From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Mar 31 22:19:30 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:19:30 +0500
Subject: [governance] WSJ "U.S. Products Help Block Mideast Web"
In-Reply-To: <p06240876c9ba0ab10d19@192.168.1.160>
References: <p06240876c9ba0ab10d19@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimoJe42xEk1if=kgcw+UVn_6kQXTp5hoYW2q7Wr@mail.gmail.com>

An old post but may be very appropriate to the discussion:

Egypt Crisis - Egypt is burning and the Internet is burning with
Surveillance, Spying and Tracking citizens and Internet users.
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2011/02/egypt-crisis-egypt-is-burning-and.html

It's being actively used for the region I reside in and neighboring
countries...............there is talk about FoE by policy makers but
there are tools in place to counter these freedoms when and where
required.

-- FOo


On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704438104576219190417124226.html>
>
> These same issues discussed at the IGF in Athens.  One more time?
>
> Nice quote:
>
> "Web-filtering technology has roots in the 1990s, when U.S. companies,
> schools and libraries sought to prevent people from surfing porn, among
> other things.
>
> Today, that U.S. technology is now among the tools used in the clampdowns on
> uprisings across the Middle East. In Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and elsewhere,
> bloggers have been jailed and even beaten as governments try to repress
> online expression."
>
> Adam
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Mar  1 06:54:42 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:54:42 +0500
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya 2011
Message-ID: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline of
10 March.

We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on the
IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would like
to join the list and want to help.

If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went in
Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do share
them with the group!

The mailing list information is:

"iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group Address:
http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d

To subscribe to this group, please send email to
ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com

To post to this group, send email to
ig4d at googlegroups.com

I look forward to everyone's active participation.

-- 
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 y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu  Tue Mar  1 13:01:32 2011
From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:01:32 +0000
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>

Dear Fouad,

I'm interested in joining the list and the group, so I volunteer.

My best regards,
Yuliya Morenets

TaC-Together against Cybercrime


Le 1/3/2011, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> a écrit:

>Dear All,
>
>I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
>Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
>take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
>discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline of
>10 March.
>
>We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
>60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
>opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on the
>IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would like
>to join the list and want to help.
>
>If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went in
>Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do share
>them with the group!
>
>The mailing list information is:
>
>"iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group Address:
>http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
>
>To subscribe to this group, please send email to
>ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
>
>To post to this group, send email to
>ig4d at googlegroups.com
>
>I look forward to everyone's active participation.
>
>--
>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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar  1 13:06:07 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:06:07 -0300
Subject: [governance] Montreux
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiki5EK88DJB7nZyrcAS1ALBzg5mLVm6T341qrV3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim_Wg=hzTzb_cJ_oEUJQz23_cZdztiCB6ciHTQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTik9iT15OG-H+wSCDrQZcnd4S4yBKtpOP=NwFZpK@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikObbAiWy8OqM2cEJXsCw3sDtVS3e3g2kt2hUP9@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinDmbqOy-q3tme=KHy6n7_ZqdQnoyDS4aCmAmPk@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinTgk-eLCQTL8ZaMRzFKAh_OAxeD2yD7u65dPi-@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=0m1G0FSUrM3F3C=wDk3NZe0=v0_qo3BEcVyrs@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin4=JU_LpHz2K+JFfkv504TEDYhe6o0-aZ0duDT@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTink+2FxPu3ytGTi3FuHoukfXPJVzRgEVk754Bz1@mail.gmail.com>
	<289AD5E7-EB74-43A2-9F6A-6E2719E84BDC@acm.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BB43@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<p06240809c98f15d80169@10.5.46.154>
	<4D6B58EC.5020005@apc.org>
	<AANLkTiki5EK88DJB7nZyrcAS1ALBzg5mLVm6T341qrV3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikEpHgSZwTZy5zhkVQ8mO+E=uN3RPTLng6bA0Pb@mail.gmail.com>

Indeed, we have a very advanced and democratic model of governance, embodied
in the Internet Governance Steering Committee (CGI), and very positive
guiding principles. But principles need interpretation and need the action
of other bodies (Congress, Judiciary) in order to be translated into reality
and make a difference in people’s lives. And a lot of work remains to be
done on that regard. Lack of clear law provisions and very little knowledge
of judges about internet issues lead to contradictory and draconian
decisions, which sometimes threaten freedom of expression and innovation.



Some important steps have been taken though. Last year there was an open
collaborative discussion online to create a civil rights framework for the
internet in Brazil. When enacted, we hope this law will bring much more
clarity to rights and responsibilities online. Topics such as network
neutrality, clear rules for ISPs liability, freedom of expression,
prohibition to interrupt access to the internet (such as in the 3 strikes
models) were some of the important innovations of the civil rights
framework.



The bill should be sent to Congress for discussion before May. We´ll keep
you informed.



Best,



Marília


On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:55 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > Back in sane Johannesburg :)
> >
> > In response to Adam, I also liked Brazil's proposal to begin to discuss
> > public policy principles of IG and progressively over time, capturing
> > where there is agreement, and differences on these principles .  This
> > can be captured in the IGF's outcome 'documents'.
> >
> > The Brazilian's are drawing on their national experience of thrashing
> > out key principles among all stakeholders. It has worked really well for
> > them, and I do think the IGF should try something similar.
>
> yes, but while it is much lauded, we still see some ugliness:
>
>
> http://observingbrazil.com/2011/02/21/the-right-to-information-in-brazil-censorship-fines-for-sharing-wi-fi/
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110301/5261a8a4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar  1 13:17:06 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:17:06 -0300
Subject: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com>

The Secretariat of the CSTD has sent the new version of the questionnaire on
the improvements of the IGF, in accordance with the dicussions of 25 and 26
February. Main changes are reflected in questions 1 to 3.

Contributions can be sent until March 14.

Best,

Marília

*Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)*





*Questionnaire*





*Thank you for providing your thoughts, opinions and comments on the
following themes:*





1. Review of IGF vis-à-vis Tunis Agenda[1] <#_ftn1> – paragraphs 72 to 80



2. Improving the IGF with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on
global Internet governance as directed by the UN General Assembly Resolution
on "Information and communications technologies for development" (adopted on
24 November 2010)



3.  How to enhance the contribution of IGF to socio-economic development and
towards IADGs including enhancing participation of developing countries



4.  Shaping the outcome of IGF meetings



5.  Outreach to and cooperation with other organisations and fora dealing
with IG issues



6.  Inclusiveness of the IGF process and of participation at the IGF
meetings (in particular with regard to stakeholders from developing
countries)



7. Working methods of the IGF, in particular improving the preparation
process modalities

7.1. Current modalities: open consultation and MAG

7.2 IGF Secretariat



8. Format of the IGF meetings



9. Financing the Forum (exploring further options for financing)

9.1.        Review of the current situation

9.2.        Options for ensuring predictability, transparency and
accountability in financing IGF

------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref1> Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
(WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev. 1)-E)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: cstdwg-igf <cstdwg-igf at unctad.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:17 AM
Subject: Questionnaire Working Group on improvements to the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF)
To: frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch
Cc: hassane.makki at bakom.admin.ch, thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch, Mongi
Hamdi <Mongi.Hamdi at unctad.org>


*On behalf of Frédéric Riehl, Chairperson of the Working Group on
improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (apologies if you have already
received this email before)*

Dear Sir or Madam,


As the Chair of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance
Forum (IGF), I am pleased to send you a questionnaire drafted by the Working
Group at their first meeting which was held in Montreux, Switzerland on 25
and 26 February .

The Working Group on improvments to the IGF was set up pursuant to
resolution 2010/2 of the UN Economic and Social Council on the "Assessment
of the progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes
of the World Summit on the Information Society". The Working Group was
tasked to ".. seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all
other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum, in line
with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda" and to "make recommendations,
as appropriate, to the [Commission on Science and Technology for Development
(CSTD) ] at its fourteenth session in 2011, in a report that would
constitute an input from the Commission to the General Assembly, through the
Economic and Social Council, should the mandate of the Internet Governance
Forum be extended".

In line with its mandate, the Working Group has compiled the attached
questionnaire to collect the thoughts of all stakeholders on improvements to
the Internet Governance Forum. I would be grateful if you could send us your
thoughts, comments and points of view on the themes raised in the
questionnaire and to submit them in written form by email (
cstdwg-igf at unctad.org) by *14 March 2011*.

I thank you in advance for taking the time to complete the questionnaire.

Best regards,

Frédéric Riehl

Chairperson of the Working Group in improvments to the Internet Governance
Forum
Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD)



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110301/2fdba8b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar  1 13:41:43 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:41:43 -0300
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>
References: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
	<oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinhT_GbGA+gdCow2=KfE7etx8GU65UXvFVbeOuM@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Fouad,

Please, include me in the group.
Best,
Marília

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Yuliya Morenets <
y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu> wrote:

> Dear Fouad,
>
> I'm interested in joining the list and the group, so I volunteer.
>
> My best regards,
> Yuliya Morenets
>
> TaC-Together against Cybercrime
>
>
> Le 1/3/2011, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> a écrit:
>
> >Dear All,
> >
> >I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
> >Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
> >take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
> >discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline of
> >10 March.
> >
> >We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
> >60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
> >opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on the
> >IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would like
> >to join the list and want to help.
> >
> >If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went in
> >Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do share
> >them with the group!
> >
> >The mailing list information is:
> >
> >"iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group
> Address:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
> >
> >To subscribe to this group, please send email to
> >ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
> >
> >To post to this group, send email to
> >ig4d at googlegroups.com
> >
> >I look forward to everyone's active participation.
> >
> >--
> >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
>
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110301/7c18bc84/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From carloswatson at gmail.com  Tue Mar  1 14:01:15 2011
From: carloswatson at gmail.com (carlos watson)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:01:15 -0600
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinhT_GbGA+gdCow2=KfE7etx8GU65UXvFVbeOuM@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
	<oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>
	<AANLkTinhT_GbGA+gdCow2=KfE7etx8GU65UXvFVbeOuM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTiktCKFZonyGMcf4b0iSPb_TXzwK3FfgTv=93gUw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Fouad, please, Add me to volunteer.

cw

2011/3/1 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> Hello Fouad,
>
> Please, include me in the group.
> Best,
> Marília
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Yuliya Morenets
> <y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Fouad,
>>
>> I'm interested in joining the list and the group, so I volunteer.
>>
>> My best regards,
>> Yuliya Morenets
>>
>> TaC-Together against Cybercrime
>>
>>
>> Le 1/3/2011, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> a écrit:
>>
>> >Dear All,
>> >
>> >I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
>> >Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
>> >take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
>> >discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline of
>> >10 March.
>> >
>> >We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
>> >60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
>> >opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on the
>> >IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would like
>> >to join the list and want to help.
>> >
>> >If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went in
>> >Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do share
>> >them with the group!
>> >
>> >The mailing list information is:
>> >
>> >"iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group
>> > Address:
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
>> >
>> >To subscribe to this group, please send email to
>> >ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
>> >
>> >To post to this group, send email to
>> >ig4d at googlegroups.com
>> >
>> >I look forward to everyone's active participation.
>> >
>> >--
>> >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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Mar  1 15:20:07 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:20:07 +1200
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimWs2woRSk0sqfHHrCPHs66Xo-mEtwPNMCSKVpg@mail.gmail.com>

HI,

How can I help and what will it involve?

Sala

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
> Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
> take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
> discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline of
> 10 March.
>
> We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
> 60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
> opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on the
> IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would like
> to join the list and want to help.
>
> If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went in
> Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do share
> them with the group!
>
> The mailing list information is:
>
> "iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group Address:
> http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
>
> To subscribe to this group, please send email to
> ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
>
> To post to this group, send email to
> ig4d at googlegroups.com
>
> I look forward to everyone's active participation.
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/15075b9f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From julia at isoc.bg  Tue Mar  1 15:40:43 2011
From: julia at isoc.bg (Julia Velkova)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:40:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin0+jmAKEAi7AuJryU1JHE3rvuK1_A-bOCZpWC+@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Fouad,

I would also like to volunteer and be part of the group.

Regards,
Julia Velkova
Project Coordinator
Internet Society Bulgaria


On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
> Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
> take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
> discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline of
> 10 March.
>
> We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
> 60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
> opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on the
> IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would like
> to join the list and want to help.
>
> If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went in
> Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do share
> them with the group!
>
> The mailing list information is:
>
> "iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group Address:
> http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
>
> To subscribe to this group, please send email to
> ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
>
> To post to this group, send email to
> ig4d at googlegroups.com
>
> I look forward to everyone's active participation.
>
> --
> 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 peter.hellmonds at nsn.com  Tue Mar  1 18:50:18 2011
From: peter.hellmonds at nsn.com (Hellmonds, Peter (NSN - DE/Munich))
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 00:50:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <J+9bdurzMNaNFA9j@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <301bada8ae5af297e0f305ea0ad2abbc.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=FWFRUuc96vRwCS9HRzJL_kcKLVtqNP8xkpWrh@mail.gmail.com> <4ada65f1f5f735cfe7ade27e7fdcc155.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <p0624081fc98d21dbe476@[10.58.179.68]> <Zq0fI8PWYAaNFAuH@internetpolicyagency.com> <CAADCFAC-1DB4-4BE4-83FE-8268C24450E4@acm.org> <kuiQptaOxBaNFAZd@internetpolicyagency.com> <p06240829c98de3cbcfad@[10.58.179.68]> <J+9bdurzMNaNFA9j@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <58455B395C3D6D4CAB7D4112220DD25A04404B88@DEMUEXC027.nsn-intra.net>

Hello all,

time to step out of my lurkerdom and speak up to help clarify things.

Adam wrote:
>I think there was a goal of one third per rotation.

Roland replied:
> Yes, there's a subtle difference between aiming for a 3yr tenure where

> the longest-serving 1/3 retire each year, and replacing 1/3 of the 
> members.
> There's a middle course, which is to put the longest-serving 1/3 "up
for 
> re-selection", which could mean having a 6yr stint. And would give
some 
> security of tenure to newly appointed people.
> But as this is all happening inside a black box, we don't really know 
> what the methodology is.

According to my recollection, no specification about the rotation
principle was made that called for swapping out the entire group at some
point in time. No rule about longest-serving members having to go after
a defined period of time, or that a 3-year term or renewal of any such
3-year term would exist or not. This was simply not on the agenda at any
time to introduce lengthy procedures and rules, which would have been
difficult to agree to, considering the non-negotiating role of the MAG,
and the need to remain efficient, given the constraints of time etc.

I recall that there was broad consensus along those lines:
a) approximately 1/3 of members would rotate, taking into account gender
and regional balance
b) no set process for different stakeholder groups, but they may name
candidates amongst which the new MAG members would be selected
c) basically support for a "black box" approach, under the formal
decision by the UN SG (with the tacit understanding that this was fine
as long as the black box was managed ably by Nitin and Markus in
assuring proper balancing of stakeholder groups and interests)

We did publish reports of the mailing list contributions at the time,
anonymized to account for Chatham House Rules. See:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/110-magdigest 

According to one mail, "[t]he principles and modalities of the MAG
renewal are set out in the Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28
February 2008." That report can be found here:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf 

And I found a follow-up discussion on the rotation principles was held
in March 2008. Excerpts of the MAG Meeting report were cited in the
contribution by Writer A beginning on page 3 of this record:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/AG%20emails%2010mar08.pdf and there
were other contributions following up on that later on.

Hope this helps to refresh memories and to brig up to speed those who
may have joined the discussion at a later time. 

As for the discussion about the future process of rotation, I would
guess this would be up to the IGF MAG itself or would be on the agenda
of the UN CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements (UN-CSTD-WG-IGF-I :-)).
The precedent we did set was to rely on the black box approach. Whether
it was wise not to take care of the time when neither Nitin nor Markus
would be present is another story. 

Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of ext Roland Perry
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 11:17 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] MAG meeting

In message <p06240829c98de3cbcfad@[10.58.179.68]>, at 08:16:41 on Sat, 
26 Feb 2011, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> writes

>>almost no rotation in 2008, and a new influx of about 20 in 2009 who 
>>join 16 people appointed in 2006 and 18 from 2007.
>
>I think there was a goal of one third per rotation.

Yes, there's a subtle difference between aiming for a 3yr tenure where 
the longest-serving 1/3 retire each year, and replacing 1/3 of the 
members.

There's a middle course, which is to put the longest-serving 1/3 "up for

re-selection", which could mean having a 6yr stint. And would give some 
security of tenure to newly appointed people.

But as this is all happening inside a black box, we don't really know 
what the methodology is.

>There's probably some record in the MAG list or record of a
consultation.
>
>Pretty sure it was about one third each year as that would have meant 
>by the end of the five year mandate the full MAG would have swapped 
>out.  It's a pretty sustainable refresh rate.

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  2 01:00:31 2011
From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com (Siranush Vardanyan)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 06:00:31 +0000
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>
References:  <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>,<oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>
Message-ID: <BAY148-w5341993DBA6620DF6C5D7EE1C00@phx.gbl>


Dear Fouad,
 
Please, include me in the group
 
Best
 
Siranush
 
Armenia
> 
> 
> Le 1/3/2011, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> a écrit:
> 
> >Dear All,
> >
> >I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
> >Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
> >take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
> >discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline of
> >10 March.
> >
> >We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
> >60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
> >opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on the
> >IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would like
> >to join the list and want to help.
> >
> >If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went in
> >Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do share
> >them with the group!
> >
> >The mailing list information is:
> >
> >"iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group Address:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
> >
> >To subscribe to this group, please send email to
> >ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
> >
> >To post to this group, send email to
> >ig4d at googlegroups.com
> >
> >I look forward to everyone's active participation.
> >
> >--
> >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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/0955a45e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Mar  2 02:00:27 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 08:00:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] the end of Governments a we know them ?
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110301221910.063f1708@jefsey.com>


I just started perusing the daily report of the ICANN.GAC discussion. 
 From the very beginning, governments (EU) plead that they were at 
the originating of the gTLD "_market_". Therefore, this meeting is 
all about a merchant set of issues and not on the common interest 
issues, including the commercial ones. I note that the UK rep gives a 
long list of those looking to GAC to represent them, ranging from 
government ministers... users... businesses.. .to consumers, etc. 
with a single interesting exception: "people".

As Suzane Sene actually put it, this is a pivotal time: ICANN's 
commercial reps are now to be governments in their respective 
capitals and, therefore, GAC is to lead ICANN.

This is not what we want, because this is obsolete in terms of 
society, politics, and technology. What is claimed as a government in 
this US presented "GAC consensus" does not match what the people of 
the world understand today as what a government is to be. We are in 
the Internet age now and no longer in the Guttemberg time. 
Governments have the same mission, but its description must use our 
present-day words, not the old words reviewed by the "great pirates" 
(Richard Buckminster Fuller) of the day to transform these 
governments back into the commercial lackeys of these "great pirates" 
(now mostly banks of the FED).

