** > > ** ** > > >1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest, > including one or more of the following characteristics**** > > > Service in an under�\served language, the presence of which on the > Internet has been limited**** > > ** ** > > One more question arises that how the applicant would be able to show the > revenue (or ROI) if the scope of the service (new gTLD) in being > demonstrated to the area of "Under-served" language, where the Internet has > been limited? How the commitment or financial analysis be provided to pay > back the fee of US$25K per annum.**** > > ** ** > > >3. The Application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: ** > ** > > >* A TLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark (ie. a "dot > brand" TLD) **** > > >* A string that is, or is based on, a geographic name**** > > ** ** > > One more question arises that why it is being proposed to exclude the > trademark holders of the Developing Economies to be granted with the > compensation in the fee and other relaxation, do they are getting the > commercial earning equal to the brands/trademark holders of the Developed > Economies? Similarly, it is also proposed by JAS WG that applicants from the > Developing Economies (and prospective beneficiaries of the compensation) may > not able to choose the geographic name, why? Just, to leave the options of > geographic name for the richest economies? Again would referred to the > comments recorded against above points (1) of under-served language - > digitally divided corners of the globe will not be able to get benefit from > the actual theme, the basic concept of the equal opportunities for everyone. > **** > > ** ** > > P.S. It seems to leave the business opportunities of geographical gTLDs for > the M+M and Neustar and TLDH.**** > > ** ** > > >4.1.1...**** > > >....**** > > >Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or > under�\served languages.**** > > How much cost reduction is going to be recommended to encourage IDNs name > spaces? The applicants from under-served language areas should also be > grated the financial and technical support to develop the IDN-Conversion > tools, Plugins, IDN-Web-Components, Browsers-IDN-Tool-Bars and > Resellers-APIs.**** > > ** ** > > >Further reductions recommended **** > > >* Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation to > 6�\12 months**** > > It is suggested that the reduction of the Financial obligations should be > 24-36 months instead of just for 6-12 months, because the developing > economies would not be able to spend huge funds on the advertisement and > publicity, arranging to signing the contract with maximum registrars and > appointing the resellers. (to cover the worldwide market, as comparing to > the other competitors)**** > > ** ** > > >Application Period:**** > > As the WG report repeatedly mentioning that further subsequent round is not > confirmed, it is suggested that the application period for the Developing > Economies should be expanded to at least 9 - to 12 months instead of just 3 > months. This is because, normally the ratio of the technology awareness > penetration is very slow in the developing economies. That is why the most > of the prospective clients will be thinking to enter in this new gTLD > business but as the learning curve is slow, they would not become confident > enough to overcome on the weakness, unless they are educated. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > >Overall Application Fee Structure:**** > > I would insist to reconsider the following proposal of Application Fee > Structure on the basis of the selection of shorter Name Script.**** > > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-04jan10-en.pdf > **** > > QUOTE > IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs. To promote the selection of fewer characters for IDN > gTLDs **** > > (and ccTLDs), thereby reducing time and resource costs for Internet users, > the first **** > > round application fee should be charged according to the number of > characters (i.e., a **** > > basic fee for two letters; 50% additional for 3 letters; 100% additional > for 4 letters; 150% **** > > for five letters; and 100% for every extra letter for longer scripts). > I.A. Shah (9 Dec. 2009).**** > > UNQUOTE > Similar option may please be considered for Commercial & Non-Commercial > name script, for both Developing and Developed Economies.**** > > ** ** > > > Support the Ideas from Developing Economies (related to Social Welfare > name script)**** > > Again I would insist to reconsider the support of the Idea Generator, that > if the name script is satisfy the means for social & public welfare, and in > any case the originator (applicant) may not be able to proceed the TLD > Registry application, the name script should be adopted by the ICANN or its > subsidiary/ working group and the idea generator should be compensated with > a royalty scheme. he could not continue to **** > > ** ** > > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-04jan10-en.pdf > **** > > QUOTE **** > > ....... If the noncommercial name's **** > > usefulness is ensured by the public comment/survey process, the name should > **** > > become a --live|| TLD even if the applicant (aka the --idea generator||) is not > going to host **** > > or manage the registry for it, in which case it can be offered to other > registry operators, **** > > an ICANN subsidiary or operated through the ICANN L-root server. ICANN > could **** > > allocate a minimum amount of the registration fee to be paid to the idea > generator.**** > > UNQUOTE**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2011 11:36 AM > *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Imran Ahmed Shah' > *Cc:* 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; 'ivarhartmann at gmail.com'; > 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for > IGC Statement**** > > ** ** > > May I have some additional comments to finalize the following statement for > the support of "developing economies" in new gTLD Program.**** > > May I have some response from the coordinators, please? > Thanks**** > > Imran Ahmad Shah**** > > *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On > Behalf Of *Imran Ahmed Shah > *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:24 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Cc:* 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; ivarhartmann at gmail.com; > imran at uisoc.org; imran at igfpak.org > *Subject:* [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC > Statement**** > > ** ** > > IGC CS Members,**** > > ** ** > > Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet > infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN's Board resolution # 20 > of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding > participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies > of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension > of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business > user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc).**** > > ** ** > > Reference context is the abstract from ICANN's following Resolution (#20) > of Nairobi Meeting:**** > > "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants > requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs."**** > > ** ** > > Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations > (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in > late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010 ( > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pdf) > and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but > after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were > submitted from Africa. > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm**** > > ** ** > > The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that "...all of > the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors, > leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing > country entrepreneurs...".**** > > ** ** > > Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report > (Revised ver. 13 May 2011 > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11-en.pdf), > which deals with a very important issue: "How can ICANN assist applicants > from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic > Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?". The public comments period will be > closed on 29th July 2011.**** > > ** ** > > Previous discussion thread title subject were "RE: [governance] Details on > the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was..." and "Re: [] Can Icann really be > necessary?".**** > > ** ** > > This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking > for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other > members.**** > > ** ** > > different forums including the ICANN's main source to listen "Public > Participation through Public Comments">**** > > ** ** > > "With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced > them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full > funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to > convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as > well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I > insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that > instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and > Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets > and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a > fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and > text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD > mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN's > end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched, > fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were > also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request > for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has > developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the > countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic > Diversity on Internet. (Imran)"**** > > ** ** > > .**** > > ** ** > > > **** > > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Thanking you and Best Regards**** > > ** ** > > Imran Ahmad Shah**** > > Executive Member & Founder**** > > Urdu Internet Society/ Council**** > > Internet Governance of Pakistan**** > > ** ** > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Roland Perry > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: [] > Can Icann really be necessary?**** > > ** ** > > In message <700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on > Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria writes**** > > ** ** > > >- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure.**** > > > Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD.**** > > ** ** > > I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75% > discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding > it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage.**** > > --**** > > 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 > > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Jul 29 12:27:51 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:27:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <4E324A57.2020203@digsys.bg> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> <4E324A57.2020203@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On 7/29/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 29.07.11 03:38, Paul Lehto wrote: >> As between the only two choices available -- governmental governance >> and corporate governance, the only choice in which the people have a >> fighting chance even in theory is Government. > > Very interesting. You still ignore private, non-corporate governance. > There isn't much difference between governments and large corporations, > except that some corporations are much richer than most governments, and > sometimes much more effective. Both types are subject to great corruption. With democratically-styled governments, one has the right via the vote to "kick the bums out" and often to enact laws directly via referendum. Such remedies don't exist at all with corporations. Has anyone ever tried to change the fine print of a corporate contract? Or even to negotiate it? To even attempt to do so at a point of sale for example would be viewed as odd or even crazy. It's a "take it or leave it" and if you "leave it" in many situations the corporation or corporate governor is in a de facto monopoly situation and there is no other alternative (or the other alternative is worse or more expensive). Where many corporations are larger than many of the smaller world governments and economies, it's hard to imagine, especially when corporations are not accountable to those they govern (even in theory), how it would be easier to move or persuade any corporation compared to moving or persuading governments. But most importantly, we should remember at all times that law is Force. The only thing that can legitimize that force is tracing that power back to a majority vote in a democratically elected institution. On what basis does a corporation or other private actor exercise force over anyone else? In asking this question, I am not thinking of classic freedom-of-contract situations where one person freely negotiates and agrees with another, but of corporate governance examples, where corporations make rules via contracts or other mechanisms that are normally the domain of democratically elected legislatures (such as, for example, rules on how disputes regarding the corporation's services are to be resolved, which procedures are in the nature of setting up the court system and rules of justice applicable to one's own disputes, as is seen in the Canadian Internet Registration Authority's rules for arbitration procedures) Paul Lehto, J.D. > > By the way, one pretty much votes for a corporation with their purchases. > >> Democracy, as they say, isn't perfect, but its better than all other >> systems available or tried. > Democracy was something they tried in Greece thousands years ago. It > probably lasted longer than the current reiteration. > > It is pretty much obvious the current system of governance has reached a > point where it is clearly not viable any more. > The private governance system has existed longer in human history than > any other experiment. > With any of the other system, you essentially give up few or more of > your rights, in exchange of promises. > History shows these promises were never, ever kept. > > Daniel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 29 15:28:53 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:28:53 +0500 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement References: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005a01cc4e25$cd67f340$6837d9c0$@yahoo.com> Coordinator's' comments were still awaited, also I was looking their cooperation to submit the following comments on behalf of IGC-CS by themselves. As the time lines are closing for comments, I had to submit the comments, which I did now. However, I have requested them to extend the closing date for one week, if it is allowed, I would request the coordinators, to please help us. Thanks Imran Ahmad Shah From: Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:36 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Imran Ahmed Shah' Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; 'ivarhartmann at gmail.com'; 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org' Subject: RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement May I have some additional comments to finalize the following statement for the support of "developing economies" in new gTLD Program. May I have some response from the coordinators, please? Thanks Imran Ahmad Shah From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; ivarhartmann at gmail.com; imran at uisoc.org; imran at igfpak.org Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement IGC CS Members, Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN's Board resolution # 20 of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc). Reference context is the abstract from ICANN's following Resolution (#20) of Nairobi Meeting: "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs." Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pd f) and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were submitted from Africa. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that ".all of the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors, leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing country entrepreneurs.". Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report (Revised ver. 13 May 2011 http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11 -en.pdf), which deals with a very important issue: "How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?". The public comments period will be closed on 29th July 2011. Previous discussion thread title subject were "RE: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was." and "Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary?". This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other members. "With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN's end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched, fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic Diversity on Internet. (Imran)" . Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah Executive Member & Founder Urdu Internet Society/ Council Internet Governance of Pakistan -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary? In message < 700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria < avri at ella.com> writes >- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure. > Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD. I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75% discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage. -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Jul 29 15:48:06 2011 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:48:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: (message from Paul Lehto on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:27:51 -0400) References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> <4E324A57.2020203@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20110729194806.55E0F15C252@quill.bollow.ch> Paul Lehto wrote: > On 7/29/11, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > Very interesting. You still ignore private, non-corporate governance. > > There isn't much difference between governments and large corporations, > > except that some corporations are much richer than most governments, and > > sometimes much more effective. Both types are subject to great corruption. > > With democratically-styled governments, one has the right via the vote > to "kick the bums out" and often to enact laws directly via > referendum. Such remedies don't exist at all with corporations. This is a valid reply to the assertion about corruption. Still we need to keep in mind that the first mentioned remedy only affects government action regarding issues which are (or can be caused to become) of high enough profile that they're discussed in parliamentary commissions. And the second remedy can, where available at all, only be effectively used for extremely high profile issues. Paul, you still haven't addressed however Daniel's point that besides governance functions conducted by government institutions, and situations of abuse of power by corporations, there is also a reality of what Daniel calls "private, non-corporate governance", which has been working quite well for many internet related governance functions, allowing the internet to become as successful as it has become. > Has anyone ever tried to change the fine print of a corporate contract? > Or even to negotiate it? I have, as essentially a "nobody" (as representative of SIUG, a very small NGO with only a handful of contributing members and no other sources of funding or other resources of significance) succeeded in influencing Microsoft to change the fine print of the patent licensing conditions in the "open specification promise" to make them compatible with the GPL family of free software licenses: Microsoft entered negotatiations with me on the needed changes and a result was reached which is acceptable in my eyes as well as in the eyes of the lawyer who was advising me. I don't know whether this kind of success is the exception rather than the norm, but I do know that other, bigger, NGOs have also made positive experiences by engaging constructively with corporations. The kind of contacts that you can make while engaging in fora of what Daniel calls "private, non-corporate governance" are a good starting point for this kind of thing. > Where many corporations are larger than many of the smaller world > governments and economies, it's hard to imagine, especially when > corporations are not accountable to those they govern (even in > theory), how it would be easier to move or persuade any corporation > compared to moving or persuading governments. When the goal is to make corporations act reasonably in some particular area of conduct, I would generally expect it to be easier to achieve this objective by primarily seeking to create an effective "private, non-corporate governance" entity for this area of governance. It is very difficult to convince a government to take this governance function under their roof and do a reasonable job at it. In the context of internet governance, where it would be necessary to influence governments worldwide to take concerted action and do a reasonable job at it, influencing governments is practically feasible only for issues where the arguments are particularly strong that legislative action is needed. For example, the WBU initiative for an accessibility treaty has a chance of success IMO, and I'd say the same about the efforts of Consumers International to get A2K issues included in consumer protection legislation. > But most importantly, we should remember at all times that law is > Force. And there are other types of Force as well, including in particular economic forces of supply and demand, public opinion, etc. > The only thing that can legitimize that force is tracing that > power back to a majority vote in a democratically elected institution. > On what basis does a corporation or other private actor exercise > force over anyone else? Most internet governance entities operate on the basis of power of pursuation coupled with economic network effects. There is no way in which the legitimacy of governance can be increased by attempting to replace "power of pursuation coupled with economic network effects" by democratic decision-making, because "power of pursuation coupled with economic network effects" is also at the heart of the decision-making processes in all real-world implementations of democracy. That said, the potential for abuse of power by the powerful (in particular by corporations with great financial resources and/or a dominant market position of some kind) exists in any governance system, and needs to be safeguarded against. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Jul 29 19:46:02 2011 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:46:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <20110729194806.55E0F15C252@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1B0D81A37A7C4AE595FFB50C1EF7145A@userPC> <20110722074931.D82D615C19A@quill.bollow.ch> <20110728120310.2FA6B15C282@quill.bollow.ch> <4E324A57.2020203@digsys.bg> <20110729194806.55E0F15C252@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 7/29/11, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> With democratically-styled governments, one has the right via the vote >> to "kick the bums out" and often to enact laws directly via >> referendum. Such remedies don't exist at all with corporations. > > This is a valid reply to the assertion about corruption. > [snip] > > Paul, you still haven't addressed however Daniel's point that besides > governance functions conducted by government institutions, and situations > of abuse of power by corporations, there is also a reality of what Daniel > calls "private, non-corporate governance", which has been working quite > well for many internet related governance functions, allowing the > internet to become as successful as it has become. If this "private, non-corporate governance" works at all well, I'd first have to ask For Whom does it Work Well? I realize that educated, talented and resourceful few such as those on this list and our colleagues may sometimes convince a Microsoft to do a minor change, but this is mostly because the lawyers for Microsoft have reserved truly sweeping rights and won't really be hurt at all by a minor concession. Even despotic kings are known to do likewise, it is referred to as "the Grace of the king." Kings save people's lives from time to time, and all that. But it's only when and if they want to, and it's not pursuant to the rule of law. The kind of concessions one may on rare occasion get from the corporate kingpins are all either in the nature of Grace, or in the nature of them being forced or compelled to (as in the threat of a lawsuit, which ultimately is force if successful, based on the rule of law). I always concede that an at least apparently more "efficient" and workable private governance or private dictatorship can be set up. One might set themselves up as the autocratic dictator of a listserv and many or even most might find that quite workable if I often act in the mode like one of Plato's philosopher kings and regularly dispense at least some grace. But this is no comfort to those in the minority (or majority) who have their rights and dignity denied by the autocrat or corporate plutocrat, and in most instances (except where democratically-passed laws still apply) there's nothing that anybody outside the corporation can do about it, except beg for grace. You might not literally be down on your knees with Microsoft, but unless you are arguing based on democratically-passed laws with the actual or implied threat of legal action behind it, you are truly at the grace and mercy of Microsoft. I am not convinced that any credence should be given to the reports of those who have successfully sought and received grace or mercy from Microsoft or any other private corporate captain of commerce, nor from any private governor, individual or corporate. > When the goal is to make corporations act reasonably in some > particular area of conduct, I would generally expect it to be > easier to achieve this objective by primarily seeking to create > an effective "private, non-corporate governance" entity for > this area of governance. It is very difficult to convince a > government to take this governance function under their roof and > do a reasonable job at it. In the context of internet governance, > where it would be necessary to influence governments worldwide > to take concerted action and do a reasonable job at it, > influencing governments is practically feasible only for issues > where the arguments are particularly strong that legislative > action is needed. If one is part of, or connected to, what amounts to an internet aristocracy of private governance, I understand that if you know the ropes a bit you may find it easier to pull some strings in that smaller aristocracy than it is to move or influence larger, democratically established governments. For very analogous reasons, a very rich person willing to use bribery might strongly favor the continuation of a corrupt, bribery-based system of governance because it very much helps the rich person to get things done in a quick way. But this is not at all the case for the average person, nor is a simple preference (based on pragmatism of any kind) for a certain kind of private governance system a sound basis upon which to anchor the rights of all. A > >> But most importantly, we should remember at all times that law is >> Force. > > And there are other types of Force as well, including in > particular economic forces of supply and demand, public opinion, > etc. It is true that the force of public opinion exists under every form of governance, even kings must eventually respond to public opinion for example. But they need not respond in such a way to do the will of the public, and most importantly the kind of level of public opinion necessary to move a king or a dictator is typically much higher than the level of majority rule, or 50% plus one vote. That is, a king or plutocrat in most instances can't ignore for very long the opinions of an 80% super-majority if those opinions are firmly held. At the same time, these kinds of super-majorities are very hard to create, and also in those cases where the actions of kings or plutocrats just happen to co-incide with a minority opinion, it is almost always fairest to say that the king is simply following his own wishes, and a minority of support is a mere co-incidence. The bottom line is that in all non-democratic systems of governance, (whether private individual or corporate governance, or dictatorships) the burden of majority rule is raised even higher to require a super-majority of public opinion to move the powers that be. And even when these super-majorities are created, the action that the king is forced into usually results in a worse partial victory than the kind of partial victories seen as legislative outcomes. I hope it's obvious that I interpret my own experiences in effecting change in non-democratic or private institutions to be due to my temporary admission into that part of the internet aristocracy, combined with the unilateral decision on the part of the private governor to grant me some grace, relief or mercy. I don't think you or I will ever succeed in getting such a private governor to do something in this manner that is in any way fundamentally against their interests -- our arguments are limited to what's in the long term best interests of our kingly private governor (or the threat of asserting democratically-derived laws, which is an interjection of democracy into a non-democratic situation). The acid test for democracy or any form of governance is what can be called the "So What?" test. What can a person do if the power exercising governance simply says "so what?" "What are you going to do about it?" As stated before, there is recourse in a democracy - either to kicking the bums out or a referendum. In a corporate regime, the corporation won't do anything not in its self-interest at least in the long run, unless through outright stupidity. If one asks a corporation to do that, they suffer no loss or hardship by losing your business as you let your feet do the "voting" - instead it is a case of "good riddance" from the corporation's point of view. Therefore, walking away from the corporation with one's business is BENEFITING the corporation in these types of cases because in these types of cases, one is asking the corporation to do something *not* in its profitability interest. Thus, when asking a corporation to act against its own profitability interest, the so-called 'vote" of changing one's purchases is nothing like a substitute for real voting at all: There's no right to "kick the bums out" that is the fundamental purpose of self-government, aka democracy. >> The only thing that can legitimize that force is tracing that >> power back to a majority vote in a democratically elected institution. >> On what basis does a corporation or other private actor exercise >> force over anyone else? > > Most internet governance entities operate on the basis of power > of pursuation coupled with economic network effects. > > There is no way in which the legitimacy of governance can be > increased by attempting to replace "power of pursuation coupled > with economic network effects" by democratic decision-making, > because "power of pursuation coupled with economic network > effects" is also at the heart of the decision-making processes > in all real-world implementations of democracy. If I read this correctly, you are fundamentally confused because the ONLY, and do mean only, basis for the legitimacy of force or power being exercised over others is pursuant to the rule of law, derived from democratically elected processes. Corporations have none of this legitimacy, governments sometimes have it and sometimes don't. Check the Universal Declaration of Human rights and it will say exactly this idea: the only legitimate form of governance is that based on the consent of the governed, and this consent is not gained by useful fictions like failure of the governed to revolt, it is based on democratic elections. You point to how difficult it is or can be to influence large governments or several governments to pass laws. But, since law is force, isn't it very much appropriate that it is not easy to utilize force against others, and that a majority is required to do so? The problems people associate with democracy are usually and actually problems of the corruptions of democracy, like where it is far easier for the wealthy or powerful to operate the levers of power and get legislation passed than it is for the common people. I don't think I need to argue that it is inappropriate to confuse the corruption of a system with the system itself, especially since, as you point out, every system no matter how derived is subject to the downward forces of corruption. Paul Lehto, J.D. > That said, the potential for abuse of power by the powerful (in > particular by corporations with great financial resources and/or > a dominant market position of some kind) exists in any governance > system, and needs to be safeguarded against. > > 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/ > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jul 29 21:02:15 2011 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:02:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement In-Reply-To: <005a01cc4e25$cd67f340$6837d9c0$@yahoo.com> References: <007101cc3888$fbbae8e0$f330baa0$@yahoo.com> <005a01cc4e25$cd67f340$6837d9c0$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <211FA758-E143-437F-ABC1-CE6808212F17@ciroap.org> On 30/07/2011, at 3:28 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Coordinator’s’ comments were still awaited, also I was looking their cooperation to submit the following comments on behalf of IGC-CS by themselves. > As the time lines are closing for comments, I had to submit the comments, which I did now. > However, I have requested them to extend the closing date for one week, if it is allowed, I would request the coordinators, to please help us. Sorry, this slipped by me, since there was no response to this thread between 2 July and yesterday, and yesterday when the thread was reactivated I was unavailable. But thanks to you and Salanieta for not letting the ball drop and putting in your own personal submissions on time. As for extending the deadline by a week and putting in an IGC submission, even if the deadline was extended, unless we quickly hear from some more people on the list it will still be difficult to formulate a statement on this, since we would only have a couple of days to do so before needing to do a consensus call. Also I don't think we can presume to have consensus on everything in your and Salanieta's statements. (Just one example, that shorter gtlds should be cheaper than longer ones... this is actually the reverse of the position in the telephony world, where shorter numbers are more expensive than longer ones.) Does anyone who has expertise in this area feel that they can go through Imran's and Salanieta's statements and pull out the points on which we think there is a broad civil society consensus, which could quickly form the basis of an IGC statement if the deadline is extended? If not I can try but this is not my core area. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @Consumers_Int Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 29 22:52:36 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement Message-ID: <1311994356.31606.yint-ygo-j2me@web161012.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Jeremy Thanks for your comments, justifications... Actually time was passing very quickly. And I had to submit (at least mine review) comments before the closing time. Even, when I had to travel all the night, I tried to complete very quickly. So, I am sorry if the initial comments of previous thead are missed. >Also I don't think we can presume to have consensus >on everything in your and Salanieta's statements. >(Just one example, that shorter gtlds should be cheaper than longer ones... >this is actually the reverse of the position in the telephony world, >where shorter numbers are more expensive than longer ones.) This is delight of the theme and lesson learned through hard experience, let me explain; In term of Commercial Business, higher cost is charged for the attractive names, numbers or abbreviation (I agree and understand), here its a different case; users believe that ICANN is a not-for-profit organization and working to provide ease to the users and suppose to facilitate the Internet System to ensure the stability. Larger name script will have bad impact on the Internet System (with every aspects, storage, traffic and keywords typing etc), in other words Extra Burden. So, it should become a policy of ICANN to encourage applicants to use shorter name script and such applicant should be provided some incentive, like reduction of fee. Hard experience: When there was a limitation of two letters for IDN ccTLD, I tried my level best to convince ICANN staff to remove this limitation for a meaningful name script. Finally, when it was approved, my own country applied for a larger name script .pakistan comparing to .pak (in Urdu language). The nation and next generation will have to keep typing extra 4 letters to browse every domain name, servers will take extra bytes to store domain names in email correspondence and the internet traffic will also have its -ive impacts. Public opinion does not matter for those policy makers and advisers who provide backup to bureaucrats. I have pointed out this matter to the ICANN Board, in Public Forum at Seoul meeting but they again referred to local govt. Can we knock the door of Consumer International for the sake of the benefit of nation? So, at least we can propose the ICANN to provide compensation on the selection of shorter name script for new gTLDs both for Developing or Developed economies. I hope that the comments which are not opposed by them IGC-CS members, should be approved to include in the IGC statement for Public Comments. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 06:02 PKT Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >On 30/07/2011, at 3:28 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> Coordinator’s’ comments were still awaited, also I was looking their cooperation to submit the following comments on behalf of IGC-CS by themselves. >> As the time lines are closing for comments, I had to submit the comments, which I did now. >> However, I have requested them to extend the closing date for one week, if it is allowed, I would request the coordinators, to please help us. > >Sorry, this slipped by me, since there was no response to this thread between 2 July and yesterday, and yesterday when the thread was reactivated I was unavailable. But thanks to you and Salanieta for not letting the ball drop and putting in your own personal submissions on time. > >As for extending the deadline by a week and putting in an IGC submission, even if the deadline was extended, unless we quickly hear from some more people on the list it will still be difficult to formulate a statement on this, since we would only have a couple of days to do so before needing to do a consensus call. > >Also I don't think we can presume to have consensus on everything in your and Salanieta's statements. (Just one example, that shorter gtlds should be cheaper than longer ones... this is actually the reverse of the position in the telephony world, where shorter numbers are more expensive than longer ones.) > >Does anyone who has expertise in this area feel that they can go through Imran's and Salanieta's statements and pull out the points on which we think there is a broad civil society consensus, which could quickly form the basis of an IGC statement if the deadline is extended? If not I can try but this is not my core area. > >-- >Dr Jeremy Malcolm >Project Coordinator >Consumers International >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. >www.consumersinternational.org >Twitter @Consumers_Int > >Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 30 01:18:20 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 17:18:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement In-Reply-To: <1311994356.31606.yint-ygo-j2me@web161012.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1311994356.31606.yint-ygo-j2me@web161012.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I should also mention that there may be Applicants who are already engaged in capacity development and their contributions over the years to capacity building can be reduced from the proposed additional levy that I had suggested. On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Jeremy > Thanks for your comments, justifications... > Actually time was passing very quickly. > And I had to submit (at least mine review) comments before the closing > time. > Even, when I had to travel all the night, I tried to complete very quickly. > So, I am sorry if the initial comments of previous thead are missed. > > >Also I don't think we can presume to have consensus > >on everything in your and Salanieta's statements. > >(Just one example, that shorter gtlds should be cheaper than longer > ones... > >this is actually the reverse of the position in the telephony world, > >where shorter numbers are more expensive than longer ones.) > > This is delight of the theme and lesson learned through hard experience, > let me explain; > In term of Commercial Business, higher cost is charged for the attractive > names, numbers or abbreviation (I agree and understand), here its a > different case; users believe that ICANN is a not-for-profit organization > and working to provide ease to the users and suppose to facilitate the > Internet System to ensure the stability. Larger name script will have bad > impact on the Internet System (with every aspects, storage, traffic and > keywords typing etc), in other words Extra Burden. So, it should become a > policy of ICANN to encourage applicants to use shorter name script and such > applicant should be provided some incentive, like reduction of fee. > > Hard experience: When there was a limitation of two letters for IDN ccTLD, > I tried my level best to convince ICANN staff to remove this limitation for > a meaningful name script. Finally, when it was approved, my own country > applied for a larger name script .pakistan comparing to .pak (in Urdu > language). > The nation and next generation will have to keep typing extra 4 letters to > browse every domain name, servers will take extra bytes to store domain > names in email correspondence and the internet traffic will also have its > -ive impacts. Public opinion does not matter for those policy makers and > advisers who provide backup to bureaucrats. I have pointed out this matter > to the ICANN Board, in Public Forum at Seoul meeting but they again referred > to local govt. Can we knock the door of Consumer International for the sake > of the benefit of nation? > > So, at least we can propose the ICANN to provide compensation on the > selection of shorter name script for new gTLDs both for Developing or > Developed economies. > > I hope that the comments which are not opposed by them IGC-CS members, > should be approved to include in the IGC statement for Public Comments. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 06:02 PKT Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >On 30/07/2011, at 3:28 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > > >> Coordinator’s’ comments were still awaited, also I was looking their > cooperation to submit the following comments on behalf of IGC-CS by > themselves. > >> As the time lines are closing for comments, I had to submit the > comments, which I did now. > >> However, I have requested them to extend the closing date for one week, > if it is allowed, I would request the coordinators, to please help us. > > > >Sorry, this slipped by me, since there was no response to this thread > between 2 July and yesterday, and yesterday when the thread was reactivated > I was unavailable. But thanks to you and Salanieta for not letting the ball > drop and putting in your own personal submissions on time. > > > >As for extending the deadline by a week and putting in an IGC submission, > even if the deadline was extended, unless we quickly hear from some more > people on the list it will still be difficult to formulate a statement on > this, since we would only have a couple of days to do so before needing to > do a consensus call. > > > >Also I don't think we can presume to have consensus on everything in your > and Salanieta's statements. (Just one example, that shorter gtlds should be > cheaper than longer ones... this is actually the reverse of the position in > the telephony world, where shorter numbers are more expensive than longer > ones.) > > > >Does anyone who has expertise in this area feel that they can go through > Imran's and Salanieta's statements and pull out the points on which we think > there is a broad civil society consensus, which could quickly form the basis > of an IGC statement if the deadline is extended? If not I can try but this > is not my core area. > > > >-- > >Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >Project Coordinator > >Consumers International > >Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > >Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups > that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and > authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations > in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help > protect and empower consumers everywhere. > >www.consumersinternational.org > >Twitter @Consumers_Int > > > >Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Jul 30 11:18:50 2011 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 08:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: [PTBTF-ICT4D] Google Reserach Funding for Faculty Professors/Researchers Message-ID: <1312039130.96310.yint-ygo-j2me@web161018.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Members, Just forwarding a useful information for the interest of Researchers of Academia. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ----Forwarded Message---- From: ias_pk at yahoo.com To: ptbtf-ict4d at igfpak.org Sent: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:42 PKT Subject: [PTBTF-ICT4D] Google Reserach Funding for Faculty Professors/Researchers http://research.google.com/university/relations/research_awards.html Wasalam, Atif _______________________________________________ PTBTF-ICT4D mailing list PTBTF-ICT4D at igfpak.org http://igfpak.org/mailman/listinfo/ptbtf-ict4d_igfpak.