One has the feeling that they are only using the "sovereignty 
argument" now in order to impose a "commercial" or "technical" policy 
based upon "their" experts (who are they?) rather than "ICANN 
experts" (who are they?). Who cares about experts? One only has to 
observe the common "constitution", which is, as Lessig explained a 
long time ago, in the "code". Everyone can do that on a daily and 
easy basis. For example, in circumventing the "governmental experts" 
advised ICE site hijacking.

A few years ago, IAB asked governments to enter the field of IETF 
expertise in order to protect innovation and neutrality (RFC 3869). 
Governments disregarded this call. As a result, what they do not 
understand today, is that the "experts" of their limted class 1, two 
presentations, a few hundred Internet DNS suffixes, and an unsecure 
use of the DNS technology area, are technically and politically 
disqualified by the Internet architectural reality that everyone can 
and will use once explained. This explanation of the Internet 
existing architecture is what IAB, IESG, and those who understand it 
hesitate to give because this will probably lead to an international 
grassroots revolution against ICANN, and now against the obsolete 
form of government displayed in Geneva that doctorally (as Von 
Guttemberg ?) discuss the DNS instead of the kind of society that the 
people want to support in forty years.

Regarding Suzane Sene and Dee, etc. the true problem for us is to 
know if they want to gag humanity in becoming the ICANN leader and 
give ICANN a monopoly on naming (which has to extend to all the terms 
used by the 22,500 existing language entities if it is to be 
efficient), or in using the ICANN forum to affirm the global 
positions that they intend to locally impose even outside of the 
ICANN area (without a monopoly on words it has no use). In both 
cases, it is a Gaddafi strategy that the people revolution will have 
to address differently: either in ignoring or disregarding it until a 
new governmental conception has emerged for our time. Neither 
Tunisia, nor Egypt, nor Lybia, nor Iran, etc. has used a TLD, they 
used twitter naming.

jfc

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk  Wed Mar  2 02:26:44 2011
From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (Jonathan Cave)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:26:44 +0000
Subject: [governance] the end of Governments a we know them ?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110301221910.063f1708@jefsey.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110301221910.063f1708@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <924261515-1299050804-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-54061182-@b4.c1.bise7.blackberry>

in my experience, the term "users" is meant to include (all) people; interesting choice, though for accuracy, "ers" should be "ed."

However, the reduction to narrowly commercial + technical framing is hardly restricted to governments. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 08:00:27 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Subject: [governance] the end of Governments a we know them ?


I just started perusing the daily report of the ICANN.GAC discussion. 
 From the very beginning, governments (EU) plead that they were at 
the originating of the gTLD "_market_". Therefore, this meeting is 
all about a merchant set of issues and not on the common interest 
issues, including the commercial ones. I note that the UK rep gives a 
long list of those looking to GAC to represent them, ranging from 
government ministers... users... businesses.. .to consumers, etc. 
with a single interesting exception: "people".

As Suzane Sene actually put it, this is a pivotal time: ICANN's 
commercial reps are now to be governments in their respective 
capitals and, therefore, GAC is to lead ICANN.

This is not what we want, because this is obsolete in terms of 
society, politics, and technology. What is claimed as a government in 
this US presented "GAC consensus" does not match what the people of 
the world understand today as what a government is to be. We are in 
the Internet age now and no longer in the Guttemberg time. 
Governments have the same mission, but its description must use our 
present-day words, not the old words reviewed by the "great pirates" 
(Richard Buckminster Fuller) of the day to transform these 
governments back into the commercial lackeys of these "great pirates" 
(now mostly banks of the FED).

One has the feeling that they are only using the "sovereignty 
argument" now in order to impose a "commercial" or "technical" policy 
based upon "their" experts (who are they?) rather than "ICANN 
experts" (who are they?). Who cares about experts? One only has to 
observe the common "constitution", which is, as Lessig explained a 
long time ago, in the "code". Everyone can do that on a daily and 
easy basis. For example, in circumventing the "governmental experts" 
advised ICE site hijacking.

A few years ago, IAB asked governments to enter the field of IETF 
expertise in order to protect innovation and neutrality (RFC 3869). 
Governments disregarded this call. As a result, what they do not 
understand today, is that the "experts" of their limted class 1, two 
presentations, a few hundred Internet DNS suffixes, and an unsecure 
use of the DNS technology area, are technically and politically 
disqualified by the Internet architectural reality that everyone can 
and will use once explained. This explanation of the Internet 
existing architecture is what IAB, IESG, and those who understand it 
hesitate to give because this will probably lead to an international 
grassroots revolution against ICANN, and now against the obsolete 
form of government displayed in Geneva that doctorally (as Von 
Guttemberg ?) discuss the DNS instead of the kind of society that the 
people want to support in forty years.

Regarding Suzane Sene and Dee, etc. the true problem for us is to 
know if they want to gag humanity in becoming the ICANN leader and 
give ICANN a monopoly on naming (which has to extend to all the terms 
used by the 22,500 existing language entities if it is to be 
efficient), or in using the ICANN forum to affirm the global 
positions that they intend to locally impose even outside of the 
ICANN area (without a monopoly on words it has no use). In both 
cases, it is a Gaddafi strategy that the people revolution will have 
to address differently: either in ignoring or disregarding it until a 
new governmental conception has emerged for our time. Neither 
Tunisia, nor Egypt, nor Lybia, nor Iran, etc. has used a TLD, they 
used twitter naming.

jfc

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at ella.com  Wed Mar  2 02:37:02 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:37:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] the end of Governments a we know them ?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110301221910.063f1708@jefsey.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110301221910.063f1708@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <B09B193B-917A-4C8F-971D-2F2036460D66@ella.com>

hi,

Not to mention that business and the Intellectual property forces in ICANN already have the controlling voice.
To have governments also representing them as opposed to their citizens, it overkill.  Then again that is a main problem with governments, by and large they do what the most powerful, which these days is often the businesses who buy their elections, tell them to do.

Although to be fair, while I may not agree with Bill Dee and Suzanne Sene a lot of the time, I have never noticed them in the act of gagging anyone (neither actually nor virtually) and have always felt them to be ready for a rip roaring discussion on most any point.

a.

On 2 Mar 2011, at 08:00, JFC Morfin wrote:

> 
> I just started perusing the daily report of the ICANN.GAC discussion. From the very beginning, governments (EU) plead that they were at the originating of the gTLD "_market_". Therefore, this meeting is all about a merchant set of issues and not on the common interest issues, including the commercial ones. I note that the UK rep gives a long list of those looking to GAC to represent them, ranging from government ministers... users... businesses.. .to consumers, etc. with a single interesting exception: "people".
> 
> As Suzane Sene actually put it, this is a pivotal time: ICANN's commercial reps are now to be governments in their respective capitals and, therefore, GAC is to lead ICANN.
> 
> This is not what we want, because this is obsolete in terms of society, politics, and technology. What is claimed as a government in this US presented "GAC consensus" does not match what the people of the world understand today as what a government is to be. We are in the Internet age now and no longer in the Guttemberg time. Governments have the same mission, but its description must use our present-day words, not the old words reviewed by the "great pirates" (Richard Buckminster Fuller) of the day to transform these governments back into the commercial lackeys of these "great pirates" (now mostly banks of the FED).
> 
> One has the feeling that they are only using the "sovereignty argument" now in order to impose a "commercial" or "technical" policy based upon "their" experts (who are they?) rather than "ICANN experts" (who are they?). Who cares about experts? One only has to observe the common "constitution", which is, as Lessig explained a long time ago, in the "code". Everyone can do that on a daily and easy basis. For example, in circumventing the "governmental experts" advised ICE site hijacking.
> 
> A few years ago, IAB asked governments to enter the field of IETF expertise in order to protect innovation and neutrality (RFC 3869). Governments disregarded this call. As a result, what they do not understand today, is that the "experts" of their limted class 1, two presentations, a few hundred Internet DNS suffixes, and an unsecure use of the DNS technology area, are technically and politically disqualified by the Internet architectural reality that everyone can and will use once explained. This explanation of the Internet existing architecture is what IAB, IESG, and those who understand it hesitate to give because this will probably lead to an international grassroots revolution against ICANN, and now against the obsolete form of government displayed in Geneva that doctorally (as Von Guttemberg ?) discuss the DNS instead of the kind of society that the people want to support in forty years.
> 
> Regarding Suzane Sene and Dee, etc. the true problem for us is to know if they want to gag humanity in becoming the ICANN leader and give ICANN a monopoly on naming (which has to extend to all the terms used by the 22,500 existing language entities if it is to be efficient), or in using the ICANN forum to affirm the global positions that they intend to locally impose even outside of the ICANN area (without a monopoly on words it has no use). In both cases, it is a Gaddafi strategy that the people revolution will have to address differently: either in ignoring or disregarding it until a new governmental conception has emerged for our time. Neither Tunisia, nor Egypt, nor Lybia, nor Iran, etc. has used a TLD, they used twitter naming.
> 
> jfc
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Mar  2 03:04:37 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:04:37 +1200
Subject: [governance] OFCOM publishes latest Broadband Speeds
Message-ID: <AANLkTin8fqwQbjhYZ=D0o=b-qNATTq559iC0uRcCqaVi@mail.gmail.com>

Ofcom today published its latest broadband speeds research which shows
that the average broadband speed is now 6.2Mbit/s but is still less
than half (45 per cent) of the average advertised broadband speed of
13.8Mbit/s.



Ofcom also published its response to the Committee for Advertising
Practice (CAP) and Broadcast Committee for Advertising Practice (BCAP)
consultation on broadband advertising.  Ofcom is recommending that if
speeds are used in broadband advertising they should based on a
Typical Speeds Range so that consumers have a clearer idea of what
speeds to expect.



The full research can be found here:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/telecoms-research/broadband-speeds/speeds-nov-dec-2010/



The response to the CAP/BCAP consultation can be found here:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/bbspeeds2011/response-to-asa.pdf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  2 04:19:24 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:19:24 +0800
Subject: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1299057564.2165.244.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 15:17 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> The Secretariat of the CSTD has sent the new version of the
> questionnaire on the improvements of the IGF, in accordance with the
> dicussions of 25 and 26 February. Main changes are reflected in
> questions 1 to 3.

Thanks Marília,

Izumi is a bit snowed under at the moment so he has asked me to take
over from him temporarily on coordinating our response to the CSTD
questionnaire.  This is something we had intended on doing last time,
but we couldn't get an IGC response together in time.  It's great that
we will now have a second shot at doing so.

Although we've been over this ground before, I'll start a new series of
threads for any responses to go in, and then I'll put them into a draft
statement within the next week, also drawing from the copious
submissions we have already written on these topics.  We can then
discuss and finalise the statement and send it to the CSTD by 14 March.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/907fff0b/attachment.bin>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Mar  2 05:07:47 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:07:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <1299057564.2165.244.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
References: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com> <1299057564.2165.244.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
Message-ID: <4D6E16F3.8040601@apc.org>

Dear Jeremy and all

It will be good to get an IGC response to this. But I also think it is
ESSENTIAL for individuals on this list, and organisations represented on
this list, to send in individual responses as well.

It is especially important that people from developing countries
respond.  There is huge concern with increasing developing country
participation and with increasing the IGF's coverage of development
issues, so the voices of people from developing countries, and people
from everywhere working with development issues, are particularly important.

Anriette


On 02/03/11 11:19, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 15:17 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> The Secretariat of the CSTD has sent the new version of the
>> questionnaire on the improvements of the IGF, in accordance with the
>> dicussions of 25 and 26 February. Main changes are reflected in
>> questions 1 to 3.
> 
> Thanks Marília,
> 
> Izumi is a bit snowed under at the moment so he has asked me to take
> over from him temporarily on coordinating our response to the CSTD
> questionnaire.  This is something we had intended on doing last time,
> but we couldn't get an IGC response together in time.  It's great that
> we will now have a second shot at doing so.
> 
> Although we've been over this ground before, I'll start a new series of
> threads for any responses to go in, and then I'll put them into a draft
> statement within the next week, also drawing from the copious
> submissions we have already written on these topics.  We can then
> discuss and finalise the statement and send it to the CSTD by 14 March.
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  2 05:12:17 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:12:17 +0800
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?CSTD_Q1_-_Review_of_IGF_vis-=E0-vis_T?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?unis_Agenda?=
Message-ID: <1299060737.2165.599.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

Question 1 is: Review of IGF vis-à-vis Tunis Agenda – paragraphs 72 to
80.

Our last thread on this:

(none)

Amongst our other resources on this:

http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41

If you have additional comments on this issue, please add them to this
thread or to the (currently empty) wiki document at
http://www.igcaucus.org/cstd-questionnaire.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/d4c4b4a0/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  2 05:13:05 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:13:05 +0800
Subject: [governance] Q4 CSTD - shaping the outcome of IGF meetings
Message-ID: <1299060785.2165.609.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

Question 4 is: Shaping the outcome of IGF meetings 

Our last thread on this:

http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2011-01/msg00258.html

Amongst our other resources on this:

http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45

If you have additional comments on this issue, please add them to this
thread or to the (currently empty) wiki document at
http://www.igcaucus.org/cstd-questionnaire.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/94832c47/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  2 05:13:01 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:13:01 +0800
Subject: [governance] Q3 CSTD - enhance the contribution of IGF to
 socio-economic development
Message-ID: <1299060781.2165.608.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

Question 3 is: How to enhance the contribution of IGF to socio-economic
development and towards IADGs including enhancing participation of
developing countries.

Our last thread on this:

(none)

Amongst our other resources on this:

http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/58

If you have additional comments on this issue, please add them to this
thread or to the (currently empty) wiki document at
http://www.igcaucus.org/cstd-questionnaire.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/087cad8d/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  2 05:12:57 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:12:57 +0800
Subject: [governance] Q2 CSTD - linking the IGF to the broader dialogue on
 global Internet governance
Message-ID: <1299060777.2165.600.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

Question 2 is: Improving the IGF with a view to linking it to the
broader dialogue on global Internet governance as directed by the UN
General Assembly Resolution on "Information and communications
technologies for development" (adopted on 24 November 2010).

Our last thread on this:

(none)

Amongst our other resources on this:

http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43

If you have additional comments on this issue, please add them to this
thread or to the (currently empty) wiki document at
http://www.igcaucus.org/cstd-questionnaire.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/a53c6318/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  2 05:13:20 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:13:20 +0800
Subject: [governance] Q9 CSTD - financing the Forum
Message-ID: <1299060800.2165.614.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

Question 9 is: Financing the Forum (exploring further options for
financing)

9.1.       Review of the current situation

9.2.       Options for ensuring predictability, transparency and
accountability in financing IGF

Our last thread on this:

http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2011-01/msg00260.html

Amongst our other resources on this:

http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 

If you have additional comments on this issue, please add them to this
thread or to the (currently empty) wiki document at
http://www.igcaucus.org/cstd-questionnaire.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/3386af80/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  2 05:13:07 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:13:07 +0800
Subject: [governance] Q5 CSTD - outreach to and cooperation with other
 organisations
Message-ID: <1299060787.2165.610.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

Question 5 is: Outreach to and cooperation with other organisations and
fora dealing with IG issues

Our last thread on this:

http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2011-01/msg00262.html

Amongst our other resources on this:

http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41

If you have additional comments on this issue, please add them to this
thread or to the (currently empty) wiki document at
http://www.igcaucus.org/cstd-questionnaire.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/e802282c/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  2 05:13:16 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:13:16 +0800
Subject: [governance] Q8 CSTD - format of the IGF meetings
Message-ID: <1299060796.2165.613.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

Question 8 is: Format of the IGF meetings

Our last thread on this:

http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2011-01/msg00256.html

Amongst our other resources on this:

http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45

If you have additional comments on this issue, please add them to this
thread or to the (currently empty) wiki document at
http://www.igcaucus.org/cstd-questionnaire.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/b83f063c/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  2 05:13:10 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:13:10 +0800
Subject: [governance] Q6 CSTD - inclusiveness of the IGF process and of
 participation
Message-ID: <1299060790.2165.611.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

Question 6 is: Inclusiveness of the IGF process and of participation at
the IGF meetings (in particular with regard to stakeholders from
developing countries)

Our last thread on this:

http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2011-01/msg00263.html

Amongst our other resources on this:

http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45

If you have additional comments on this issue, please add them to this
thread or to the (currently empty) wiki document at
http://www.igcaucus.org/cstd-questionnaire.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/e93ae4fc/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar  2 05:13:13 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:13:13 +0800
Subject: [governance] Q7 CSTD - working methods of the IGF
Message-ID: <1299060793.2165.612.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

Question 7 is: Working methods of the IGF, in particular improving the
preparation process modalities

7.1. Current modalities: open consultation and MAG

7.2. IGF Secretariat 

Our last threads on this:

http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2011-01/msg00259.html
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2011-01/msg00261.html

Amongst our other resources on this:

http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33
http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 

If you have additional comments on this issue, please add them to this
thread or to the (currently empty) wiki document at
http://www.igcaucus.org/cstd-questionnaire.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/863fe316/attachment.bin>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Mar  2 05:18:11 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:18:11 -0300
Subject: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <4D6E16F3.8040601@apc.org>
References: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com>
	<1299057564.2165.244.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
	<4D6E16F3.8040601@apc.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Vm-3sv+8++C4ww0tXarnFtYdSXDFJn83t9e5M@mail.gmail.com>

Totally agree with Anriette. Even if people do not answer all the
questions, individual contributions are very important, especially on
developmental issues.