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 Sat Jul 30 17:26:48 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 23:26:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Regulation Must Facilitate Development Message-ID: Interesting article that was forwarded to me: http://www.smn-news.com/st-maarten-st-martin-news/4771-regulation-must-facilitate-development.html -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Jul 31 05:38:34 2011 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:38:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Article on Internet Principles References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C329@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/07/27/internet-principle-hype 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sun Jul 31 11:27:49 2011 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 17:27:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <097D6098-4D9B-4A6D-813A-2C872D8BA30C@me.com> References: <4e2967d5.46ead80a.1320.7ca2@mx.google.com> <88516D0A-D49D-410A-A5ED-60E6541088C3@me.com> <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <097D6098-4D9B-4A6D-813A-2C872D8BA30C@me.com> Message-ID: <19015796.58221.1312126069904.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d22> Dear Philippe it would be much easier for us to exchange our views in our "natural language" but this is was a topic a couple of weeks ago on the list .... You wrote : < Your point is then key regarding the improvement of the participation process and how can we enhance > In my opinion the most important isn't the PROCEEDING but the CONTENT of our (CS) contribution in such meetings and this has to be aggreed on before such a meeting on our list, In the absence of either an agreement the statement or contributionpresented by a CS delegate only can reflect his/her own view. That's why important topics are to been throughly discussed on our list as it was the case recently with Parminders (good) ideas.  I do hope that the next WSIS Forum -which encompasses the FGI in its programme- will be prepared more seriuosly on the list, and that CS delegates attending the WSIS Forum 2012 will meet in "plenaries" for discussing and exchanging on the best contributions to be presented in oficial sessions. This hasn't been the case during the last three WSIS Fora and this is regretable. I remember our rich and useful plenaries during the actual WSIS process and the first annual meetings, and the role CONGO used to play for this to happen. That's why I'd like to appeal for this to be relauched from the preparation meetings on scheduled in autumn. Best greetings Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 28/07/11 11:39 > De : "Philippe Blanchard" > A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > Dear Jean-Louis, > I understand your very legitimate concern. However :1/ I only mentioned the organisations I was aware of and they were also several participants I did not know previously... Maybe even participants to that list :-92/ in terms of appraising the attendance, unless you have the precise headcount, it is only a gross estimate. If I compare with other international meetings, I confirm this was on the right side of the balance. > I would like to stress this was mainly a formal report presentation meeting. Attendance and collaboration are definitely more core in the contribution phases. Your point is then key regarding the improvement of the participation process and how can we enhance : > 1/ data collection, (which taxonomy and ontology  ? validity of the sensors..) > 2/ knowledge elicitation and formalization of bad / good practices (as I mentioned in the report, which key performance indicators ? And how to make sure that we balance quantitative / qualitative elements, tangibles vs intangibles....) > 3/ presentation of the recommendations and arbitrage > 4/ Definition of the implementation plan > 5/ Implementation and monitoring > 6/ feedback and... go straight to number One :-) > For me, as far as I understood, it will be the responsibility of the Internet Governance Forum to set the field of play and make sure the process is as efficient as possible. INclusivity will definitely be key when it comes to Civil society participation and commitment... but we will have to cope with reality constraints... > Regards,Philippe > > On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: Dear members of the list > > > Philippe wrote : > < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).> > > I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence > < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.> > > Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a "biased attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I would like to know is how many true CS delegates attended these meetings and which organisatiions they represented. Additionnally it'd be interesting to know how DCs were represented in these meetings : governement, regional orgs, CS and private sector. > > Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could provide us these data. Many thanks in advance. > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT  >      > >    > > > > > > > Message du 27/07/11 10:11 > > De : "Philippe Blanchard" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" > > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > > > Dear All, > > > > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. > > Kind regards, > > Philippe > > > > > > > > Data > > > > Author : Philippe Blanchard > > > > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on information society » and « internet governance forum » > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Referential documents > > > > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet activity related reports : > > > > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) > > > > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Points of interest > > > > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. > > > > > > > > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy,…) and the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing…) and on some risks (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no mention of key elements such as “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction”… I fear those elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be addressed once the e-governance principles have been set. > > > > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed in a co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential process. > > > > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. > > > > > > > > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce). > > > > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on his report. (seidler at isoc.org) > > > > > > > > > > > > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the fact it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being struck in some diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). > > > > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and e-life. Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global facility” from a State representative (Venezuela, I think) > > > > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” also appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. > > > > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the Working group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a “official platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or not. This platform would support more effectively the developing countries actions and would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Points of interest (cont’d) > > > > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably my “If you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). > > > > > > > > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I wasn’t listening carefully enough. > > > > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the political and economical stakes… but it is core. > > > > > > > > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conclusion > > > > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting room was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more politically sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign. > > > > > > > > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: > > > > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to spend 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 for a meeting starting at 10:00. > > > > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she brought challenging food for thought. > > > > > > > > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > > > Hi Philippe, > > > > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late > > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 > > Best > > Renate > > > > Renate Bloem > > Main Representative > > Civicus UN Geneva > > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > > Mobile : +41763462310 > > renate.bloem at civicus.org > > renate.bloem at gmail.com > > skype: Renate.Bloem > > > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > > www.civicus.org > > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society > > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) > > > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > > Of Philippe Blanchard > > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC > > > > Dear Roland > > > > thank you for the follow-up. > > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make > > it. > > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome > > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is > > not !!! > > > > I will follow the outcomes through the net. > > > > Kind regards, > > Philippe > > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on > > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > > > > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? > > > > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. > > > > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 > > > > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. > > > > > creditation.pdf> > > > > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still > > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. > > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. > > > > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf > > -- > > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 31 12:08:24 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:08:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) < renate.bloem at gmail.com> wrote: > ** ** > > > Otherwise ECOSOC adopted without vote all the decisions from its subsidiary > body the CSTD, including “Participation on non-governmental organizations > and civil society entities not accredited to WSIS in the work of CSTD”, > taking down the last barrier for participation in the Commission. > This evaluation is not accurate. Let me call your attention to what the 3 resolutions about the participation of Civil Society, the private sector and the technical academic community in CSTD say. They flagrantly disrespect the principle of multistakeholder participation, they put civil society in disadvantage and CS has completely ignored the existence of this inequality. P*articipation of non-governmental actors in CSTD, is allowed on the following basis:* * * * a) In 2007 civil society organizations that had WSIS accreditation were authorized to participate in CSTD. This provision was based on the understanding that these organizations would apply for consultative status with the ECOSOC. The arrangement would be valid only for two years, but it was extended until 2011. (ECOSOC Decision 2007/215 and 2008/217) b) In 2007 Business sector entities were authorized to take part on the work of the CSTD in more flexible conditions. They should preferably, but not mandatorily, have WSIS accreditation. This arrangement was reviewed in 2010, and was extended until 2011 (ECOSOC Decision 2007/216 and ECOSOC Decision 2010/227); c ) In 2008 Academic entities, including academies