On 3/2/11, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> Dear Jeremy and all
>
> It will be good to get an IGC response to this. But I also think it is
> ESSENTIAL for individuals on this list, and organisations represented on
> this list, to send in individual responses as well.
>
> It is especially important that people from developing countries
> respond.  There is huge concern with increasing developing country
> participation and with increasing the IGF's coverage of development
> issues, so the voices of people from developing countries, and people
> from everywhere working with development issues, are particularly important.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 02/03/11 11:19, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 15:17 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>> The Secretariat of the CSTD has sent the new version of the
>>> questionnaire on the improvements of the IGF, in accordance with the
>>> dicussions of 25 and 26 February. Main changes are reflected in
>>> questions 1 to 3.
>>
>> Thanks Marília,
>>
>> Izumi is a bit snowed under at the moment so he has asked me to take
>> over from him temporarily on coordinating our response to the CSTD
>> questionnaire.  This is something we had intended on doing last time,
>> but we couldn't get an IGC response together in time.  It's great that
>> we will now have a second shot at doing so.
>>
>> Although we've been over this ground before, I'll start a new series of
>> threads for any responses to go in, and then I'll put them into a draft
>> statement within the next week, also drawing from the copious
>> submissions we have already written on these topics.  We can then
>> discuss and finalise the statement and send it to the CSTD by 14 March.
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Mar  2 05:20:49 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:20:49 +1200
Subject: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Vm-3sv+8++C4ww0tXarnFtYdSXDFJn83t9e5M@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com>
	<1299057564.2165.244.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
	<4D6E16F3.8040601@apc.org>
	<AANLkTi=Vm-3sv+8++C4ww0tXarnFtYdSXDFJn83t9e5M@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinFCsxhDvx=Nmw_a386mwdEPV1Fr0Zr+wN0+zew@mail.gmail.com>

Having trouble opening the document that you sent Jeremy.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Totally agree with Anriette. Even if people do not answer all the
> questions, individual contributions are very important, especially on
> developmental issues.
>
> On 3/2/11, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> > Dear Jeremy and all
> >
> > It will be good to get an IGC response to this. But I also think it is
> > ESSENTIAL for individuals on this list, and organisations represented on
> > this list, to send in individual responses as well.
> >
> > It is especially important that people from developing countries
> > respond.  There is huge concern with increasing developing country
> > participation and with increasing the IGF's coverage of development
> > issues, so the voices of people from developing countries, and people
> > from everywhere working with development issues, are particularly
> important.
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> >
> > On 02/03/11 11:19, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 15:17 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> >>> The Secretariat of the CSTD has sent the new version of the
> >>> questionnaire on the improvements of the IGF, in accordance with the
> >>> dicussions of 25 and 26 February. Main changes are reflected in
> >>> questions 1 to 3.
> >>
> >> Thanks Marília,
> >>
> >> Izumi is a bit snowed under at the moment so he has asked me to take
> >> over from him temporarily on coordinating our response to the CSTD
> >> questionnaire.  This is something we had intended on doing last time,
> >> but we couldn't get an IGC response together in time.  It's great that
> >> we will now have a second shot at doing so.
> >>
> >> Although we've been over this ground before, I'll start a new series of
> >> threads for any responses to go in, and then I'll put them into a draft
> >> statement within the next week, also drawing from the copious
> >> submissions we have already written on these topics.  We can then
> >> discuss and finalise the statement and send it to the CSTD by 14 March.
> >>
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> > executive director
> > association for progressive communications
> > www.apc.org
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/b3ab2f43/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  2 05:23:31 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:23:31 +1200
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?CSTD_Q1_-_Review_of_IGF_vis-=E0-v?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?is_Tunis_Agenda?=
In-Reply-To: <1299060737.2165.599.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
References: <1299060737.2165.599.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik1NQC1YrQY9LQH1OpYG1WqqNv8BX+FxF+LPFdA@mail.gmail.com>

Please ignore my previous email...saw the questions

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> Question 1 is: Review of IGF vis-à-vis Tunis Agenda – paragraphs 72 to
> 80.
>
> Our last thread on this:
>
> (none)
>
> Amongst our other resources on this:
>
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41
>
> If you have additional comments on this issue, please add them to this
> thread or to the (currently empty) wiki document at
> http://www.igcaucus.org/cstd-questionnaire.
>
> --
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Consumers for Fair Financial Services
> World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011
>
> Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
> competitive markets in financial services for all.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/c4518d2b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Wed Mar  2 05:47:27 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:47:27 +0900
Subject: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Vm-3sv+8++C4ww0tXarnFtYdSXDFJn83t9e5M@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com>
 <1299057564.2165.244.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D6E16F3.8040601@apc.org> <AANLkTi=Vm-3sv+8++C4ww0tXarnFtYdSXDFJn83t9e5M@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimguepE=qpqUh90K-j93ObMxHoDuucVmLn1hw-8@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Jeremy for taking the lead. And sorry, I am in the middle
of finalizing several projects as March is the end of fiscal year in Japan.
But I will try to support Jeremy as much as possible. We might share
some editing work by question points.

CSTD WG agreed to "open" its report writing process to all stakeholders,
and we ill try to synthesize all contributions. So it is VERY important
to submit clear, strong messages from the Civil Society this time
to be reflected into the final report. And as Anriette and Marilia mentioned,
yes, it is equally important to deliver different voices from CS, so that
we can demonstrate the degree of concern and interest to the WG.

izumi, now in Ho-chiming, Vietnam



2011/3/2 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> Totally agree with Anriette. Even if people do not answer all the
> questions, individual contributions are very important, especially on
> developmental issues.
>
> On 3/2/11, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>> Dear Jeremy and all
>>
>> It will be good to get an IGC response to this. But I also think it is
>> ESSENTIAL for individuals on this list, and organisations represented on
>> this list, to send in individual responses as well.
>>
>> It is especially important that people from developing countries
>> respond.  There is huge concern with increasing developing country
>> participation and with increasing the IGF's coverage of development
>> issues, so the voices of people from developing countries, and people
>> from everywhere working with development issues, are particularly important.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn  Wed Mar  2 06:57:03 2011
From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:57:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <4D6E16F3.8040601@apc.org>
References: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com> <1299057564.2165.244.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320> <4D6E16F3.8040601@apc.org>
Message-ID: <BB1AF7AA2ACB4D218B101D4D44DE8471@MTBJ>

I fully agree with you Anriette.

 

The participation of the developing counties people is still very small
because of the travel and accommodation cost. 

As for the IGF themes, we do need to have them more development oriented.
Last year, a first step was accomplished, and we need to continue and even
enhance this approach.

 

So, I encourage all developing countries members of this list to fill in the
questionnaire highlighting the 2 concerns above, and send it individually. I
also hope that those from developed countries support this approach in their
individual response to the questionnaire. I’m sure the IGC one will be in
the same direction.   

 

------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Vice Chairman of CIC

World Federation of Engineering Organizations

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------

-----Message d'origine-----
De : governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de Anriette
Esterhuysen
Envoyé : mercredi 2 mars 2011 11:08
À : governance at lists.cpsr.org
Objet : Re: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF

 

Dear Jeremy and all

 

It will be good to get an IGC response to this. But I also think it is

ESSENTIAL for individuals on this list, and organisations represented on

this list, to send in individual responses as well.

 

It is especially important that people from developing countries

respond.  There is huge concern with increasing developing country

participation and with increasing the IGF's coverage of development

issues, so the voices of people from developing countries, and people

from everywhere working with development issues, are particularly important.

 

Anriette

 

 

On 02/03/11 11:19, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 15:17 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote:

>> The Secretariat of the CSTD has sent the new version of the

>> questionnaire on the improvements of the IGF, in accordance with the

>> dicussions of 25 and 26 February. Main changes are reflected in

>> questions 1 to 3.

> 

> Thanks Marília,

> 

> Izumi is a bit snowed under at the moment so he has asked me to take

> over from him temporarily on coordinating our response to the CSTD

> questionnaire.  This is something we had intended on doing last time,

> but we couldn't get an IGC response together in time.  It's great that

> we will now have a second shot at doing so.

> 

> Although we've been over this ground before, I'll start a new series of

> threads for any responses to go in, and then I'll put them into a draft

> statement within the next week, also drawing from the copious

> submissions we have already written on these topics.  We can then

> discuss and finalise the statement and send it to the CSTD by 14 March.

> 

 

-- 

------------------------------------------------------

anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org

executive director

association for progressive communications

www.apc.org

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, visit:

     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

 

For all other list information and functions, see:

     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

     http://www.igcaucus.org/

 

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/32f346e2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  2 07:18:33 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:18:33 +0000
Subject: [governance] OFCOM publishes latest Broadband Speeds
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin8fqwQbjhYZ=D0o=b-qNATTq559iC0uRcCqaVi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin8fqwQbjhYZ=D0o=b-qNATTq559iC0uRcCqaVi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fyWeucjZWjbNFAW$@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTin8fqwQbjhYZ=D0o=b-qNATTq559iC0uRcCqaVi at mail.gmail.com>, at 
20:04:37 on Wed, 2 Mar 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> writes

>Ofcom today published its latest broadband speeds research which shows
>that the average broadband speed is now 6.2Mbit/s but is still less
>than half (45 per cent) of the average advertised broadband speed of
>13.8Mbit/s.

I think there is still widespread misconception about what broadband 
"speed" mean.

ADSL (which is how the broadband they are talking about is delivered), 
is an *analogue* transmission, not a digital one. So the further you are 
from the DSLAM (telephone exchange), and the worse the condition of the 
wiring, the slower the connection speed.

It's difficult to predict in advance what an individual installation 
will achieve, because only after it's connected can you do a real 
measurement and confirm what's possible. (Consumers are not prepared to 
pay, and wait for, a full manual site survey for this kind of product). 
But you *do* know what the absolute maximum is, and that's the number 
which is put in the sales literature as "up to X".

This is actually the same idea as dial-up modems, where a '56kbps' 
connection is in reality an "up to 56kbps" connection depending on the 
line quality on the day. And specifically different from a "cable 
modem", and/or a "leased line", where the connection speed is generally 
fixed at exactly what you ordered.

Another source for confusion is that when ADSL was first available in 
the UK, it was delivered as a "virtual 2Mbit leased line", and if your 
connection wasn't capable of reliable and sustained 2Mbit the telco 
simply refused to connect you *at all* - even if you would have been 
happy with 1Mbit rather than nothing.

To put some numbers on this, in 2000 I was one of the first UK 
subscribers to receive a (rock solid, as above) 2Mbps ADSL connection, 
and more recently I have upgraded to an "up to 8Mbps" service which was 
estimated in advance to provide 7.5Mbps and my ISP claims is now 
delivering 3.5Mbps on average (although my equipment here says it's 
4.3Mbps, but that's a minor quibble).

Yes, I'm a bit disappointed that I'm only getting half the estimate, but 
it's twice what I was getting before, and cheaper too. From this OFCOM 
survey it also appears to be typical, which is unsurprising because 
consumers spread between 0Km and 5Km from the exchange will experience 
speeds in the range of 8Mbps to 'virtually zero', with the majority 
somewhere in the middle.

But no amount of disappointment from myself will make it work any faster 
- that's down to the laws of physics.

My telephone exchange (usa: central office) will be upgraded from "up to 
8Mbps" to "up to 20Mbps" at the end of March 2011. I will ask to be 
switched to that service (I understand it will not cost extra). It'll be 
interesting to see if the speed delivered to me increases to 10Mbps (ie 
around half of the 20Mbps), or what... ?

MEANWHILE, after you've been connected, at whatever speed, there are 
other reasons why you won't get 100% throughput, sometimes characterised 
as local "contention" (more total customer demand in the locality than 
the ISP can service in its backbone) but also congestion further away 
from the subscriber within the wider Internet.

I don't expect to be able to download content from a distant website at 
a continuous 3.5Mbps, any more than previously I expected continuous 
2Mbps. (Let alone at greater figures like 8Mbps if I had a full 8Mbps 
from my ADSL).
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Mar  2 07:58:44 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:58:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] the end of Governments a we know them ?
In-Reply-To: <B09B193B-917A-4C8F-971D-2F2036460D66@ella.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110301221910.063f1708@jefsey.com>
 <B09B193B-917A-4C8F-971D-2F2036460D66@ella.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110302132313.062d6100@jefsey.com>

At 08:37 02/03/2011, Avri Doria wrote:
>Although to be fair, while I may not agree with Bill Dee and Suzanne 
>Sene a lot of the time, I have never noticed them in the act of 
>gagging anyone (neither actually nor virtually) and have always felt 
>them to be ready for a rip roaring discussion on most any point.

Avri,

the gagging is not by the government middle(wo)men like these nice 
people. These people are expendable and motivated by doing a good job 
or statisfying their Ministry as some of them explained with a 
response, any response, which look serious until the next election.

The gagging further creeps from many administrative people, juges, 
merchants etc. who follow on the initial logic.

As I tried to explain Suzanne, the mistake at her level is to refer 
herself to an Hollywood DNS story. Her problem is not with the ICANN 
detail and the way they use it (as a cover or as a tool). Her problem 
will be with her Mnister, her President, her fellow citizens the day 
one start explaining them the true way the existing DNS can work. Not 
another alternative fancy DNS story. Just the plain existing DNS, and 
how it dramatically expended with IDNA2008's subsidiarity.

You can call it a Jefsey's dream, but it has come true through RFC 
and IAB reflexion. Actually it has not come true, it was always 
true,because there always were classes, presentations, languages, z 
flag, virtual root matrix, domain names (I started toying with them 
in 1978). True, there are a few things that will be new like ML-DNS, 
domain name piles, converters, netix, Fred Baker's NAPT66, etc. but 
they were implied and delayed, from the very begining. The true 
problem is the transition from a few million of paying domain names 
to a few millions of free TLDs, as investigated in ICANN ICP-3 and 
called by IAB RFC 3869. And how to use this transition to improve 
stabiliy. Vint proposed ICANN to take the lead in studying this: I 
opposed because ICANN represents no one. They did not consider 
because they had just no idea of what we were talking about.

Please, let us get real. I mean, let the US get real.
jfc

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From anriette at apc.org  Wed Mar  2 08:28:28 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:28:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] Declaration of the Assembly on the Right to
 Communication, Dakar- Feb 11, 2011
Message-ID: <4D6E45FC.7060800@apc.org>

Hi all

One of APC's members was instrumental in developing this.

Have a look, and endorse if you want to.. and I am sure people with
critical comments too.

Best

Anriette
------------------------------

The right to inform and be informed

Wednesday 23 February 2011

http://www.ciranda.net/fsm-dacar-2011/article/the-right-to-inform-and-be

Declaration of the Assembly on the Right to Communication, Dakar -
February 11, 2011

We, actors in the field of alternative information as well as citizen
activists who use communication as a tool for social transformation:

Note that, in a global context:

- information is held in a stranglehold by political, economic and
industrial forces and is manipulated by the governments and States;

- freedom of expression is being denied, thwarted or repressed;

- there is little or no guarantee for an unfettered access to information
for all citizens;

- a violent repression is unleashed upon citizens and actors in the field
of information;

- information is being commodified and standardized;

- there is an increasing distrust by public opinion regarding information
conveyed by the mainstream media.

We also note, particularly in Africa:

- an almost total absence of laws favouring citizens’ access to information;

- freedom of expression and freedom of the press being undermined by
repressive laws;

- hindrances and restrictions, if not outright censorship, placed upon
communities who wish to establish community media.

At the same time, we see new perspectives opening up, in the face of this
disturbing situation:

- a greater awareness and ability by citizens to participate in the
production and circulation of information in order to promote social
justice;

- the emergence of alternative media and the stepping unto the stage of
citizens who contribute to social and political change, as evidenced by
recent events in Tunisia and Egypt.

We declare that the right to communicate is a fundamental right and a
common good of humanity.

We commit ourselves to:

- defend, support and promote all initiatives that ensure and extend the
right to communication and information as a fundamental human right;

- building advocacy for a legislative and regulatory framework for public,
alternative and community media, including ensuring among others a better
right to airwave-access and broadcasting options;

- recognize and protect the actors and activists involved in information
and communication around the world;

- create and strengthen synergies between all actors and activists working
towards social transformation;

- promote accessibility and popular ownership/mastery of media and
information/communication technology by all citizens, without restriction
of gender, class or origin;

- promote mechanisms for ongoing communication between the various actors,
participants and organizers of social forums, including the "extended"
Social Forum as well as the various experiences of shared communication.

- support the development and strengthening of community and alternative
media;

- combat censorship and guarantee freedom of expression on the Internet;

- work towards the elaboration of a model that ensures the viability,
sustainability and independence of the alternative media;

- give a central place to issues of communication rights in the thematic
spaces of social forums.

Action Plan:

- Center our information campaigns and awareness-raising activities on key
issues that are on the international agenda (Rio+20, G8, G20, Palestine
Forum, Durban, etc.).

- Organize a World Forum of Free and Alternative Media in 2012, as part of
the WSF process.

As actors of communication, we clearly state our support for the Tunisian
and Egyptian peoples, we call on their governments to lift censorship and
to stop the repression against all citizens and actors in the field of
information.

We also call on all actors of social change and to unite our forces in the
struggle for the right to information and communication, without which no
change is possible.

Participating organizations:

    * Abong (Brasilian association of NGOs) - Brasil
    * Action Jeunesse - Morrocco
    * African Klomeo renaissance - Nigeria
    * AK-Project France-Sénégal
    * Alai - Agência Latinoamericana de Información - Ecuador
    * Alba TV Venezuela
    * Alternatives Canadá
    * Amarc World association of community radios
    * Aphad - Senegal
    * Arcoiris TV - Italy
    * Babels
    * Berlin Carré - Germany
    * Caritas - France
    * CIC Bata - Spain
    * Caritas (France)
    * CIC Bata (Espagne)
    * Cdtm72 (France)
    * Cedidelp (France)v
    * Ciranda International - Shared Communication
    * International Commons strategies group - Germany
    * Citim (France)
    * Communautique - Canada
    * Editions Charles Léopold Mayer - France
    * e-Joussour - Morrocco
    * Federacion de sindicatos de periodistas - Spain
    * FocusPuller - Italy
    * Forum Alternatives Morrocco - FMAS
    * Fundacion Quepo - Spain
    * Giaba - Guinée Bissau
    * Guinée Culture - Guinea
    * HEKS - Senegal
    * Imersao Latina - Brazil
    * Intervozes - Brazil
    * IES News Service - Palestine
    * IPS (Inter Press Service)
    * KebethCache women resource center - Nigeria
    * Maison des citoyens du monde (France)
    * Maison des droits de l’homme (France)
    * Maison du Monde d’Evry (France)
    * May first / People link - USA
    * Mission for Youth - Uganda
    * NIGD - Network Institute for Global Democratization - Finland
    * Pambazuka (Afrique)
    * Queens Magazine - Nigeria
    * Revista Forum - Brasil
    * Ritimo - France
    * Rural Health women Day - Nigeria
    * Saharareporters.com - Nigeria
    * Social Watch - Italy
    * Solafrika
    * Soylocoporti - Brasil
    * Support Initiative For sustainable development - Nigeria
    * Survie - France
    * TIE - Brasil
    * TV Star - Senegal
    * UnisCité - France
    * UPO - Spain
    * Vecam - France
    * WarriorsSelf-Help group - Kenya
    * WSFTV - WSF Forum TV

Contacts: Info_fsmdakar at ritimo.org

Translated from French by Grégoire Seither / Babels



=======================================
APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and
institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with
APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy,
equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information and
communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more
democratic and egalitarian societies.

_______________________________________________
apc.forum mailing list
apc.forum at lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Mar  2 09:29:15 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:29:15 -0300
Subject: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <BB1AF7AA2ACB4D218B101D4D44DE8471@MTBJ>
References: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com>
	<1299057564.2165.244.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
	<4D6E16F3.8040601@apc.org>
	<BB1AF7AA2ACB4D218B101D4D44DE8471@MTBJ>
Message-ID: <AANLkTiknT2ukFb_aSbZ6tQn3M1U-DDDGNos5KZhsWPRE@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

CSTD IGF WG page is not so easy to navigate so I would like to call
attention to the following:

All the contributions sent to the previous version of the questionnaire:
http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/Contributions/

Summary of all the responses, done by the secretariat:
http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Documents/IGFsummary.pdf

Most of the questions were manteined, so it is worth to take a look.
I hope that this helps us in our future contributions.

Best,

Marília

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA
<tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>wrote:

>  I fully agree with you Anriette.
>
>
>
> The participation of the developing counties people is still very small
> because of the travel and accommodation cost.
>
> As for the IGF themes, we do need to have them more development oriented.
> Last year, a first step was accomplished, and we need to continue and even
> enhance this approach.
>
>
>
> So, I encourage all developing countries members of this list to fill in
> the questionnaire highlighting the 2 concerns above, and send it
> individually. I also hope that those from developed countries support this
> approach in their individual response to the questionnaire. I’m sure the IGC
> one will be in the same direction.
>
>
>
> *------------------------------------------------------------*
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>
> Vice Chairman of *CIC*
>
> *W*orld* F*ederation of *E*ngineering *O*rganizations
>
> *Phone :* + 216 70 825 231
>
> *Mobile :* + 216 98 330 114
>
> *Fax     :* + 216 70 825 231
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de Anriette Esterhuysen
> Envoyé : mercredi 2 mars 2011 11:08
> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Objet : Re: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF
>
>
>
> Dear Jeremy and all
>
>
>
> It will be good to get an IGC response to this. But I also think it is
>
> ESSENTIAL for individuals on this list, and organisations represented on
>
> this list, to send in individual responses as well.
>
>
>
> It is especially important that people from developing countries
>
> respond.  There is huge concern with increasing developing country
>
> participation and with increasing the IGF's coverage of development
>
> issues, so the voices of people from developing countries, and people
>
> from everywhere working with development issues, are particularly
> important.
>
>
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
>
> On 02/03/11 11:19, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 15:17 -0300, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> >> The Secretariat of the CSTD has sent the new version of the
>
> >> questionnaire on the improvements of the IGF, in accordance with the
>
> >> dicussions of 25 and 26 February. Main changes are reflected in
>
> >> questions 1 to 3.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks Marília,
>
> >
>
> > Izumi is a bit snowed under at the moment so he has asked me to take
>
> > over from him temporarily on coordinating our response to the CSTD
>
> > questionnaire.  This is something we had intended on doing last time,
>
> > but we couldn't get an IGC response together in time.  It's great that
>
> > we will now have a second shot at doing so.
>
> >
>
> > Although we've been over this ground before, I'll start a new series of
>
> > threads for any responses to go in, and then I'll put them into a draft
>
> > statement within the next week, also drawing from the copious
>
> > submissions we have already written on these topics.  We can then
>
> > discuss and finalise the statement and send it to the CSTD by 14 March.
>
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>
> executive director
>
> association for progressive communications
>
> www.apc.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110302/208d5bd1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  3 05:08:50 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:38:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRP] Declaration of the Assembly on the Right to
 Communication, Dakar- Feb 11, 2011
In-Reply-To: <4D6E45FC.7060800@apc.org>
References: <4D6E45FC.7060800@apc.org>
Message-ID: <4D6F68B2.1090904@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 02 March 2011 06:58 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Hi all
>
> One of APC's members was instrumental in developing this.
>
> Have a look, and endorse if you want to.. and I am sure people with
> critical comments too.

Hi Anriette

We endorse the declaration. We think that taking the right to 
communicate as a point of departure for developing a civil society 
vision for Internet Governance, and then translating into real policy 
and action priorities was perhaps a missed opportunity during and after 
the WSIS. We still think that even now CS groups should  take up this 
task  seriously, rather than just respond to the dominant discourse of 
IG in a one-off, splintered manner. I propose that interested actors 
join together into an informal group to try this. The world needs a 
vision of IG that is other than a statist, corporatist or technocratic 
one, and IG space today is ruled by various combinations of these 
approaches. Civil society just responds and/ or aligns temporarily with 
these different combinations. It will be very useful if we can ourselves 
offer a coherent progressive vision, and then do advocacy and make 
necessary alignments proceeding from this vision. In fact there are many 
actors in non-civil society spaces that will be happy to have a coherent 
alternative vision and help in propagating it.

Parminder

> Best
>
> Anriette
> ------------------------------
>
> The right to inform and be informed
>
> Wednesday 23 February 2011
>
> http://www.ciranda.net/fsm-dacar-2011/article/the-right-to-inform-and-be
>
> Declaration of the Assembly on the Right to Communication, Dakar -
> February 11, 2011
>
> We, actors in the field of alternative information as well as citizen
> activists who use communication as a tool for social transformation:
>
> Note that, in a global context:
>
> - information is held in a stranglehold by political, economic and
> industrial forces and is manipulated by the governments and States;
>
> - freedom of expression is being denied, thwarted or repressed;
>
> - there is little or no guarantee for an unfettered access to information
> for all citizens;
>
> - a violent repression is unleashed upon citizens and actors in the field
> of information;
>
> - information is being commodified and standardized;
>
> - there is an increasing distrust by public opinion regarding information
> conveyed by the mainstream media.
>
> We also note, particularly in Africa:
>
> - an almost total absence of laws favouring citizens’ access to information;
>
> - freedom of expression and freedom of the press being undermined by
> repressive laws;
>
> - hindrances and restrictions, if not outright censorship, placed upon
> communities who wish to establish community media.
>
> At the same time, we see new perspectives opening up, in the face of this
> disturbing situation:
>
> - a greater awareness and ability by citizens to participate in the
> production and circulation of information in order to promote social
> justice;
>
> - the emergence of alternative media and the stepping unto the stage of
> citizens who contribute to social and political change, as evidenced by
> recent events in Tunisia and Egypt.
>
> We declare that the right to communicate is a fundamental right and a
> common good of humanity.
>
> We commit ourselves to:
>
> - defend, support and promote all initiatives that ensure and extend the
> right to communication and information as a fundamental human right;
>
> - building advocacy for a legislative and regulatory framework for public,
> alternative and community media, including ensuring among others a better
> right to airwave-access and broadcasting options;
>
> - recognize and protect the actors and activists involved in information
> and communication around the world;
>
> - create and strengthen synergies between all actors and activists working
> towards social transformation;
>
> - promote accessibility and popular ownership/mastery of media and
> information/communication technology by all citizens, without restriction
> of gender, class or origin;
>
> - promote mechanisms for ongoing communication between the various actors,
> participants and organizers of social forums, including the "extended"
> Social Forum as well as the various experiences of shared communication.
>
> - support the development and strengthening of community and alternative
> media;
>
> - combat censorship and guarantee freedom of expression on the Internet;
>
> - work towards the elaboration of a model that ensures the viability,
> sustainability and independence of the alternative media;
>
> - give a central place to issues of communication rights in the thematic
> spaces of social forums.
>
> Action Plan:
>
> - Center our information campaigns and awareness-raising activities on key
> issues that are on the international agenda (Rio+20, G8, G20, Palestine
> Forum, Durban, etc.).
>
> - Organize a World Forum of Free and Alternative Media in 2012, as part of
> the WSF process.
>
> As actors of communication, we clearly state our support for the Tunisian
> and Egyptian peoples, we call on their governments to lift censorship and
> to stop the repression against all citizens and actors in the field of
> information.
>
> We also call on all actors of social change and to unite our forces in the
> struggle for the right to information and communication, without which no
> change is possible.
>
> Participating organizations:
>
>      * Abong (Brasilian association of NGOs) - Brasil
>      * Action Jeunesse - Morrocco
>      * African Klomeo renaissance - Nigeria
>      * AK-Project France-Sénégal
>      * Alai - Agência Latinoamericana de Información - Ecuador
>      * Alba TV Venezuela
>      * Alternatives Canadá
>      * Amarc World association of community radios
>      * Aphad - Senegal
>      * Arcoiris TV - Italy
>      * Babels
>      * Berlin Carré - Germany
>      * Caritas - France
>      * CIC Bata - Spain
>      * Caritas (France)
>      * CIC Bata (Espagne)
>      * Cdtm72 (France)
>      * Cedidelp (France)v
>      * Ciranda International - Shared Communication
>      * International Commons strategies group - Germany
>      * Citim (France)
>      * Communautique - Canada
>      * Editions Charles Léopold Mayer - France
>      * e-Joussour - Morrocco
>      * Federacion de sindicatos de periodistas - Spain
>      * FocusPuller - Italy
>      * Forum Alternatives Morrocco - FMAS
>      * Fundacion Quepo - Spain
>      * Giaba - Guinée Bissau
>      * Guinée Culture - Guinea
>      * HEKS - Senegal
>      * Imersao Latina - Brazil
>      * Intervozes - Brazil
>      * IES News Service - Palestine
>      * IPS (Inter Press Service)
>      * KebethCache women resource center - Nigeria
>      * Maison des citoyens du monde (France)
>      * Maison des droits de l’homme (France)
>      * Maison du Monde d’Evry (France)
>      * May first / People link - USA
>      * Mission for Youth - Uganda
>      * NIGD - Network Institute for Global Democratization - Finland
>      * Pambazuka (Afrique)
>      * Queens Magazine - Nigeria
>      * Revista Forum - Brasil
>      * Ritimo - France
>      * Rural Health women Day - Nigeria
>      * Saharareporters.com - Nigeria
>      * Social Watch - Italy
>      * Solafrika
>      * Soylocoporti - Brasil
>      * Support Initiative For sustainable development - Nigeria
>      * Survie - France
>      * TIE - Brasil
>      * TV Star - Senegal
>      * UnisCité - France
>      * UPO - Spain
>      * Vecam - France
>      * WarriorsSelf-Help group - Kenya
>      * WSFTV - WSF Forum TV
>
> Contacts: Info_fsmdakar at ritimo.org
>
> Translated from French by Grégoire Seither / Babels
>
>
>
> =======================================
> APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and
> institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with
> APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy,
> equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information and
> communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more
> democratic and egalitarian societies.
>
> _______________________________________________
> apc.forum mailing list
> apc.forum at lists.apc.org
> http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110303/2cdcd592/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From hempalshrestha at gmail.com  Thu Mar  3 15:07:08 2011
From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 01:52:08 +0545
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <BAY148-w5341993DBA6620DF6C5D7EE1C00@phx.gbl>
References: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
 <oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu> <BAY148-w5341993DBA6620DF6C5D7EE1C00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimOw+uSUWUb21CCF=01H452aLPjTyBmCQCwq2Hs@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Fouad,

Please count me in the group.

With regards,

Hempal Shrestha

2011/3/2 Siranush Vardanyan <siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com>

>  Dear Fouad,
>
>
> Please, include me in the group
>
> Best
>
> Siranush
>
> Armenia
>
> >
> >
> > Le 1/3/2011, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> a écrit:
> >
> > >Dear All,
> > >
> > >I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
> > >Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
> > >take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
> > >discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline of
> > >10 March.
> > >
> > >We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
> > >60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
> > >opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on the
> > >IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would like
> > >to join the list and want to help.
> > >
> > >If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went in
> > >Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do share
> > >them with the group!
> > >
> > >The mailing list information is:
> > >
> > >"iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group
> Address:
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
> > >
> > >To subscribe to this group, please send email to
> > >ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
> > >
> > >To post to this group, send email to
> > >ig4d at googlegroups.com
> > >
> > >I look forward to everyone's active participation.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Regards.
> > >--------------------------
> > >Fouad Bajwa
> > >____________________________________________________________
> > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >To be removed from the list, visit:
> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >
> > >For all other list information and functions, see:
> > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >
> > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110304/6ced92d7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  3 15:12:45 2011
From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:12:45 -0300
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimOw+uSUWUb21CCF=01H452aLPjTyBmCQCwq2Hs@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
 <oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>
 <BAY148-w5341993DBA6620DF6C5D7EE1C00@phx.gbl> <AANLkTimOw+uSUWUb21CCF=01H452aLPjTyBmCQCwq2Hs@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinzN_D6HKb2TzH01SmzGrMcrkGHsrgSnT3tqjMb@mail.gmail.com>

Count me in, Fouad!
Best,
Ivar Hartmann

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 17:07, Hempal Shrestha <hempalshrestha at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Fouad,
>
> Please count me in the group.
>
> With regards,
>
> Hempal Shrestha
>
> 2011/3/2 Siranush Vardanyan <siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com>
>
>  Dear Fouad,
>>
>>
>> Please, include me in the group
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Siranush
>>
>> Armenia
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 1/3/2011, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> a écrit:
>> >
>> > >Dear All,
>> > >
>> > >I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
>> > >Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
>> > >take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
>> > >discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline of
>> > >10 March.
>> > >
>> > >We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
>> > >60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
>> > >opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on the
>> > >IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would like
>> > >to join the list and want to help.
>> > >
>> > >If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went in
>> > >Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do share
>> > >them with the group!
>> > >
>> > >The mailing list information is:
>> > >
>> > >"iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group
>> Address:
>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
>> > >
>> > >To subscribe to this group, please send email to
>> > >ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
>> > >
>> > >To post to this group, send email to
>> > >ig4d at googlegroups.com
>> > >
>> > >I look forward to everyone's active participation.
>> > >
>> > >--
>> > >Regards.
>> > >--------------------------
>> > >Fouad Bajwa
>> > >____________________________________________________________
>> > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > > governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > >To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> > >
>> > >For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> > >
>> > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110303/50f9eb74/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  3 17:29:57 2011
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:29:57 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRP] Declaration of the Assembly on the Right
 to Communication, Dakar- Feb 11, 2011
In-Reply-To: <4D6F68B2.1090904@itforchange.net>
References: <4D6E45FC.7060800@apc.org> <4D6F68B2.1090904@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <18743800.58678.1299191397427.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j19>

Bonjour Anriette and Parminder
hi members of the list

I thank Anriette for her info and endorse the Declaration of Dakar on behalf of CSDPTT. My thanks also to Parminder who suggests a way for counter the dominant discourse in the IG process. But, as I mentioned during both WSIS Forum preparation meetings held in Geneva, the neoliberal discourse which monopolizes the WSIS discussion space needs also to be balanced (if not countered) by alternative voices. In my opinion these voices are present i.a. in the World Social Forum, and -as far as developing countries are concerned- especially in its African edition in Dakar. 

I would just recall the discourse we, the CS at WSIS, heard during the Geneva Summit, which told us that only the CS "inside" (Geneva's Palexpo premises) is worthy of the name and to be listened to, since the CS "outside" is diqualifying itself by demonstrating "loudly" in the city of Geneva. And there were only a handful of CS representatives -I's among them- who protested to Adama Samassekou, the author of this discrininating sentence. 

In fact, i'm fed up with this unilateral, dominant neoliberal discourse we are submitted to since the very beginning of WSIS, and with those shows such as Negroponte's, Wade's and even the represntatives of UN agencies ones, the most zealous of them being the ITU. That's why I do hope that during the coming WSIS Forum there will be another breeze blowing in the sails of WSIS. Isn't the ITU seriously questioning why the media don't mention its global and world-unique event ? I'd like to suggest them to invite Aminata Traoré and change its techno-liberal anthem for a more committed one. There are a lot of people in Africa and elsewhere, singing (fairly well) that another world is possible !  

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT    




> Message du 03/03/11 11:10
> De : "parminder" 
> A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org"" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Re: [IRP] Declaration of the Assembly on the Right to Communication, Dakar- Feb 11, 2011
> 
>  
> 
> On Wednesday 02 March 2011 06:58 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Hi all One of APC's members was instrumental in developing this. Have a look, and endorse if you want to.. and I am sure people with critical comments too. 
> Hi Anriette
> 
> We endorse the declaration. We think that taking the right to communicate as a point of departure for developing a civil society vision for Internet Governance, and then translating into real policy and action priorities was perhaps a missed opportunity during and after the WSIS. We still think that even now CS groups should  take up this task  seriously, rather than just respond to the dominant discourse of IG in a one-off, splintered manner. I propose that interested actors join together into an informal group to try this. The world needs a vision of IG that is other than a statist, corporatist or technocratic one, and IG space today is ruled by various combinations of these approaches. Civil society just responds and/ or aligns temporarily with these different combinations. It will be very useful if we can ourselves offer a coherent progressive vision, and then do advocacy and make necessary alignments proceeding from this vision. In fact there are many actors in non-civil society spaces that will be happy to have a coherent alternative vision and help in propagating it. 
> 
> Parminder
> 
> Best Anriette ------------------------------ The right to inform and be informed Wednesday 23 February 2011 http://www.ciranda.net/fsm-dacar-2011/article/the-right-to-inform-and-be Declaration of the Assembly on the Right to Communication, Dakar - February 11, 2011 We, actors in the field of alternative information as well as citizen activists who use communication as a tool for social transformation: Note that, in a global context: - information is held in a stranglehold by political, economic and industrial forces and is manipulated by the governments and States; - freedom of expression is being denied, thwarted or repressed; - there is little or no guarantee for an unfettered access to information for all citizens; - a violent repression is unleashed upon citizens and actors in the field of information; - information is being commodified and standardized; - there is an increasing distrust by public opinion regarding information conveyed by the mainstream media. We also note, particularly in Africa: - an almost total absence of laws favouring citizens’ access to information; - freedom of expression and freedom of the press being undermined by repressive laws; - hindrances and restrictions, if not outright censorship, placed upon communities who wish to establish community media. At the same time, we see new perspectives opening up, in the face of this disturbing situation: - a greater awareness and ability by citizens to participate in the production and circulation of information in order to promote social justice; - the emergence of alternative media and the stepping unto the stage of citizens who contribute to social and political change, as evidenced by recent events in Tunisia and Egypt. We declare that the right to communicate is a fundamental right and a common good of humanity. We commit ourselves to: - defend, support and promote all initiatives that ensure and extend the right to communication and information as a fundamental human right; - building advocacy for a legislative and regulatory framework for public, alternative and community media, including ensuring among others a better right to airwave-access and broadcasting options; - recognize and protect the actors and activists involved in information and communication around the world; - create and strengthen synergies between all actors and activists working towards social transformation; - promote accessibility and popular ownership/mastery of media and information/communication technology by all citizens, without restriction of gender, class or origin; - promote mechanisms for ongoing communication between the various actors, participants and organizers of social forums, including the "extended" Social Forum as well as the various experiences of shared communication. - support the development and strengthening of community and alternative media; - combat censorship and guarantee freedom of expression on the Internet; - work towards the elaboration of a model that ensures the viability, sustainability and independence of the alternative media; - give a central place to issues of communication rights in the thematic spaces of social forums. Action Plan: - Center our information campaigns and awareness-raising activities on key issues that are on the international agenda (Rio+20, G8, G20, Palestine Forum, Durban, etc.). - Organize a World Forum of Free and Alternative Media in 2012, as part of the WSF process. As actors of communication, we clearly state our support for the Tunisian and Egyptian peoples, we call on their governments to lift censorship and to stop the repression against all citizens and actors in the field of information. We also call on all actors of social change and to unite our forces in the struggle for the right to information and communication, without which no change is possible. Participating organizations: * Abong (Brasilian association of NGOs) - Brasil * Action Jeunesse - Morrocco * African Klomeo renaissance - Nigeria * AK-Project France-Sénégal * Alai - Agência Latinoamericana de Información - Ecuador * Alba TV Venezuela * Alternatives Canadá * Amarc World association of community radios * Aphad - Senegal * Arcoiris TV - Italy * Babels * Berlin Carré - Germany * Caritas - France * CIC Bata - Spain * Caritas (France) * CIC Bata (Espagne) * Cdtm72 (France) * Cedidelp (France)v * Ciranda International - Shared Communication * International Commons strategies group - Germany * Citim (France) * Communautique - Canada * Editions Charles Léopold Mayer - France * e-Joussour - Morrocco * Federacion de sindicatos de periodistas - Spain * FocusPuller - Italy * Forum Alternatives Morrocco - FMAS * Fundacion Quepo - Spain * Giaba - Guinée Bissau * Guinée Culture - Guinea * HEKS - Senegal * Imersao Latina - Brazil * Intervozes - Brazil * IES News Service - Palestine * IPS (Inter Press Service) * KebethCache women resource center - Nigeria * Maison des citoyens du monde (France) * Maison des droits de l’homme (France) * Maison du Monde d’Evry (France) * May first / People link - USA * Mission for Youth - Uganda * NIGD - Network Institute for Global Democratization - Finland * Pambazuka (Afrique) * Queens Magazine - Nigeria * Revista Forum - Brasil * Ritimo - France * Rural Health women Day - Nigeria * Saharareporters.com - Nigeria * Social Watch - Italy * Solafrika * Soylocoporti - Brasil * Support Initiative For sustainable development - Nigeria * Survie - France * TIE - Brasil * TV Star - Senegal * UnisCité - France * UPO - Spain * Vecam - France * WarriorsSelf-Help group - Kenya * WSFTV - WSF Forum TV Contacts: Info_fsmdakar at ritimo.org Translated from French by Grégoire Seither / Babels ======================================= APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy, equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more democratic and egalitarian societies. _______________________________________________ apc.forum mailing list apc.forum at lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110303/c10399fa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Mar  3 17:46:51 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 03:46:51 +0500
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinzN_D6HKb2TzH01SmzGrMcrkGHsrgSnT3tqjMb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
	<oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>
	<BAY148-w5341993DBA6620DF6C5D7EE1C00@phx.gbl>
	<AANLkTimOw+uSUWUb21CCF=01H452aLPjTyBmCQCwq2Hs@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinzN_D6HKb2TzH01SmzGrMcrkGHsrgSnT3tqjMb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinB8erKuj7bvBttgcQbFA6iGuQw6+GbkEHagfrN@mail.gmail.com>