of science and engineering, were authorized to take part in CSTD meetings without the need for WSIS accreditation, if they express the wish to participate. This arrangement was reviewed in 2010 and extended until 2011 (ECOSOC Decision 2008/218 and ECOSOC Decision 2010/227). This case allows to draw some conclusions. First, the participation of non-governmental actors is currently based on temporary decisions that may or may not be renewed after their expiration date. This precarious situation shows the fragility of multistakeholder participation in CSTD. Secondly, there is quite a discrepancy on the requirements for the participation of each stakeholder group, and the barriers for the participation of civil society are comparatively higher. While the private sector and the technical and academic communities need only to express their interest to participate, civil society needs to have accreditation with ECOSOC, or must have participated in WSIS in 2003 or 2005. This situation is symbolic, as it shows a worrisome inversion of values in CSTD. The voices of actors who represent the private interests have an easier access to the political process, of compared to those who would have the role of promoting public interest objectives. It must be clarified, however, that the low entry barriers have not resulted in a significant increase in the participation of the private sector and of technical and academic community in CSTD. On the contrary, the renewal and variation of the representatives is reduced, showing a concentration of political power among few players. It is also interesting to notice the lack of mobilization from civil society against this unequal status quo. While civil society has correctly and vehemently defended the preservation of multistakeholder participation in other political spaces, like the 2011 G8 meeting about the Internet it has remained silent on the face of this closer and more flagrant inequality among stakeholder groups in CSTD. * During the last CSTD meeting in May Brazil tried to propose a resolution that would ask the CSTD Secretariat to propose ways to improve the conditions for the participation of CS in order to redress this unbalance. The member countries preferred to renew the current arrangement until 2015. What should CS do about that? Best, Marília > **** > > ** ** > > However, participation in ECOSOC itself is still restricted to ECOSOC NGOs. > But these 4 week long substantive sessions in July, alternating between NY > and Geneva, are seen by many NGOs/CSOs just as rubberstamping exercises, > apart from the High level segment at the beginning, and therefore not worth > their attendance (I have a slightly different opinion) , except for Geneva > or NY based entities for sections of their interest. Jean Louis, this may > explain the low attendance of CSOs. But the relative high attendance of > Governments at least indicates interest in the issues. NGOs are invited and > can also take the floor on any item.**** > > ** ** > > Best**** > > Renate**** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On > Behalf Of *Jean-Louis FULLSACK > *Sent:* jeudi, 28. juillet 2011 10:45 > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Philippe Blanchard > *Subject:* re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations**** > > ** ** > > Dear members of the list > > > Philippe wrote : > < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society > (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).> > > I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some > complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence > < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.> > > Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a "biased > attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I would like to > know is how many true CS delegates attended these meetings and which > organisatiions they represented. Additionnally it'd be interesting to know > how DCs were represented in these meetings : governement, regional orgs, CS > and private sector. > > Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could provide us > these data. Many thanks in advance. > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT > > > > > > > > **** > > > Message du 27/07/11 10:11 > > De : "Philippe Blanchard" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" > > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations > > > > Dear All, > > > > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For > reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. > > Kind regards, > > Philippe > > > > > > > > Data > > > > Author : Philippe Blanchard > > > > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on > information society » and « internet governance forum » > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Referential documents > > > > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet activity > related reports : > > > > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation > of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information > Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) > > > > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance > Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Points of interest > > > > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just taking > the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. > > > > > > > > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy,…) and > the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing…) and on some risks > (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no mention of key elements such as > “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction”… I fear those > elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be addressed > once the e-governance principles have been set. > > > > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level > (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed in a > co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential process. > > > > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. > > > > > > > > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are > clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s > presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil > society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce). > > > > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on his > report. (seidler at isoc.org) > > > > > > > > > > > > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the > “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously > recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the fact > it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being struck in some > diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). > > > > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet > eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the > existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and e-life. > Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global facility” from a > State representative (Venezuela, I think) > > > > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” also > appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. > > > > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the Working > group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a “official > platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or not. This > platform would support more effectively the developing countries actions and > would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Points of interest (cont’d) > > > > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by the > CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and monitored > by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably my “If you > cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). > > > > > > > > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I > wasn’t listening carefully enough. > > > > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the > political and economical stakes… but it is core. > > > > > > > > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s > previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conclusion > > > > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting room > was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more politically > sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. And that is > definitely a good sign. > > > > > > > > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: > > > > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no piece > of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to spend 30 mn > securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 for a meeting > starting at 10:00. > > > > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she > brought challenging food for thought. > > > > > > > > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > > > Hi Philippe, > > > > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late > > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 > > Best > > Renate > > > > Renate Bloem > > Main Representative > > Civicus UN Geneva > > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > > Mobile : +41763462310 > > renate.bloem at civicus.org > > renate.bloem at gmail.com > > skype: Renate.Bloem > > > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > > www.civicus.org > > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society > > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) > > > > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf > > Of Philippe Blanchard > > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry > > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC > > > > Dear Roland > > > > thank you for the follow-up. > > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make > > it. > > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome > > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, > is > > not !!! > > > > I will follow the outcomes through the net. > > > > Kind regards, > > Philippe > > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on > > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes > > > > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? > > > > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. > > > > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 > > > > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. > > > > > creditation.pdf> > > > > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still > > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. > > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. > > > > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf > > -- > > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jul 31 12:31:43 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:31:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations In-Reply-To: References: <3079884.3825.1311842689557.