All are added so far and please follow the discussion and give your
inputs on http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann
<ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote:
> Count me in, Fouad!
> Best,
> Ivar Hartmann
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 17:07, Hempal Shrestha <hempalshrestha at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Fouad,
>> Please count me in the group.
>> With regards,
>> Hempal Shrestha
>>
>> 2011/3/2 Siranush Vardanyan <siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com>
>>>
>>> Dear Fouad,
>>>
>>> Please, include me in the group
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Siranush
>>>
>>> Armenia
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Le 1/3/2011, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> a écrit:
>>> >
>>> > >Dear All,
>>> > >
>>> > >I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
>>> > >Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
>>> > >take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
>>> > >discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline of
>>> > >10 March.
>>> > >
>>> > >We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
>>> > >60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
>>> > >opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on the
>>> > >IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would like
>>> > >to join the list and want to help.
>>> > >
>>> > >If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went in
>>> > >Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do share
>>> > >them with the group!
>>> > >
>>> > >The mailing list information is:
>>> > >
>>> > >"iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group
>>> > > Address:
>>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
>>> > >
>>> > >To subscribe to this group, please send email to
>>> > >ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
>>> > >
>>> > >To post to this group, send email to
>>> > >ig4d at googlegroups.com
>>> > >
>>> > >I look forward to everyone's active participation.
>>> > >
>>> > >--
>>> > >Regards.
>>> > >--------------------------
>>> > >Fouad Bajwa
>>> > >____________________________________________________________
>>> > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> > > governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> > >To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> > >
>>> > >For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> > >
>>> > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> > >
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From pouzin at well.com  Thu Mar  3 20:11:21 2011
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 02:11:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] Spectrum for development and access
In-Reply-To: <4D6B97C2.4010606@apc.org>
References: <4D6B97C2.4010606@apc.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin3cN8-8jKXGy=2JTHOsEcZReo-D68fUyQG_bVX@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> Hi all.. APC proposed that spectrum feature in the access theme of this
> year's IGF.
> [..]
>

Spectrum is the lifeblood of radio communications, no matter how its sharing
may be sophisticated. Here are some links to interesting trends in
unconventional radiocom systems.

An ambitious research project, EARS, is being launched by NSF to free up
500Mhz for broadband services. Industry is cranking out cognitive radio
networks (filching idle bandwidth in existing channels).
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503480
http://www.essays.se/essay/bf8e9a631a/
http://www.commlawblog.com/2010/12/articles/broadcast/fcc-launches-remake-of-radio-spectrum-technology/

White space, guard bands between analog TV channels, could/will be used for
radio nets. Pros & cons are fighting.
http://www.newamerica.net/files/WSDBackgrounder.pdf
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/White_space
http://www.magdahavas.com/2010/09/24/white-spaces-super-wifi-and-potentially-dangerous/

Low cost phone/internet
http://www.villagetelco.org/2008/06/the-origin-of-the-mesh-potato/
http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/mesh-potatoes-go-on-sale/
Net deployed in Timor villages
http://www.villagetelco.org/about/mesh-potato/
Project in South Africa
http://ictupdate.cta.int/fr/Dossiers/Le-reseau-Mesh-Potato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110304/c06548d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Fri Mar  4 09:01:48 2011
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:01:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinB8erKuj7bvBttgcQbFA6iGuQw6+GbkEHagfrN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
 <oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>
 <BAY148-w5341993DBA6620DF6C5D7EE1C00@phx.gbl> <AANLkTimOw+uSUWUb21CCF=01H452aLPjTyBmCQCwq2Hs@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinzN_D6HKb2TzH01SmzGrMcrkGHsrgSnT3tqjMb@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinB8erKuj7bvBttgcQbFA6iGuQw6+GbkEHagfrN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinhugEwjf3DkGmJ=J5HPeAxc4ymwM7resw9AMRj@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Fouad,

I want to be volunteer in this group, may be late???

Apologize to reply now.


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN)
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net



2011/3/3 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>

> All are added so far and please follow the discussion and give your
> inputs on http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d.
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann
> <ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Count me in, Fouad!
> > Best,
> > Ivar Hartmann
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 17:07, Hempal Shrestha <hempalshrestha at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Fouad,
> >> Please count me in the group.
> >> With regards,
> >> Hempal Shrestha
> >>
> >> 2011/3/2 Siranush Vardanyan <siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> Dear Fouad,
> >>>
> >>> Please, include me in the group
> >>>
> >>> Best
> >>>
> >>> Siranush
> >>>
> >>> Armenia
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Le 1/3/2011, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> a écrit:
> >>> >
> >>> > >Dear All,
> >>> > >
> >>> > >I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
> >>> > >Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
> >>> > >take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
> >>> > >discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline
> of
> >>> > >10 March.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
> >>> > >60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
> >>> > >opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on
> the
> >>> > >IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would
> like
> >>> > >to join the list and want to help.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went
> in
> >>> > >Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do
> share
> >>> > >them with the group!
> >>> > >
> >>> > >The mailing list information is:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >"iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group
> >>> > > Address:
> >>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
> >>> > >
> >>> > >To subscribe to this group, please send email to
> >>> > >ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
> >>> > >
> >>> > >To post to this group, send email to
> >>> > >ig4d at googlegroups.com
> >>> > >
> >>> > >I look forward to everyone's active participation.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >--
> >>> > >Regards.
> >>> > >--------------------------
> >>> > >Fouad Bajwa
> >>> > >____________________________________________________________
> >>> > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> > > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> > >To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>> > >
> >>> > >For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>> > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>> > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>> > >
> >>> > ____________________________________________________________
> >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>> >
> >>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>> >
> >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110304/4d8b951b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  4 19:56:34 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 05:56:34 +0500
Subject: [governance] Synthesising input for IG4D session at IGF Kenya
 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinhugEwjf3DkGmJ=J5HPeAxc4ymwM7resw9AMRj@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinNtappNWYRFgvA35CW0=aiMvrh84FXwiabmthP@mail.gmail.com>
	<oJzFN5Id.1299002492.0453380.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>
	<BAY148-w5341993DBA6620DF6C5D7EE1C00@phx.gbl>
	<AANLkTimOw+uSUWUb21CCF=01H452aLPjTyBmCQCwq2Hs@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinzN_D6HKb2TzH01SmzGrMcrkGHsrgSnT3tqjMb@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinB8erKuj7bvBttgcQbFA6iGuQw6+GbkEHagfrN@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinhugEwjf3DkGmJ=J5HPeAxc4ymwM7resw9AMRj@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimTH41Lc-us0rmz7w0RRPk207ZVD-E1X4a_5y+q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

You are already in the group and the group is open throughout leading
to the IGF and beyond :o)

Feel free to contribute.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Fouad,
>
> I want to be volunteer in this group, may be late???
>
> Apologize to reply now.
>
>
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>
> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN)
> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>
> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914
> email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
> blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net
>
>
>
> 2011/3/3 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>
>> All are added so far and please follow the discussion and give your
>> inputs on http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann
>> <ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Count me in, Fouad!
>> > Best,
>> > Ivar Hartmann
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 17:07, Hempal Shrestha <hempalshrestha at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Fouad,
>> >> Please count me in the group.
>> >> With regards,
>> >> Hempal Shrestha
>> >>
>> >> 2011/3/2 Siranush Vardanyan <siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com>
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Fouad,
>> >>>
>> >>> Please, include me in the group
>> >>>
>> >>> Best
>> >>>
>> >>> Siranush
>> >>>
>> >>> Armenia
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Le 1/3/2011, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> a écrit:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >Dear All,
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >I have volunteered to lead the "The Development Agenda / Internet
>> >>> > >Governance For Development IG4D" Session so that we can suggest and
>> >>> > >take 5-6 questions to act as what type of questions can stimulate
>> >>> > >discussion under this. The IGF Secretariat has proposed a deadline
>> >>> > > of
>> >>> > >10 March.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >We are reviving last year's IG4D mailing list that already includes
>> >>> > >60+ members from all stakeholder groups so I would like to take the
>> >>> > >opportunity for more volunteers to join in and assist with this on
>> >>> > > the
>> >>> > >IG4D list. Kindly respond to me as soon as possible if you would
>> >>> > > like
>> >>> > >to join the list and want to help.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >If anyone has any reflections to share on how the IG4D session went
>> >>> > > in
>> >>> > >Vilnius, how to carry these issues forward and so on, please do
>> >>> > > share
>> >>> > >them with the group!
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >The mailing list information is:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >"iG4D - Internet Governance For Development" session working group
>> >>> > > Address:
>> >>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >To subscribe to this group, please send email to
>> >>> > >ig4d+subscribe at googlegroups.com
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >To post to this group, send email to
>> >>> > >ig4d at googlegroups.com
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >I look forward to everyone's active participation.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >--
>> >>> > >Regards.
>> >>> > >--------------------------
>> >>> > >Fouad Bajwa
>> >>> > >____________________________________________________________
>> >>> > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>> > > governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> >>> > >To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>> > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >>> > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> >>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>> >
>> >>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>>
>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>>
>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>
>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>
>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>



-- 
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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar  5 08:38:46 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 10:38:46 -0300
Subject: [governance] Montreux
In-Reply-To: <4D6B7382.9070908@apc.org>
Message-ID: <B457501085E64F9AA2C3F3C6C20DB7CD@userPC>

Thanks Anriette and everyone for giving some rather higher level
discussion/analysis... 

That has proven very useful in trying to assess what has gone on and where
things might go from here, although for me at least. the process of
attempting to work through either media or folks attempting to transmit the
information is always a difficult one.  (BTW, I draw the conclusion from
this that some sort of "representational" process is necessary i.e. one
needs to select representatives who are in accord with one's overall
position and then trust them to act in a responsible fashion consistent with
their previously articulated position statements.

Which brings me to respond to Anriette's "proposal" below.

I understand why she has indicated a preference for "functional/operational"
groupings and representation since these would to a degree have
"functional/operational" positions to articulate and "interests" to see
manifest in IGF discussions/outcomes (?).  I'm wondering though whether the,
should we say, UN-centric groupings that she has articulated are the most
appropriate delineation of the IG universe.  

I'm wondering for example where the Open Source/Open Data/Open Government
folks would fit into this framework; or equally where P2P folks; or the ICT
and democracy constituencies; or the Human Rights and the Internet
groupings: or dare I say the community informatics communities would fit
in...

The difference that I see between the groups I'm pointing to and Anriette's
are that the former are looking to link ICT/Internet/IG issues back into
existing frameworks of action/analysis while the latter are looking to
expand the boundaries of existing activity using the Internet (and
potentially IG (?)) as tools...

I have quite serious reservations about any framework for inclusion within
the IG/IGF which does not provide means for active (even including
solicitation of) participation by the latter groups.

Best to all,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:06 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Montreux


Hello all... my last message on Montreux for a while.. I need to get back to
the huge pile of work waiting.

One point that I think was not stressed or explored enough during the
discussion:

- the IGF secretariat should be independent

What this means, why it is important, and why it should be ensured, did not
come up at all I think.

This should be stressed in all further submissions, and I think we can
benefit from coming up with concrete ideas on this in the IGF space.

I had proposed that civil society representation in the MAG be doubled.
Other CS reps supported this. A bit more on this:

- my specific proposal was that the current number of civil society people
in the MAG be doubled with:

* half the number being drawn from civil society organisations that work
specifically on internet policy issues,

* and the other half drawn from civil society organisations working on
substantial issue areas such as sustainable development, cultural and
linguistic diversity, peacebuilding, etc. and who represent the interests of
specific groups such as women's rights groups, people with disability,
online workers, etc.

I would like to know how members of the IGF feel about this proposal.

My argument is that:

- CS represents more diversity... etc.  this has been elaborated on already
by Wolfgang and others

- Business and the tech community largely, not exclusively, but definitely
largely, has common positions in the IGF context. This creates imbalance in
the MAG, with business and the tech community being more influential than
other groups. While there are loads of things that CS would have in common
with these two groups, there are also differences, and it makes it difficult
for us as CS to broaden the scope of the IGF.

Wolfgang made a very important point in one of his inputs yesterday:

- The tech community constituency in the IGF is supported to be the
technical AND academic community.. but it has been made up mainly of
technical community people, with academics dealing with non-tech aspects of
IG being included in the CS slate

This reduces the number of CS organisational representatives even further,
and does not do the academic community justice. They have a lot to
contribute.

Anriette








------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar  6 02:17:39 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:17:39 +0800
Subject: [governance] Draft http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/archives/24
Message-ID: <01C1E6C7-94F1-4F75-AFFF-55A32F899490@ciroap.org>

I have drafted a suggested statement for our input to the CSTD's report on the IGF.  In case it sounds familiar, 90% of this comes from our previous submissions.  Thus, credit for drafting it actually has to be shared around a lot of people including several of our previous coordinators.  I've also used Marilia's dot-point discussion summaries that she posted to the list, but fleshed them out.

WE MUST FINALISE THIS STATEMENT BY 14 MARCH 2011.  That does not leave us much time.  Therefore, to expedite the process of finalising the statement, I request that you comment using our online discussion space, which allows you to leave fine-grained paragraph-level comments:

http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/archives/24

If you have a strong aversion to the use of Web-based tools, then you can also comment here.  We will have to try to call consensus on this by THIS FRIDAY.  So please make your comments before then, so that I can incorporate them quickly into a final version and send out the consensus call poll.

Thanks for your understanding of the abbreviated deadline that we face.
-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011
Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110306/cc6f75eb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSTD_IGF_WG_submission.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 123706 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110306/cc6f75eb/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110306/cc6f75eb/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110306/cc6f75eb/attachment.sig>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Mar  6 02:37:28 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:37:28 +0800
Subject: [governance] Draft submission to the CSTD Working Group on
 Improvements to the IGF
In-Reply-To: <01C1E6C7-94F1-4F75-AFFF-55A32F899490@ciroap.org>
References: <01C1E6C7-94F1-4F75-AFFF-55A32F899490@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <72631231-9E05-4383-8DFC-DFADF8D8F7F0@ciroap.org>

Just changing the subject line to a more meaningful one.

On 06/03/2011, at 3:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> I have drafted a suggested statement for our input to the CSTD's report on the IGF.  In case it sounds familiar, 90% of this comes from our previous submissions.  Thus, credit for drafting it actually has to be shared around a lot of people including several of our previous coordinators.  I've also used Marilia's dot-point discussion summaries that she posted to the list, but fleshed them out.
> 
> WE MUST FINALISE THIS STATEMENT BY 14 MARCH 2011.  That does not leave us much time.  Therefore, to expedite the process of finalising the statement, I request that you comment using our online discussion space, which allows you to leave fine-grained paragraph-level comments:
> 
> http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/archives/24
> 
> If you have a strong aversion to the use of Web-based tools, then you can also comment here.  We will have to try to call consensus on this by THIS FRIDAY.  So please make your comments before then, so that I can incorporate them quickly into a final version and send out the consensus call poll.
> 
> Thanks for your understanding of the abbreviated deadline that we face.
> <CSTD_IGF_WG_submission.pdf>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> 
> Consumers for Fair Financial Services
> World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011
> Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and competitive markets in financial services for all.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011
Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110306/8cd93c65/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110306/8cd93c65/attachment.sig>

From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de  Sun Mar  6 18:55:33 2011
From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 00:55:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Euro SSIG - Call for Application out now!
Message-ID: <00a901cbdc59$fbab51e0$f301f5a0$@hoferichter@freenet.de>


For the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow: Learning in a Multi
Stakeholder Environment


5th European Summer School on Internet Governance (Euro-SSIG) – Apply
<http://s248530164.online.de/euro-ssig/euro-ssig-2010/draft-programme/plenar
y/application-form>  now!


Meissen / Germany, July 24 – 30, 2011


Do you want to understand the multilayer, multi player mechanisms of
Internet Governance? Do you want to know what the political, economic,
social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you want to
learn what is behind cryptic acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, ccTLD, gTLD,
iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, W3C, IAB, WHOIS, GAC, IGF, WGIG and WSIS? Do want to
get more detailed information about technical Internet standards, protocols,
codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries and registrars? Are you
interested to look deeper into the opportunities and risks of the emerging
global Internet Economy? Do you want to become an Internet Governance leader
of tomorrow?

Than you should apply for the “2011 European Summer School on Internet
Governance” (Euro-SSIG). The 2011 Summer School offers a unique
multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The programme is a
well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with world leading academics
as well as practical presentations from well known experts working directly
in the technical community, the market or in policy. It offers unique
opportunities for learning in a multi stakeholder environment, which
includes also intense and individual interactive communication with faculty
members and fellows from all over the world. The Faculty is chaired by Prof.
Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus .

Applications will be accepted both from students and individuals working in
the private sector, in government or in civil society groups from all over
the world. Application criteria are a basic academic degree or relevant
practical experiences. The full course fee is 1000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It
includes, next to the lecture programme:

*	six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy,
*	breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee ,
*	one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory”,
*	gala dinner in the historic wine-restaurant “Vincenz Richter”,
*	boat trip on the river Elbe
*	free WiFi access and
*	all teaching material.

There is a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). We can
offer students from developing countries an opportunity to apply for the
Global Fellowship Programme (GFP-SSIG).

If you are interested in the Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG),
please send applications until May 15, 2011 by using the
<http://s248530164.online.de/euro-ssig/euro-ssig-2010/draft-programme/plenar
y/application-form> electronic form on the website.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

s a n d r a  h o f e r i c h t e r

management and communication

 

international summer schools on internet governance (issig)

medienstadt leipzig e.v. / netcom institute

pf 650 107

d-04189 leipzig

 

fon: +49.341.301 28 27

fax: +49.341.945 60 11

mobile: +49.163.380 87 85

 

info at hoferichter.eu

www.issig.info

www.euro-ssig.eu

 


This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
are not the intendet recipient (or have received this e-mail in error)
please notify the sender  immediately and destroy this mail. Any
unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of material in this e-mail
is strictly forbidden.

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110307/117fe173/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From pgo at info.fundp.ac.be  Mon Mar  7 04:35:10 2011
From: pgo at info.fundp.ac.be (Philippe Goujon)
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:35:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] IT for a Better Future - How to integrate Ethics,
 Politics and Innovation - Event in the European Parliament, 31 March 2011
Message-ID: <acd657$nbdsif@relay.skynet.be>

Dear colleagues

ICT has an immediate and broad impact on the lives of most individuals.
Ethical scrutiny is not well established. Existing ethics review mechanisms
are not suited for many of the ethical issues that ICT is likely to cause in
the future. Europe has the unique opportunity to show international
leadership by pointing the way to how human rights, ethical values and moral
norms can be explicitly considered in technology development. The ETICA
project (Ethical Issues of Emerging ICT Applications, GA 230318,
www.etica-project.eu) provides the basis for a new enlightened approach to
the development, governance and use of emerging ICT.

If you are interested in this area, I would therefore like to invite you to
the ETICA project’s final event which will be held on the 31st of March 2011
at the European Parliament, Brussels. This event will be co-hosted by the
European Parliament’s Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA). The
event will be chaired by Dr. Malcolm Harbour, MEP and Vice-President of
STOA. The event will present ETICA's findings and recommendations which will
include:

• Identified Emerging Technologies
• Identified Ethical Issues of the Emerging Technologies
• Evaluation and Ranking review of the identified technologies
• Governance structures of emerging technologies and
• Recommendations for policy makers on ways that could be considered when
dealing with ethical issues of emerging technologies

In addition, the event will have panel discussions on the following topics:

Panel 1: Ethics and Politics
How should we shape the relationship of ethics, ICT and society?

Panel 2: Ethics and Innovation
How can ethics be integrated into technical innovation?

Panel 3: Ethics and Research
What can be the role for ethics in FP8?

The event is aimed at a broad audience including
• Policy-makers
• ICT Industry developers
• Researchers
• Ethics Reviewers
There will be a lively discussion and debate between the different
stakeholders on issues of ethics and future and emerging technologies.

If you would like to register for this unprecedented event please click on
the link below and register your interest by close of business Wednesday
16th March 2011. Attendance is free but registration is required.

http://www.etica-project.eu/

We look forward to hearing from you, however in the meantime if you have any
further questions and or queries then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,

Philippe goujon etica wp4 responsible



Philippe Goujon
Professeur
Faculté d'Informatique - Computer Science Department
FUNDP
Rue Grandgagnage, 21- B 5000 NAMUR
32+81 72 5258 - FAX 32+ 81 72 49 67
mail.pgo at info.fundp.ac.be

présentation page perso:
  http://www.fundp.ac.be/universite/personnes/page_view/01005672/cv.html
http://fundp.academia.edu/Philippegoujon

Projets en cours:
Projet IG3T :
http ://www.info.fundp.ac.be/IG3T

projets européens:
projet ETICA (Ethical Issues of Emerging ICT 
Applications) : http://moriarty.tech.dmu.ac.uk:8080/

projet EGAIS (The Etical GovernAnce of emerging 
technologieS: http://www.egais-project.eu/
- New Governance perspective for integrating 
ethics into Technical development Projects and Applications)


It is not enough that you should understand about 
applied science in order that your work may 
increase man's blessings. Concern for man himself 
and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors.
Albert Einstein

"La vérité ne triomphe jamais mais ses ennemis 
finissent toujours par disparaître"
- Max Planck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110307/3211710f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Mar  7 18:56:58 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 02:56:58 +0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [kictanet] 2011 IGF dates 27 to 30 September
In-Reply-To: <4D75135F.6080904@apc.org>
References: <4D75135F.6080904@apc.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikyMp58j+KzqmZ6wKGtyDwWARQpY0CdJqE2nYGV@mail.gmail.com>

FYI:

Now that the dates are confirmed, here is a bit of a tip from a local.

THERE IS ONLY ONE HOTEL NEARBY.  I really can't emphasize this enough.  It's
called the Tribe Hotel, it's very posh, but you could walk from their to UN
(15 mins, very safe area), or a 5 mins taxi ride.

Your alternative is to stay in a hotel in the CBD, and ride a (IGF bus) or
taxi 2x per day in some pretty nasty traffic.

Don't say you haven't been warned!!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alice Munyua <alice at apc.org>
Date: Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:18 PM
Subject: [kictanet] 2011 IGF dates 27 to 30 September
To: dogwallah at gmail.com
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>


 Dear all,

Dates for the sixth 2011 United Nations Internet Governance Forum
(UN-IGF) have now been confirmed. The IGF will take place on 27th to 30
September 2011 in Nairobi at the UN Gigiri.

We wish to have strong participation of all stakeholders and would
particularly like to encourage industry, civil society and policy makers and
who would bring to it expertise, partnerships, and best practices.

We hope to leverage, build upon, and enrich the 2011 IGF, by extending the
benefits of the IGF programming to begin to build a foundation for young
people within the context of the East African Internet Governance Forum
(EA-IGF) which will prepare them to participate meaningfully and
constructively as IGF youth Ambassadors.



Best


Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110308/b28070b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de  Tue Mar  8 18:32:50 2011
From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 00:32:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things -
 Registration open!
Message-ID: <009f01cbdde9$247fb9e0$6d7f2da0$@hoferichter@freenet.de>

The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things

EURO-NF & GOVPIMINT Workshop (Leipzig II) in Cooperation with the
annual meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition of the Internet of Things
(IGF-DyCIT) 

Leipzig, Germany, March, 24-25, 2011

While there is still a discussion, what the concept of the" Internet of
Things" means in practice, the real process of connecting objects equipped
with RFID chips to the Internet via an IPv6 address continues to move
forward. The market is growing and so growths the debate about the
governance implications of the "Internet of Things". The European Commission
has established a "Task Force on the Internet of Things", the European
parliament has published a report about the issue and the recent 5th UN
sponsored Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has reactivated the Dynamic
Coalition on the Internet of Things (IGF-DyCIT).

Among the key issues under consideration is whether an "Internet of Things"
needs a governance mechanisms and, if yes, how such a mechanism should be
designed. Other key issues are privacy, security and the idea to introduce a
"right to silence the chip". 

Find the programme here:
http://www.medienstadt-leipzig.org/euronf/programme.html

Please register at:
http://www.medienstadt-leipzig.org/euronf/registration.html

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110309/79b06312/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 10 11:46:52 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:46:52 +0900
Subject: [governance] Draft submission to the CSTD Working Group on
 Improvements to the IGF
In-Reply-To: <72631231-9E05-4383-8DFC-DFADF8D8F7F0@ciroap.org>
References: <01C1E6C7-94F1-4F75-AFFF-55A32F899490@ciroap.org> <72631231-9E05-4383-8DFC-DFADF8D8F7F0@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=dRX0bbLcjBnkeWbNdKdPmnuJ_4TzvrWEoLn6-@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

I have to admit the I myself could not respond to the draft/call
by Jeremy.

But we need to finalize this and submit on Monday.
So, please take a look and make sure if you have additional
comments or suggestions before coordinators make it final.

Thank you,

izumi


2011/3/6 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:
> Just changing the subject line to a more meaningful one.
> On 06/03/2011, at 3:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> I have drafted a suggested statement for our input to the CSTD's report on
> the IGF.  In case it sounds familiar, 90% of this comes from our previous
> submissions.  Thus, credit for drafting it actually has to be shared around
> a lot of people including several of our previous coordinators.  I've also
> used Marilia's dot-point discussion summaries that she posted to the list,
> but fleshed them out.
> WE MUST FINALISE THIS STATEMENT BY 14 MARCH 2011.  That does not leave us
> much time.  Therefore, to expedite the process of finalising the statement,
> I request that you comment using our online discussion space, which allows
> you to leave fine-grained paragraph-level comments:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/archives/24
> If you have a strong aversion to the use of Web-based tools, then you can
> also comment here.  We will have to try to call consensus on this by THIS
> FRIDAY.  So please make your comments before then, so that I can incorporate
> them quickly into a final version and send out the consensus call poll.
> Thanks for your understanding of the abbreviated deadline that we face.
> <CSTD_IGF_WG_submission.pdf>
>
> --
>
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Consumers for Fair Financial Services
> World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011
> Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
> competitive markets in financial services for all.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
> --
>
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Consumers for Fair Financial Services
> World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011
> Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
> competitive markets in financial services for all.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Mar 10 23:20:21 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:20:21 +0800
Subject: [governance] Comments on draft submission to the CSTD Working Group
 on Improvements to the IGF
Message-ID: <1299817221.12623.260.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

Here is a summary of the comments that have been made on our draft
statement at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/, and the suggested
changes I'll be making to the statement in response.  Due to the timing
of the deadline, I have no choice but to put the statement to a
consensus call later today, so if you have any other comments, please
make them immediately.

PARA 1: A grammatical change suggested by Norbert; no issue with this.

PARA 2: McTim suggests we get more specific about the IGF's lack of
progress in fulfilling paras 72(b) and 72(c) of the Tunis Agenda
(facilitating discourse and interfacing).  I suggest the simplest way to
do this is just by adding "We give some recommendations on how the IGF
could do this in sections 2 and 5 below."

PARA 4: Norbert makes a similar remark about our observations on paras
72(e) and 72(g) (IG4D and recommendations).  Again, the best way to deal
with this is to forward-reference: "Our suggestions for how the IGF
might make better progress in these areas follow in sections 3 and 4
respectively."

PARA 11: McTim and Izumi said we are a bit too ambitious here.  McTim
took objection to suggesting that we "integrate the IGF's outcomes into
the programmes of other institutions".  So I propose we say "increase
the visibility of the IGF's outcomes within other institutions". Izumi
didn't want to suggest rapporteurs who would "act as a proactive conduit
for feedback from those institutions".  So I suggest "receive feedback
from those institutions" instead.

So, I will prepare an online poll to gauge consensus on the statement as
it stands with the above amendments.  If possible, please provide any
further comments (either here on the list or on the Web site) BEFORE I
post the poll, ie. within the next six hours or so.

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 for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/27e05f95/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Mar 10 23:44:10 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:44:10 +0800
Subject: [governance] Comments on draft submission to the CSTD Working
 Group on Improvements to the IGF
In-Reply-To: <1299817221.12623.260.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
References: <1299817221.12623.260.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
Message-ID: <1299818650.12623.270.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 12:20 +0800, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Here is a summary of the comments that have been made on our draft
> statement at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/, and the suggested
> changes I'll be making to the statement in response.

Oh, I forgot an important one.  An anonymous contributor had this to
say:
        
        While the UN should be a funding source and facilitator in
        aspects in which its neutrality is implicit in the nature of the
        functions offered, the MAG should be set up to be as independent
        as possible from the secretariat and the UN and it should be in
        majority control of deciding which UN folks are in the Nitin and
        Marcus roles and WHEN and where IGF takes place, etc. Any
        “special advisers” to the secretariat should be appointed by the
        MAG, not selected by the secretariat.

I for one agree with this, although it's stronger language than we used
before.  Does anyone object to it?  If not, I'll just add this to cover
these points (the first part is verbatim from the comment above):

        While the UN should be a funding source and facilitator in
        aspects in which its neutrality is implicit in the nature of the
        functions offered, the MAG should be set up to be as independent
        as possible from the secretariat and the UN.
        
        As a multi-stakeholder body, important organisational decisions
        for the IGF should by default be the responsibility of the MAG
        rather than the Secretariat - this should include the
        responsibility to approve UN appointees to the Secretariat, the
        appointment of any “special advisers”, and (in consultation with
        the host country) the dates of IGF meetings.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/cc9286a0/attachment.bin>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar 10 23:46:40 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:16:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] Comments on draft submission to the CSTD Working
 Group on Improvements to the IGF
In-Reply-To: <1299817221.12623.260.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
References: <1299817221.12623.260.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
Message-ID: <4D79A930.2060304@itforchange.net>

pl give at least 24 hours to comment. not possible to comment in 6 
hours. parminder

On Friday 11 March 2011 09:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Here is a summary of the comments that have been made on our draft
> statement at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/, and the suggested
> changes I'll be making to the statement in response.  Due to the timing
> of the deadline, I have no choice but to put the statement to a
> consensus call later today, so if you have any other comments, please
> make them immediately.
>
> PARA 1: A grammatical change suggested by Norbert; no issue with this.
>
> PARA 2: McTim suggests we get more specific about the IGF's lack of
> progress in fulfilling paras 72(b) and 72(c) of the Tunis Agenda
> (facilitating discourse and interfacing).  I suggest the simplest way to
> do this is just by adding "We give some recommendations on how the IGF
> could do this in sections 2 and 5 below."
>
> PARA 4: Norbert makes a similar remark about our observations on paras
> 72(e) and 72(g) (IG4D and recommendations).  Again, the best way to deal
> with this is to forward-reference: "Our suggestions for how the IGF
> might make better progress in these areas follow in sections 3 and 4
> respectively."
>
> PARA 11: McTim and Izumi said we are a bit too ambitious here.  McTim
> took objection to suggesting that we "integrate the IGF's outcomes into
> the programmes of other institutions".  So I propose we say "increase
> the visibility of the IGF's outcomes within other institutions". Izumi
> didn't want to suggest rapporteurs who would "act as a proactive conduit
> for feedback from those institutions".  So I suggest "receive feedback
> from those institutions" instead.
>
> So, I will prepare an online poll to gauge consensus on the statement as
> it stands with the above amendments.  If possible, please provide any
> further comments (either here on the list or on the Web site) BEFORE I
> post the poll, ie. within the next six hours or so.
>
> Thanks!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/06f65f3a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 11 01:43:17 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:43:17 +0800
Subject: [governance] Comments on draft submission to the CSTD Working
 Group on Improvements to the IGF
In-Reply-To: <4D79A930.2060304@itforchange.net>
References: <1299817221.12623.260.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
	 <4D79A930.2060304@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1299825797.12623.274.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 10:16 +0530, parminder wrote:
> pl give at least 24 hours to comment. not possible to comment in 6
> hours. parminder

But because some people only check their email at work, I don't feel
good about holding a poll only over a weekend.  So I'll open the
consensus call poll sooner, but hold it open for more than the requisite
48 hours, and submit the statement (if approved) late on Monday.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/74ac4a3a/attachment.bin>

From shailam at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 11 02:45:53 2011
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

 Hi 
By now some of you must have heard of the 8.9 earth quake in Japan. Do we have 
any of our members out there ?
Our prayers to them and their families!!
shaila

 Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 








________________________________
From: "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" 
<wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
To: Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org>; 
"Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" 
<Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 11:13:02 PM
Subject: Re: [IRP] Ten punchy principles


Congratulation, looks very well done.
 Will be back after more careful analysis with more in depth comments.

Wolfgang Benedek
Von:  Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org>
Datum:  Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:49:58 +0100
An:  "Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" 
<Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Betreff:  [IRP] Ten punchy principles

Dear IRP,

Following on from Lisa's earlier email,  I'm pleased to send out the draft ten 
Punchy Principles for the Internet that have been worked  on by a small working 
group of people from the IRP. The working group was originally formulated at the 
2010 Vilnius IGF and includes Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin (Global Partners, 
UK), Brett Solomon and  Jochai Ben-Avie (Access, Australia/USA), Henrik Almström 
(APC,  Sweden/South Africa), Karmen Turk (Lawyer, Estonia), Shaila Mistry (Jayco 
MMI Consulting, USA) and  Carlos Affonso de Souza (FGV, Brazil). 


The aim is for a version of these principles to be launched together  with the 
online consultation  platform for the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for 
the Internet. They therefore accord with the current version  of the Charter. 
Their purpose is two-fold. Firstly, to help mobilize, shape and  inform the 
community debate on the Charter (Carlos has made it clear how  their 10 
Brazilian  principles proved very valuable for the Brazilian Civil Framework for  
the Internet). Secondly, many people have said that they need a punchier  
advocacy tool which can be used, in  conjunction with the longer Charter, as a 
framework for policy  assessment and campaigning. Note: they are NOT designed to 
be used as a  legal document.

Clearly people will have  very different views on these (as we have found in the 
smaller group)  but I think they are a good starting point for a discussion. We 
have  done some consultation in our own (Access) community on this draft, and 
there was  some very good feedback which we are happy to share.

As I  understand it, the draft punchy principles are now open for discussion 
here, so  that Lisa and the crew can take the final draft forward and put them 
on  the site along with the Charter. Draft principles below.

Brett

 
------ 


DRAFT PRINCIPLES 


Universality 
All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights, which must 
respected,protected and fulfilled in the online environment
 
Accessibility
Everyone has an equal right to access and use a secure and open Internet.
 
Neutrality 
Everyone must have uniform access to the Internet’s content, free from 
prioritization, discrimination, censorship, filtering or traffic control. 

 
Rights
The Internet is a space for the promotion, protection and fulfillment of human 
rights. Everyone has the duty to respect the rights of all others in the online 
environment.
             
Expression
Everyone has the right to hold and express opinions, and to seek, receive, and 
impart information on the Internet without arbitrary interference or 
surveillance.Everyone has the right to communicate anonymously online. 

 
Life, liberty and security
The rights to life, liberty, and security must be respected, protected and 
fulfilled online. These rights must not be infringed upon, or used to infringe 
other rights, in the online environment. 