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d13> <4e314074.813edf0a.6bed.2d6e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Just to complement and make my previous message more clear, what Brazil has successfully advanced (after difficult diplomatic negotiations with US and Iran) was a request for CSTD Secretariat to make a list of CS organizations that wish to participate in CSTD, but do not have accreditation with WSIS (text of the resolution quoted below). In the meantime, the current unequal arrangement was extended until 2015. In order to make sure that the list will indeed be made and in order to ensure that the process of making the list will be transparent, CS needs to act. What should CS do? "The Economic and Social Council, recalling its resolution 2006/46 of 28 July 2006: (a) Requests the secretariat of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to propose to the Economic and Social Council lists of non-governmental organizations and civil society entities not accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society that have expressed the wish to participate in the work of the Commission, for consideration and approval by the Council in a timely manner, to enable them to participate until 2015, on an exceptional basis, in the work of the Commission in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Council;" On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) < > renate.bloem at gmail.com> wrote: > >> ** ** >> >> >> Otherwise ECOSOC adopted without vote all the decisions from its >> subsidiary body the CSTD, including “Participation on non-governmental >> organizations and civil society entities not accredited to WSIS in the work >> of CSTD”, taking down the last barrier for participation in the Commission. >> > > > This evaluation is not accurate. Let me call your attention to what the 3 > resolutions about the participation of Civil Society, the private sector and > the technical academic community in CSTD say. They flagrantly disrespect the > principle of multistakeholder participation, they put civil society in > disadvantage and CS has completely ignored the existence of this > inequality. > P*articipation of non-governmental actors in CSTD, is allowed on the > following basis:* > * > * > * > > a) In 2007 civil society organizations that had WSIS accreditation were authorized > to participate in CSTD. This provision was based on the understanding that > these organizations would apply for consultative status with the ECOSOC. The > arrangement would be valid only for two years, but it was extended until > 2011. (ECOSOC Decision 2007/215 and 2008/217) > > > b) In 2007 Business sector entities were authorized to take part on the > work of the CSTD in more flexible conditions. They should preferably, but > not mandatorily, have WSIS accreditation. This arrangement was reviewed in > 2010, and was extended until 2011 (ECOSOC Decision 2007/216 and ECOSOC > Decision 2010/227); > > > c > > ) In 2008 Academic entities, including academies of science and > engineering, were authorized to take part in CSTD meetings without the need > for WSIS accreditation, if they express the wish to participate. This > arrangement was reviewed in 2010 and extended until 2011 (ECOSOC Decision > 2008/218 and ECOSOC Decision 2010/227). > > > > This case allows to draw some conclusions. First, the participation of > non-governmental actors is currently based on temporary decisions that may > or may not be renewed after their expiration date. This precarious situation > shows the fragility of multistakeholder participation in CSTD. Secondly, > there is quite a discrepancy on the requirements for the participation of > each stakeholder group, and the barriers for the participation of civil > society are comparatively higher. While the private sector and the technical > and academic communities need only to express their interest to participate, > civil society needs to have accreditation with ECOSOC, or must have > participated in WSIS in 2003 or 2005. > > > This situation is symbolic, as it shows a worrisome inversion of values > in CSTD. The voices of actors who represent the private interests have an > easier access to the political process, of compared to those who would > have the role of promoting public interest objectives. > > > It must be clarified, however, that the low entry barriers have not > resulted in a significant increase in the participation of the private > sector and of technical and academic community in CSTD. On the contrary, the > renewal and variation of the representatives is reduced, showing a > concentration of political power among few players. It is also interesting > to notice the lack of mobilization from civil society against this unequal > status quo. While civil society has correctly and vehemently defended the > preservation of multistakeholder participation in other political spaces, > like the 2011 G8 meeting about the Internet it has remained silent on the > face of this closer and more flagrant inequality among stakeholder groups in > CSTD. > > > * > During the last CSTD meeting in May Brazil tried to propose a resolution > that would ask the CSTD Secretariat to propose ways to improve the > conditions for the participation of CS in order to redress this unbalance. > The member countries preferred to renew the current arrangement until 2015. > > What should CS do about that? > > Best, > Marília > > >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> However, participation in ECOSOC itself is still restricted to ECOSOC >> NGOs. But these 4 week long substantive sessions in July, alternating >> between NY and Geneva, are seen by many NGOs/CSOs just as rubberstamping >> exercises, apart from the High level segment at the beginning, and therefore >> not worth their attendance (I have a slightly different opinion) , except >> for Geneva or NY based entities for sections of their interest. Jean Louis, >> this may explain the low attendance of CSOs. But the relative high >> attendance of Governments at least indicates interest in the issues. NGOs >> are invited and can also take the floor on any item.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Best**** >> >> Renate**** >> >> ** ** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> *Sent:* jeudi, 28. juillet 2011 10:45 >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Philippe Blanchard >> *Subject:* re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Dear members of the list >> >> >> Philippe wrote : >> < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society >> (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).> >> >> I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some >> complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence >> < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.> >> >> Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a "biased >> attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I would like to >> know is how many true CS delegates attended these meetings and which >> organisatiions they represented. Additionnally it'd be interesting to know >> how DCs were represented in these meetings : governement, regional orgs, CS >> and private sector. >> >> Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could provide >> us these data. Many thanks in advance. >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> CSDPTT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> > Message du 27/07/11 10:11 >> > De : "Philippe Blanchard" >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" >> > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. >> For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document. >> > Kind regards, >> > Philippe >> > >> > >> > >> > Data >> > >> > Author : Philippe Blanchard >> > >> > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on >> information society » and « internet governance forum » >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 1. Referential documents >> > >> > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet activity >> related reports : >> > >> > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation >> of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information >> Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 – E/2011/77) >> > >> > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance >> Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2. Points of interest >> > >> > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just >> taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest. >> > >> > >> > >> > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy,…) >> and the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing…) and on some risks >> (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no mention of key elements such as >> “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction”… I fear those >> elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be addressed >> once the e-governance principles have been set. >> > >> > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level >> (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed in a >> co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential process. >> > >> > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this. >> > >> > >> > >> > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are >> clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s >> presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil >> society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce). >> > >> > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on his >> report. (seidler at isoc.org) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the >> “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously >> recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the fact >> it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being struck in some >> diplomatic vocabulary bargaining). >> > >> > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet >> eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the >> existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and e-life. >> Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global facility” from a >> State representative (Venezuela, I think) >> > >> > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” also >> appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation. >> > >> > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the Working >> group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a “official >> platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or not. This >> platform would support more effectively the developing countries actions and >> would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Points of interest (cont’d) >> > >> > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by >> the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and >> monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably my “If >> you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ). >> > >> > >> > >> > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I >> wasn’t listening carefully enough. >> > >> > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the >> political and economical stakes… but it is core. >> > >> > >> > >> > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s >> previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Conclusion >> > >> > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting room >> was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more politically >> sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. And that is >> definitely a good sign. >> > >> > >> > >> > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM: >> > >> > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no >> piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to spend >> 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 for a meeting >> starting at 10:00. >> > >> > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she >> brought challenging food for thought. >> > >> > >> > >> > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: >> > >> > Hi Philippe, >> > >> > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late >> > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 >> >> > Best >> > Renate >> > >> > Renate Bloem >> > Main Representative >> > Civicus UN Geneva >> > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 >> > Mobile : +41763462310 >> > renate.bloem at civicus.org >> > renate.bloem at gmail.com >> > skype: Renate.Bloem >> > >> > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation >> > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa >> > www.civicus.org >> > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society >> > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter) >> > >> > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you. >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> Behalf >> > Of Philippe Blanchard >> > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39 >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry >> > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC >> > >> > Dear Roland >> > >> > thank you for the follow-up. >> > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can >> make >> > it. >> > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome >> > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN >> recognition, is >> > not !!! >> > >> > I will follow the outcomes through the net. >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > Philippe >> > >> > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> > >> > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 >> on >> > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes >> > >> > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ? >> > >> > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited. >> > >> > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113 >> > >> > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this. >> > >> > > creditation.pdf> >> > >> > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still >> > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'. >> > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance. >> > >> > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf >> > -- >> > Roland Perry >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > **** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- 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 Jul 31 14:25:42 2011 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:25:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] Article on Internet Principles In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C329@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C329@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello Wolfgang, Thanks for sharing this relevant reference. You provided very interesting insights and you bring back to our memories important chapters of the IG novel. However, there are few points in which I don't totally agree with you and I would like to express my thoughts. The conclusion of your article would lead us to understand that the scenario we live today comes down to: Regulation through softlaw, in a multistakeholder fashion, fostered by the initiatives from developed countries you mentioned *versus* Regulation through treaties, in an intergovernmental fashion, fostered by developing countries. But, in real life, there are much more options in between. Despite the fact soft law is a valuable approach to many issues, it is not an adequate way to address all public policy issues. Treaties and soft law should be complementary mechanisms in international relations, and both can be very important, if used wisely and appropriately. Secondly, you do not talk about the “quality” of the multistakeholder participation. The principle of multi-stakeholder participation is not a procedural idea devoid of content. Its political strength and legitimacy comes from including a diversity of voices that have a stake in the process and would be excluded otherwise. Currently, multistakeholder participation has not equally included all stakeholders (see for instance my last e-mail about the barriers for CS participation in CSTD, if compared to other stakeholders), and it has not equally included non-governmental representatives from developed and developing countries. One just needs to take a look at the composition of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements to have an idea of how great the unbalance is. So, unless something is said about the “quality” of multistakeholder participation, I find it inappropriate for CS to endorse a blank check. Lastly, I think it is politically wrong to establish a division between developed countries X developing countries, when it comes to issue of multistakeholder participation, enhanced cooperation or even their inclination to be constructive. There are cleavages between developed countries (eg. Is Sarkozy’s France and Berlusconi’s Italy equal to Germany and Switzerland?). And there are cleavages between developing countries as well. Brazil and India are certainly not equal to China and Saudi Arabia, as you implied. Maybe it is useful to remember that Brazil was one of the first to propose a debate about principles in IGF, it has created a multistakeholder body coordinate internet governance in Brazil, it has developed a bottom-up regulation for the internet with multistakeholder participation (Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet), and it has been the only country to stand up for more CS participation on CSTD in May to redress the current unequal conditions if compared to other stakeholders. Maybe it is useful to remember that India was one of the most proactive countries in the CSTD WG and have advanced several concrete suggestions for IGF improvement, including strengthening CS participation on the MAG. And maybe it is useful to remember that US was firstly against the continuation of the working group on IGF improvement, as per their letter of April 2011, an important political fact not mentioned in your article. They only changed their position on the last days of CSTD, because they were not joined by the Europeans. I think we all know that the absence of improvement threatens the existence of the IGF as a relevant body. Just a few initial points. I hope we can continue the debate further. Best wishes, Marília 2011/7/31 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > FYI > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/07/27/internet-principle-hype < > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/07/27/internet-principle-hype> > > 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 > > -- 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 Jul 4 21:11:52 2011 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:11:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] FW: TP: city government exercising policy on Google Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I personally think that this is a direct IG issue as consumer rights were one of the key public policy issues that the WGIG had identified, see: http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf [ see para 26 in page 8] Sala 2011/7/5 michael gurstein > ** > I'm not sure if there is a direct IG issue here (?) but this will > potentially influence the overall policy/regulatory environment and > attitudes toward international governance regimes I would have thought. > > If Internet delivered context of this kind is subject to domestic > (municipal?) consumer protection laws then what about for example, Canada's > laws concerning the requirement for bilingual packaging and so on? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* David Sadoway [mailto:bigbluearth at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 9:40 PM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Subject:* Fwd: TP: city government exercising policy on Google > Applications / consumer rights / Consumer Protection Act / trial period > > BTW this story in quite interesting in that the City Government (Taipei > City) was recently being quite proactive on this e-governance matter. > > ~d > > > > Google pulls paid apps from Taiwan after being fined REFUND:：The US > search giant, which was fined for not providing seven days of free trial, > said it was discussing the issue with Taipei City officials By Jason Tan > / Staff Reporter Tue, Jun 28, 2011 - Page 1 > > Taiwanese users of Google Inc's Android Market were left in the dark > yesterday as the search engine giant removed the paid app section from its > online store. > > The removal of the paid app section came after the Taipei City Government > slapped Google with a NT$1 million (US$345,500) fine for failing to offer > Taiwanese consumers a seven-day free-trial mechanism as mandated by law. > > "We are suspending paid apps in Taiwan while we continue to discuss this > issue with the Taipei City Government," Google Taiwan said in a statement > yesterday. > > 15-MINUTE REFUND > > "Android Market already provides a 15-minute refund window for all paid > apps -- which reflects the fact that apps are delivered over-the-air > instantly and most users who request a refund [could] do so within minutes > of their purchase," the company said in the statement. > > This policy helps consumers make educated decisions about the apps they > buy, while enabling Taiwanese developers to manage their businesses > effectively, the statement read. > > The escalation in the row came after negotiation between Google -- > represented by a lawyer and teleconferencers from its US headquarters -- and > the city broke down yesterday morning. > > 'COERCION' > > The city government said the suspension was a move to "coerce Taiwanese > consumers into giving up their rights" and it demanded Google submit an > "improvisation plan" by Friday. > > The Mountain View, California-based company will be sending officials to > Taipei on Thursday to continue talks with the city government, while city > authorities said a second penalty might be imposed depending on the stance > taken by the search engine giant. > > On Friday, the city government issued Google an ultimatum mandating that it > introduce a seven-day free-trial mechanism for its Android Market. > > Yeh Ching-yuan (葉慶元), director of the city's Law and Regulation Commission, > then said a fine would be levied if the firm still refused to abide by the > Consumer Protection Act (消保法). > > Users of Apple Inc's iPhones or Android-equipped smartphones can purchase > and download application software through Apple's App Store or the Android > Market respectively, but neither company offers an extensive free-trial > mechanism that allows customers to return the programs or be refunded if > they are dissatisfied or if the goods prove to be faulty. > > On June 4, the city government gave both companies a 15-day grace period to > revise their app sales and service provisions to include a seven-day > free-trial mechanism. > > While Apple complied with the request, Google did not. > > SIGHT UNSEEN > > The Consumer Protection Act requires a free-trial period of at least seven > days for items purchased over the Web because consumers cannot feel or touch > the goods before purchase. > > Previously, Web sites have said they were not covered by the law, but last > year the government said an agreement was reached with Web site operators > such as PChome Online (網路家庭) and -Yahoo-Kimo Inc (雅虎奇摩) that would see them > adhere to the free-trial provision. > > APP STORES > > However, "app stores" were not included in last year's deal. > > Yeh said this is because purchasing apps for mobile devices is a trend that > has only recently emerged in Taiwan. > > The terms of service for the App Store and Android Market both state that > the two companies are not liable for apps developed by third parties. > > HTC Corp (宏達電), the world's No. 5 smartphone brand, yesterday said it did > not expect the row to have "much impact" on the sales of its handsets > because users could download free-trial versions of some apps, before > finally making a purchase decision. > > HTC is the world's largest producer of smartphones running on both Android > and Windows operating systems and its first tablet PC -- dubbed the HTC Flyer > -- as well as recent releases of smartphones all run on versions of Android. > > Published on Taipei Times : > http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/06/28/2003506866 > Copyright (c) 1999-2011 The Taipei Times . All > rights reserved. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Sala "Stillness in the midst of the noise". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t