 
Privacy 
Everyone has the right to privacy online free from surveillance, including the 
right to control how their personal data is collected, used, disclosed, retained 
and disposed.
 
Diversity
Cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet must be promoted, and 
technical and policy innovation should be encouraged to facilitate diversity of 
expression.
 
Standards and regulation
The Internet’s architecture shall be based on open standards that facilitate 
interoperability and inclusion of all for all.
 
Governance 
Rights must form the legal and normative foundations upon which the Internet 
operates and is governed. This shall happen in a transparent and multilateral 
manner, based on principles of openness, inclusive participation and 
accountability as prescribed by law.


-- 
Brett Solomon
Access
www.accessnow.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110310/c7571363/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 11 03:28:25 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:58:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] Comments on draft submission to the CSTD Working
 Group on Improvements to the IGF
In-Reply-To: <1299817221.12623.260.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
References: <1299817221.12623.260.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
Message-ID: <4D79DD29.7020707@itforchange.net>



On Friday 11 March 2011 09:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Here is a summary of the comments that have been made on our draft
> statement at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/, and the suggested
> changes I'll be making to the statement in response.  Due to the timing
> of the deadline, I have no choice but to put the statement to a
> consensus call later today, so if you have any other comments, please
> make them immediately.
>
> PARA 1: A grammatical change suggested by Norbert; no issue with this.
>
> PARA 2: McTim suggests we get more specific about the IGF's lack of
> progress in fulfilling paras 72(b) and 72(c) of the Tunis Agenda
> (facilitating discourse and interfacing).  I suggest the simplest way to
> do this is just by adding "We give some recommendations on how the IGF
> could do this in sections 2 and 5 below."
>
> PARA 4: Norbert makes a similar remark about our observations on paras
> 72(e) and 72(g) (IG4D and recommendations).  Again, the best way to deal
> with this is to forward-reference: "Our suggestions for how the IGF
> might make better progress in these areas follow in sections 3 and 4
> respectively."
>
> PARA 11: McTim and Izumi said we are a bit too ambitious here.  McTim
> took objection to suggesting that we "integrate the IGF's outcomes into
> the programmes of other institutions".  So I propose we say "increase
> the visibility of the IGF's outcomes within other institutions".
If integrating into programmes of other institutions' is going too far, 
'increasing the visiblity of the outcomes within other organizations' is 
too weak, and something, imho, not with much real meaning. We are 
looking for clear suggestions of IGF improvements here - about things 
that can be done and need to be done- and this 'increasing the 
visibility' formulation really doesnt suggest anything to me. I propose 
something in between these two formulations.

'IgF outcomes should be appropriately connected to the processes of 
other IG institutions'


> Izumi
> didn't want to suggest rapporteurs who would "act as a proactive conduit
> for feedback from those institutions".  So I suggest "receive feedback
> from those institutions" instead.
>
> So, I will prepare an online poll to gauge consensus on the statement as
> it stands with the above amendments.  If possible, please provide any
> further comments (either here on the list or on the Web site) BEFORE I
> post the poll, ie. within the next six hours or so.
>
> Thanks!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/3b3e547d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 11 04:54:52 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:54:52 +1300
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik965ZB2r50RsbkKENn7F6-qiH4QuuV2=YW-m+k@mail.gmail.com>

Izumi,

I hope you are well and that your family is safe. I have family in Meguro
and Okinawa and am trying to get in touch with them as well. Here in Fiji we
are on "tsunami" alert and it is predicted that a tsunami could hit Fiji in
about 6 hours time.

Warm Regards and Prayers,

Sala

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:45 PM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:

>   Hi
> By now some of you must have heard of the 8.9 earth quake in Japan. Do we
> have any of our members out there ?
> Our prayers to them and their families!!
> shaila
>
> *Life is too short ....challenge the rules***
> *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly***
> *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ***
>
>  *
>
> *
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" <
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
> *To:* Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org>; "
> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <
> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> *Sent:* Thu, March 10, 2011 11:13:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [IRP] Ten punchy principles
>
> Congratulation, looks very well done.
>  Will be back after more careful analysis with more in depth comments.
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
> Von: Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org>
> Datum: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:49:58 +0100
> An: "Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <
> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> Betreff: [IRP] Ten punchy principles
>
> Dear IRP,
>
> Following on from Lisa's earlier email, I'm pleased to send out the draft
> ten Punchy Principles for the Internet that have been worked on by a small
> working group of people from the IRP. The working group was originally
> formulated at the 2010 Vilnius IGF and includes Lisa Horner and Dixie
> Hawtin (Global Partners, UK), Brett Solomon and Jochai Ben-Avie (Access,
> Australia/USA), Henrik Almström (APC, Sweden/South Africa), Karmen Turk
> (Lawyer, Estonia), Shaila Mistry (Jayco MMI Consulting, USA) and Carlos
> Affonso de Souza (FGV, Brazil).
>
> The aim is for a version of these principles to be launched together with
> the online consultation platform for the Charter of Human Rights and
> Principles for the Internet. They therefore accord with the current version
> of the Charter. Their purpose is two-fold. Firstly, to help mobilize, shape
> and inform the community debate on the Charter (Carlos has made it clear how
> their 10 Brazilian principles
> <http://www.cgi.br/english/regulations/resolution2009-003.htm>proved very
> valuable for the Brazilian Civil Framework for the Internet). Secondly, many
> people have said that they need a punchier advocacy tool which can be used,
> in conjunction with the longer Charter, as a framework for policy assessment
> and campaigning. Note: they are NOT designed to be used as a legal document.
>
> Clearly people will have very different views on these (as we have found in
> the smaller group) but I think they are a good starting point for a
> discussion. We have done some consultation in our own (Access) community on
> this draft, and there was some very good feedback which we are happy to
> share.
>
> As I understand it, the draft punchy principles are now open for discussion
> here, so that Lisa and the crew can take the final draft forward and put
> them on the site along with the Charter. Draft principles below.
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> *------
> *
>
>
> **
>
> *DRAFT PRINCIPLES
> *
>
>
> *Universality *
>
> *All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights, which must
> respected,protected and fulfilled in the online environment*
>
>
>
> *Accessibility*
>
> *Everyone has an equal right to access and use a secure and open Internet.
> *
>
> * *
>
> *Neutrality *
>
> *Everyone must have uniform access to the Internet’s content, free from
> prioritization, discrimination, censorship, filtering or traffic control.
> *
>
> * *
>
> *Rights*
>
> *The Internet is a space for the promotion, protection and fulfillment of
> human rights. **Everyone has the duty to respect the rights of all others
> in the online environment.*
>
>
>
> *Expression*
>
> *Everyone has the right to hold and express opinions, and to seek,
> receive, and impart information on the Internet without arbitrary
> interference or surveillance.Everyone has the right to communicate
> anonymously online. *
>
>
>
> *Life, liberty and security*
>
> *The rights to life, liberty, and security must be respected, protected
> and fulfilled online. These rights must not be infringed upon, or used to
> infringe other rights, in the online environment. *
>
>
>
> *Privacy *
>
> *Everyone has the right to privacy online free from surveillance,
> including the right to control how their personal data is collected, used,
> disclosed, retained and disposed.*
>
> * *
>
> *Diversity*
>
> *Cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet must be promoted, and
> technical and policy innovation should be encouraged to facilitate diversity
> of expression.*
>
>
>
> *Standards and regulation*
>
> *The Internet’s architecture shall be based on open standards that
> facilitate interoperability and inclusion of all for all.*
>
>
>
> *Governance *
>
> *Rights must form the legal and normative foundations upon which the
> Internet operates and is governed. This shall happen in a transparent and
> multilateral manner, based on principles of openness, inclusive
> participation and accountability as prescribed by law.*
>
>
>
> --
> Brett Solomon
> Access
> www.accessnow.org
>
>
> <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?language=en&id=42>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/5cf67522/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 11 05:28:07 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:28:07 +0800
Subject: [governance] Consensus call in progress on CSTD submission
Message-ID: <1299839287.29475.587.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

I have just sent invitations to participate in a poll, the purpose of
which is to assist the coordinators in determining whether there is a
rough consensus to issue our submission to the CSTD's Working Group on
Improvements to the IGF.  The text (including Parminder's latest
suggested amendment) is below.

The poll will be held open until 6pm GMT on Monday.  Sorry again for the
short deadline, and for the limited time that was available for
discussion, both of which were out of my control.

If you didn't receive an invitation to vote in the poll, you have two
choices:

(a) you can register at http://www.igcaucus.org (you'll get your poll
invitation within a few hours); or
(b) you can reply on the list instead.

Thanks.

________________________________________________________________________


1. Review of IGF vis-à-vis Tunis Agenda – paragraphs 72 to 80

In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its
way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on
Internet governance. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep
up the on-going process of evolutionary innovation evident at each
successive IGF meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of
stakeholders it is important that the IGF take up the most pressing
global Internet governance issues and seek a policy dialogue on them,
with the objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real
policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF’s success will be judged by
how much it manages to influence these real policy-making processes. If
this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF
is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, but not quite yet there. It
needs to continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enable
“effective and purposeful policy dialogue” on “issues that require most
urgent resolution” and (2) strengthen links with institutions and
processes of real policy making.

In this connection, the IGF must extend its effort to “facilitate
discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting
international public policies regarding the Internet” (paragraph 72(b))
and “interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and
other institutions on matters under their purview” (72(c)). We give some
recommendations on how the IGF could do this in sections 2 and 5 below.

The IGF has also not been able to make any significant progress towards
fulfilling its mandate under section 72(e) of “advising all stakeholders
in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and
affordability of the Internet in the developing world,” and section
72(g) of “identifying emerging issues, … and, where appropriate, making
recommendations.” Our suggestions for how the IGF might make better
progress in these areas follow in sections 3 and 4 respectively.

The IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas:


     1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin
        talking with each other, and at least start to see the other’s
        point of view, if not accept it. This is a very important
        initial step because it is widely recognised that Internet
        governance requires new and different governance and policy
        models beyond exclusively statist ones.
     2. Building capacity on a range of Internet governance issues among
        many newer participants, especially from developing countries
        with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in
        Internet governance arena.
     3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for
        multi-stakeholder dialogue on Internet governance, and forming
        loops of possible interactivity between the global IGF and these
        national and regional initiatives.


Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to “Discuss public
policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to
foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and
development of the Internet.” There can be no doubt that this discussion
is beginning to take place. The participation, the increasing quantity
and quality of workshops, even the controversies that arise, are proof
that this discussion is taking place. The continued interest in
workshops is an indication that this process is still dynamically
growing and needs to continue so that discussions may cover all aspects
of the debate and include all actors, particularly in areas such as
rights, inclusion and others, which have not been adequately addressed.

The Tunis agenda also calls for “development of multi-stakeholder
processes at the national, regional level” similar to the IGF. As
already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking
shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish
formal relationships with these initiatives, including through IGF
Remote Hubs.



2. Improving the IGF with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue
on global Internet governance as directed by the UN General Assembly
Resolution on “Information and communications technologies for
development” (adopted on 24 November 2010)

A side-effect of the IGF’s reluctance to develop output documents, and
to evolve processes suited to developing these, has been its relative
insularity in the Internet governance regime. Other institutions of
Internet governance are unable to consider any concise outcomes of the
IGF discussions as inputs into their own deliberations. As such, the
IGF, whilst not irrelevant to those who participate in it, has proved
less relevant and significant to outsiders than it deserves.

This points to the need to create mechanisms so that IGF outcomes are
appropriately connected to the processes of other IG institutions. For
example, just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to
bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be
rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at
the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to receive
feedback from those institutions.

Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops,
since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the
latter. Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions
provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops
back into main sessions is realised (this is explored in section 8
below).

A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also
be explored) is found in the “messages” or “recommendations” produced by
national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the
East African IGF and EURODIG. Ideally this would become a two-way
process in which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF
with issues they wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder
dialogue.

More detail of possible mechanisms for recording outcomes from the IGF
process are considered in section 4 below, and more specific means of
linking with other organisations dealing with Internet governance are
considered in section 5 below.



3. How to enhance the contribution of IGF to socio-economic development
and towards IADGs including enhancing participation of developing
countries

To enhance the contribution of the IGF to socio-economic development and
towards the IADGs, the IGF should identify the linkages between Internet
governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for
mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and
Internet governance processes, as appropriate.

To enhance the participation of developing countries, it will be
necessary to establish a special funding mechanism by to help actors
from developing countries to continuously engage in the IGF and related
organisations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
DiploFoundation, DotAsia Organisation, the Internet Society and other
institutions offer a good reference for this, but they should be
expanded to a larger scale. Targeting youth groups or the younger
generation of professionals will have, in the long run, an effective
impact.

Funding mechanisms for developing country participants must take into
account clear criteria (for instance, age, gender and whether a
particular group works with the marginalised people we want to bring to
the IGF process). There should be an open opportunity to apply for
funding, and opportunities should be published and disseminated widely.
Transparency and timely decisions on funding decisions are also
important.

Another way to enhance participation is by providing technical training
to policy makers and policy training to engineers to help close the gaps
between and within the under-represented and also even the
well-represented. To differentiate between this capacity building role
of the IGF and its policy discussion role, they should be clearly
differentiated at IGF meetings, and perhaps the capacity building
workshops held on a day before the main sessions and the more
policy-oriented workshops begin.



4. Shaping the outcome of IGF meetings

The IGF should consider how to improve its orientation towards the
development of tangible outputs. These may amount to “messages” rather
than to recommendations, declarations or statements. The difference is
that messages would take into account diverging opinions, and capture
the range of policy options — however this should not preclude the IGF
from developing processes that are better at facilitating a convergence
of opinion through reasoned deliberation. Whilst consensus will not be
achievable in every area, an important objective for a policy forum such
as the IGF is to produce a high-quality reasoned consensus on policy
issues where possible.

A first step towards the production of such messages or recommendations
from the IGF is to create the necessary structures and processes for
improved reporting from the IGF. This could include the use of a
reporting template by workshops and main sessions.

Messages or recommendations could be based on:


      * An overall chairman’s report (though this alone may not be a
        sufficiently inclusive process).
      * Discussions in each session, compiled at the end of the IGF
        (though experience has shown that some session organisers can be
        lax in preparing such summaries).
      * A repository of best practices discussed at the IGF (though in
        emerging policy areas, best practices may not exist yet, so the
        IGF’s outputs should not be limited to recording these).
      * Discussions of thematic working groups (which would need to be
        created), to continue following the annual IGF meeting and be
        largely conducted online through open and inclusive processes.


Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that
they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through
appropriate mechanisms. Processes for efficient distribution of outputs
to all relevant bodies and missions must be established. One method for
such distribution would be the establishment of a rapporteur role such
as that discussed in section 2 above, perhaps under the auspices of the
MAG.

Finally, to ensure the effectiveness of the evolving mechanisms used for
developing and disseminating outputs, the IGF should define ways to
better capture the impact of the IGF, such as through an annual report.



5. Outreach to and cooperation with other organisations and fora dealing
with IG issues

As already noted in section 2 above, the IGF lacks a strong cooperative
relationship with other Internet governance institutions. They do not
yet recognise the value of the IGF’s contribution, in bringing
multi-stakeholder deliberation to bear on pressing Internet governance
questions. In particular, it is necessary to increase the influence of
the IGF over decision-making bodies.

One concrete strategy to this end that could be immediately implemented
could be to strengthen the link between the IGF and the CSTD, being the
body with main responsibility for WSIS follow-up. Specifically, the CSTD
should take into account inputs from the IGF when drafting its annual
resolution. The IGF should then concentrate on developing similar links
with other global decision-making bodies both public and private.

The IGF also has a watchdog role to play, pursuant to its mandate in
paragraph 72(i) of the Tunis Agenda, wherein it can review and ensure
the accountability of all fora involved in Internet governance. This
could also be the specific responsibility of a new multi-stakeholder
working group within the IGF, reporting to the MAG.



6. Inclusiveness of the IGF process and of participation at the IGF
meetings (in particular with regard to stakeholders from developing
countries)

Improving the inclusiveness of the IGF requires three main strategies to
be addressed:


      * Capacity building.
      * Outreach.
      * Remote participation.


Capacity building should focus on institutional capacity (eg.
governments, civil society organizations), rather than on individual
capacity. Some suggestions in this regard have been given above in
section 3 above.

The IGF should develop an outreach strategy to include in the IGF
processes groups that have not yet been included, from civil society,
small and medium sized companies, decision-makers, parliamentarians and
youth. This should involve the production of a roadmap to identify
key-players in each region that need to be included. Such an exercise
could also assist the IGF to understand the real barriers for
participation.

Integral to this is the issue of funding for developing country
participants (especially to developing country policy makers), which has
also been addressed already in section 3 above.

Remote participation is a vital feature of an inclusive IGF, and should
be formally recognised as an integral part of the IGF. Basic features to
be supported are that all IGF meetings, MAG meetings and open
consultations should be webcast, recorded and captioned, and options for
remote participation put in place. This must include not only
participation that is simultaneous with the annual meeting itself, but
also asynchronous participation that is not dependent on the timezone of
the participant.

The tools and techniques used to enhance remote participation should
give participants the opportunity to effectively influence
agenda-setting and IGF debates. Too often, the undue emphasis on
real-time discussion at the IGF means that remote participation comes
too late to be relevant to the IGF’s proceedings. This can be avoided by
re-conceptualising the IGF as an ongoing global process that takes full
advantage of online networking. By the same token, the participation of
remote speakers should also be encouraged.

To achieve the necessary level of remote participation, resources must
be provided. To date, the resources that have been poured into the
annual meeting have been disproportionate compared to those devoted to
remote participation – which has a much greater inclusive potential.
There has been an over-reliance placed on volunteer effort, which the
IGF has been very fortunate to receive. Neither has there been any
effective outreach or support to the administrators of other Web sites
and popular online fora that comment on IGF or broader Internet
governance issues, and could supplement the IGF’s own efforts to include
the community in its work.



7. Working methods of the IGF, in particular improving the preparation
process modalities

Much has been said about the need for the IGF to interface in a useful
way with external policy makers, but the IGF’s working methods were not
originally developed in a way that readily advances this aim. Focussed
reform to the IGF’s institutional machinery will be required to improve
its capacity to contribute to Internet governance policy making
processes.



7.1 Current modalities: open consultation and MAG

The open consultation meetings could be improved by:


      * Seeking the inputs of national and regional IGFs regarding the
        issues to be discussed in open consultations, especially the
        agenda. The MAG could take responsibility for this.
      * Organisations that are part of the Internet governance ecosystem
        could be invited to share a one-page document regarding their
        suggestions on specific thematic issues. This will improve the
        inputs that go into the IGF and this is important if the IGF is
        expected to serve as a clearinghouse.
      * At least one of the open consultations should take place as an
        online meeting.


The MAG also requires reform, both in its composition and its working
methods. On the former count, the MAG needs to become become more
accountable to its constituents. This may involve moving on from the
existing “black box” approach whereby the United Nations Secretary
General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by
various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published.

An alternative approach is the selection of MAG representatives through
a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups, subject to
appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a
diversity of viewpoints.

In particular, civil society has been under represented in the MAG to
date. This anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation and a
fair balance of members among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil
society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new
experiment in global governance. We agree that the organisations having
an important role in Internet administration and the development of
Internet-related technical standards should continue to be represented
in the MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense
of civil society participation.

Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special
privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and
special advisors to the chair, currently possess. If the MAG’s processes
are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special
privileges would soon become redundant.

It is also very important that the established process by which
one-third of the MAG members are rotated each year is executed
methodically, so that the composition of the MAG is completely refreshed
every three years. Without this, it is too easy for the MAG to be
captured by particular interest groups and for under-performing members
to hold the MAG back.

As to the working methods of the MAG, more significant reform of should
be considered to assist the IGF to fulfil its mandates in “interfacing,”
“advising,” “identifying issues,” “giving recommendations” etc.
Specifically, the MAG could be more effective if it worked through
thematic and functional working groups (some of which have already been
identified above). These working groups should prepare for each main
session and the set of workshops connected to this main session. Working
groups can also be used for managing internal tasks of the MAG more
effectively. It could thus be strengthened and enabled to take on a more
effective role in reporting, and in facilitating substantial discussions
throughout the year.



7.2 IGF Secretariat

The autonomy of the Secretariat should be a paramount consideration. It
should remain convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent
budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). This provides it
with a formal link to the UN system, which is important to ensure the
continued participation of governments in the IGF.

The Secretariat should not be subsumed into any other functional UN
organisation or process, because this could jeopardise its perceived
independence, and could introduce new impediments to the continuation
and development of the informal and open processes that the IGF has
innovated.

While the UN should be a funding source and facilitator in aspects in
which its neutrality is implicit in the nature of the functions offered,
the MAG should be set up to be as independent as possible from the
secretariat and the UN.

As a multi-stakeholder body, important organisational decisions for the
IGF should by default be the responsibility of the MAG rather than the
Secretariat - this should include the responsibility to approve UN
appointees to the Secretariat, the appointment of any “special
advisers”, and (in consultation with the host country) the dates of IGF
meetings.

The Secretariat should also strive to improve its transparency and its
responsiveness to stakeholders. Very often emails to the Secretariat are
not returned, and suggestions made by stakeholders are not specifically
responded to. Whilst maintaining its strict neutrality, the Secretariat
should also be proactive in facilitating the IGF’s evolution and should
make statements that detract from the breadth of the IGF’s mandate in
the Tunis Agenda.



8. Format of the IGF meetings

The IGF’s main sessions should be focused on specific issues concerning
the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather than on more broadly
framed issues pertaining to the Internet environment generally.

This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and
processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF‚s
inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current
practices, technology support opportunities, changed international
financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be
appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a
single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other
Internet governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct
their work and engagement between meetings in online and regional fora,
and for which global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work
done elsewhere rather than the single element in the process.

Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF’s
intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open
consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely
connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be
a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings
to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the
IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings,
including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps
multi-stakeholder composition.

Concretely, main sessions could be improved by means such as the
following:


      * Focusing on public policy issues and controversial issues,
        rather than technical details and innovations.
      * Fostering periodical meetings with the participation of the
        organisers of national and regional IGFs.
      * Setting aside a budget for inviting speakers to main sessions.
        Invitations to speak should be based on expertise, not on who is
        already attending the IGF.
      * Identifying key global policy areas that require attention early
        in the year, creating working groups around these areas and
        sharing background material to be discussed in sessions
        throughout the year (at thematic meetings and/or online). They
        can then be discussed in a more in-depth way at the IGF.
      * Following up from main sessions online, with the help of
        dedicated working groups for each issue area, who can help in
        the development of a community-driven conclusion document
        (recording consensus or otherwise) as a concrete output from the
        session.


Workshops could be improved by considering the following suggestions:


      * Creating a mechanism for improved, stronger links between the
        workshops and the main sessions.
      * Scheduling the two first days of the IGF for workshops and the
        two last days dedicated to main sessions, best practices fora
        and roundtables.
      * Giving stricter obligations to the workshop organisers, in line
        with the idea of the feed to the main session, to provide
        summaries of the workshops directly to the main sessions and
        also to the whole outcome of the IGF.
      * Developing a template for the proposal of workshops. It would
        make evaluation of the proposals easier and would allow limiting
        by default the number of speakers.
      * Stricter evaluation of the workshop proposals, including a
        reduction of the number of panellists.
      * Participants should be able to give feedback and evaluate the
        workshops they attended online.
      * Conducting wrap-up workshops that would summarise discussions
        carried out in several workshops and forward an input to the
        main session.

9. Financing the Forum (exploring further options for financing)

9.1 Review of the current situation

We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last
few years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions
where different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very
different orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the
IGF secretariat’s work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system.

However, it is very evident that the secretariat needs much better
resource support that they have at present, if we are to fulfil all our
expectations from this unique global institution. The Secretariat should
be provided with resources needed to perform its role effectively.

Further, as noted in section 6 above, perhaps with the exception of
webcasting, remote participation mechanisms have not been well resourced
to date. This has limited the ability of the IGF to reach out to
affected online communities around the world.



9.2 Options for ensuring predictability, transparency and accountability
in financing IGF

As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to
have stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any
possibility of special interests influencing its working through control
over funding. Such funding should not only enable appropriate and
streamlined functioning of the IGF secretariat, the annual event and
other proposed and inter-sessional activities, it should also be used to
ensure equity in participation in the IGF across geographies and social
groups. 

The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a
UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to
fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. A
significant source of funding should be public funding through the UN.
Donations from other donors from any stakeholder group should also be
facilitated, but a public register of such donations should be
maintained so that the IGF’s neutrality is not questioned.

In addition, as noted in section 3 above, a fund should be established
to support the participation of people from developing and least
developed countries in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory
consultations.


-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/01078b55/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/01078b55/attachment.bin>

From rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp  Fri Mar 11 07:30:50 2011
From: rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp (Rajendra Poudel)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:30:50 +0900
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Right now I am here in Tokyo. At 2.46 I was in one NewITventure Data center
and monitoring IPTV system. I was alone in side the data center and running
from there is almost impossible. Because the rack of the server were moving
in such way that I do not know how to run. After 5 minutes situation came to
normal. I check all the connection but working well. Thanks good and thanks
to the infrastructure providers.  Still we are feeling small hits (up to
4.0). Internet, gas, electricity, water and telephone is normal in most part
of Japan. But it is sad that Japan's eastern coast was badly damaged. We are
prying for the people their families living there.

with best regards
Rajendra

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:45 PM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  Hi
> By now some of you must have heard of the 8.9 earth quake in Japan. Do we
> have any of our members out there ?
> Our prayers to them and their families!!
> shaila
>
> *Life is too short ....challenge the rules***
> *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly***
> *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ***
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" <
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
> *To:* Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org>; "
> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <
> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> *Sent:* Thu, March 10, 2011 11:13:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [IRP] Ten punchy principles
>
> Congratulation, looks very well done.
>  Will be back after more careful analysis with more in depth comments.
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
> Von: Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org>
> Datum: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:49:58 +0100
> An: "Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <
> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> Betreff: [IRP] Ten punchy principles
>
> Dear IRP,
>
> Following on from Lisa's earlier email, I'm pleased to send out the draft
> ten Punchy Principles for the Internet that have been worked on by a small
> working group of people from the IRP. The working group was originally
> formulated at the 2010 Vilnius IGF and includes Lisa Horner and Dixie
> Hawtin (Global Partners, UK), Brett Solomon and Jochai Ben-Avie (Access,
> Australia/USA), Henrik Almström (APC, Sweden/South Africa), Karmen Turk
> (Lawyer, Estonia), Shaila Mistry (Jayco MMI Consulting, USA) and Carlos
> Affonso de Souza (FGV, Brazil).
>
> The aim is for a version of these principles to be launched together with
> the online consultation platform for the Charter of Human Rights and
> Principles for the Internet. They therefore accord with the current version
> of the Charter. Their purpose is two-fold. Firstly, to help mobilize, shape
> and inform the community debate on the Charter (Carlos has made it clear how
> their 10 Brazilian principles
> <http://www.cgi.br/english/regulations/resolution2009-003.htm>proved very
> valuable for the Brazilian Civil Framework for the Internet). Secondly, many
> people have said that they need a punchier advocacy tool which can be used,
> in conjunction with the longer Charter, as a framework for policy assessment
> and campaigning. Note: they are NOT designed to be used as a legal document.
>
> Clearly people will have very different views on these (as we have found in
> the smaller group) but I think they are a good starting point for a
> discussion. We have done some consultation in our own (Access) community on
> this draft, and there was some very good feedback which we are happy to
> share.
>
> As I understand it, the draft punchy principles are now open for discussion
> here, so that Lisa and the crew can take the final draft forward and put
> them on the site along with the Charter. Draft principles below.
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> *------
> *
>
>
> **
>
> *DRAFT PRINCIPLES
> *
>
>
> *Universality *
>
> *All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights, which must
> respected,protected and fulfilled in the online environment*
>
>
>
> *Accessibility*
>
> *Everyone has an equal right to access and use a secure and open Internet.
> *
>
> * *
>
> *Neutrality *
>
> *Everyone must have uniform access to the Internet’s content, free from
> prioritization, discrimination, censorship, filtering or traffic control.
> *
>
> * *
>
> *Rights*
>
> *The Internet is a space for the promotion, protection and fulfillment of
> human rights. **Everyone has the duty to respect the rights of all others
> in the online environment.*
>
>
>
> *Expression*
>
> *Everyone has the right to hold and express opinions, and to seek,
> receive, and impart information on the Internet without arbitrary
> interference or surveillance.Everyone has the right to communicate
> anonymously online. *
>
>
>
> *Life, liberty and security*
>
> *The rights to life, liberty, and security must be respected, protected
> and fulfilled online. These rights must not be infringed upon, or used to
> infringe other rights, in the online environment. *
>
>
>
> *Privacy *
>
> *Everyone has the right to privacy online free from surveillance,
> including the right to control how their personal data is collected, used,
> disclosed, retained and disposed.*
>
> * *
>
> *Diversity*
>
> *Cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet must be promoted, and
> technical and policy innovation should be encouraged to facilitate diversity
> of expression.*
>
>
>
> *Standards and regulation*
>
> *The Internet’s architecture shall be based on open standards that
> facilitate interoperability and inclusion of all for all.*
>
>
>
> *Governance *
>
> *Rights must form the legal and normative foundations upon which the
> Internet operates and is governed. This shall happen in a transparent and
> multilateral manner, based on principles of openness, inclusive
> participation and accountability as prescribed by law.*
>
>
>
> --
> Brett Solomon
> Access
> www.accessnow.org
>
>
> <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?language=en&id=42>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
E-Networking Research and Development
Nepal Wireless Networking Project (NWP)
Shiva Bhakta Marga-304, Lazimpat
Kathmandu, Nepal
Po.Box: 12651
Ph: +977-1-4428090
E-mail: enrd at wlink.com.np
http://www.enrd.org
http://www.nepalwireless.net
http://www.himanchal.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/8fd0848a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Mar 11 07:43:54 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:13:54 -0430
Subject: [governance] National IGF Ghana livestream and Twitter
Message-ID: <4D7A190A.7090602@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/9e831296/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From pkisokau at gmail.com  Fri Mar 11 07:58:09 2011
From: pkisokau at gmail.com (Parkop Kisokau)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:58:09 +0800
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimJi5L--YPZPSEVQbOeucGdNS6ELv-iqHwSV0_E@mail.gmail.com>

My heart and prayer goes out to those living along the areas affected and
those that could be affected soon of the earth quakes in Japan, Taiwan,
Philippines, Indonesia, families back home in Papua New Guinea, Fiji,
Hawaii, and others.

I pray that the tsunami situation improves and everyone is safe during this
time.

Parkop
USTB - Beijing
China



On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Rajendra Poudel
<rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Right now I am here in Tokyo. At 2.46 I was in one NewITventure Data center
> and monitoring IPTV system. I was alone in side the data center and running
> from there is almost impossible. Because the rack of the server were moving
> in such way that I do not know how to run. After 5 minutes situation came to
> normal. I check all the connection but working well. Thanks good and thanks
> to the infrastructure providers.  Still we are feeling small hits (up to
> 4.0). Internet, gas, electricity, water and telephone is normal in most part
> of Japan. But it is sad that Japan's eastern coast was badly damaged. We
> are prying for the people their families living there.
>
> with best regards
> Rajendra
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:45 PM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hi
>> By now some of you must have heard of the 8.9 earth quake in Japan. Do we
>> have any of our members out there ?
>> Our prayers to them and their families!!
>> shaila
>>
>> *Life is too short ....challenge the rules***
>> *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly***
>> *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ***
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" <
>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
>> *To:* Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org>; "
>> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <
>> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>> *Sent:* Thu, March 10, 2011 11:13:02 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [IRP] Ten punchy principles
>>
>> Congratulation, looks very well done.
>>  Will be back after more careful analysis with more in depth comments.
>>
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>
>> Von: Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org>
>> Datum: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:49:58 +0100
>> An: "Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <
>> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>> Betreff: [IRP] Ten punchy principles
>>
>> Dear IRP,
>>
>> Following on from Lisa's earlier email, I'm pleased to send out the draft
>> ten Punchy Principles for the Internet that have been worked on by a small
>> working group of people from the IRP. The working group was originally
>> formulated at the 2010 Vilnius IGF and includes Lisa Horner and Dixie
>> Hawtin (Global Partners, UK), Brett Solomon and Jochai Ben-Avie (Access,
>> Australia/USA), Henrik Almström (APC, Sweden/South Africa), Karmen Turk
>> (Lawyer, Estonia), Shaila Mistry (Jayco MMI Consulting, USA) and Carlos
>> Affonso de Souza (FGV, Brazil).
>>
>> The aim is for a version of these principles to be launched together with
>> the online consultation platform for the Charter of Human Rights and
>> Principles for the Internet. They therefore accord with the current version
>> of the Charter. Their purpose is two-fold. Firstly, to help mobilize, shape
>> and inform the community debate on the Charter (Carlos has made it clear how
>> their 10 Brazilian principles
>> <http://www.cgi.br/english/regulations/resolution2009-003.htm>proved very
>> valuable for the Brazilian Civil Framework for the Internet). Secondly, many
>> people have said that they need a punchier advocacy tool which can be used,
>> in conjunction with the longer Charter, as a framework for policy assessment
>> and campaigning. Note: they are NOT designed to be used as a legal document.
>>
>> Clearly people will have very different views on these (as we have found
>> in the smaller group) but I think they are a good starting point for a
>> discussion. We have done some consultation in our own (Access) community on
>> this draft, and there was some very good feedback which we are happy to
>> share.
>>
>> As I understand it, the draft punchy principles are now open for
>> discussion here, so that Lisa and the crew can take the final draft forward
>> and put them on the site along with the Charter. Draft principles below.
>>
>> Brett
>>
>>
>>
>> *------
>> *
>>
>>
>> **
>>
>> *DRAFT PRINCIPLES
>> *
>>
>>
>> *Universality *
>>
>> *All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights, which must
>> respected,protected and fulfilled in the online environment*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Accessibility*
>>
>> *Everyone has an equal right to access and use a secure and open
>> Internet.*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *Neutrality *
>>
>> *Everyone must have uniform access to the Internet’s content, free from
>> prioritization, discrimination, censorship, filtering or traffic control.
>> *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *Rights*
>>
>> *The Internet is a space for the promotion, protection and fulfillment of
>> human rights. **Everyone has the duty to respect the rights of all others
>> in the online environment.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Expression*
>>
>> *Everyone has the right to hold and express opinions, and to seek,
>> receive, and impart information on the Internet without arbitrary
>> interference or surveillance.Everyone has the right to communicate
>> anonymously online. *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Life, liberty and security*
>>
>> *The rights to life, liberty, and security must be respected, protected
>> and fulfilled online. These rights must not be infringed upon, or used to
>> infringe other rights, in the online environment. *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Privacy *
>>
>> *Everyone has the right to privacy online free from surveillance,
>> including the right to control how their personal data is collected, used,
>> disclosed, retained and disposed.*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *Diversity*
>>
>> *Cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet must be promoted, and
>> technical and policy innovation should be encouraged to facilitate diversity
>> of expression.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Standards and regulation*
>>
>> *The Internet’s architecture shall be based on open standards that
>> facilitate interoperability and inclusion of all for all.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Governance *
>>
>> *Rights must form the legal and normative foundations upon which the
>> Internet operates and is governed. This shall happen in a transparent and
>> multilateral manner, based on principles of openness, inclusive
>> participation and accountability as prescribed by law.*
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brett Solomon
>> Access
>> www.accessnow.org
>>
>>
>> <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?language=en&id=42>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> E-Networking Research and Development
> Nepal Wireless Networking Project (NWP)
> Shiva Bhakta Marga-304, Lazimpat
> Kathmandu, Nepal
> Po.Box: 12651
> Ph: +977-1-4428090
> E-mail: enrd at wlink.com.np
> http://www.enrd.org
> http://www.nepalwireless.net
> http://www.himanchal.org/
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/d410b2ed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Mar 11 08:56:07 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:56:07 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

My best wishes go to all Japanese people, in particular to the people at Sendai and the Westcoast. I am sitting now in the 35th floor of a hotel in Honolulu where the first wave will arrive around 3.00 a.m. local time. The communication system here works okay, people are informed and are moved to the 5th floor of their buildings or higher. Beaches and streets are cleaned. Heliocopters ans ships are prepared for rescue measures. Want to go tomorrow to San Francisco for the ICANN meeting. No clue whether the airport will work.
 
Best wishes
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Rajendra Poudel
Gesendet: Fr 11.03.2011 13:30
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; shaila mistry
Cc: Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan


Dear all, 

Right now I am here in Tokyo. At 2.46 I was in one NewITventure Data center and monitoring IPTV system. I was alone in side the data center and running from there is almost impossible. Because the rack of the server were moving in such way that I do not know how to run. After 5 minutes situation came to normal. I check all the connection but working well. Thanks good and thanks to the infrastructure providers.  Still we are feeling small hits (up to 4.0). Internet, gas, electricity, water and telephone is normal in most part of Japan. But it is sad that Japan's eastern coast was badly damaged. We are prying for the people their families living there. 


with best regards
Rajendra


On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:45 PM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:


	 Hi 
	By now some of you must have heard of the 8.9 earth quake in Japan. Do we have any of our members out there ?
	Our prayers to them and their families!!
	shaila
	
	 
	
	Life is too short ....challenge the rules
	Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
	Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 

	

	

	





	
________________________________

	From: "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
	To: Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org>; "Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
	Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 11:13:02 PM
	Subject: Re: [IRP] Ten punchy principles
	
	
	Congratulation, looks very well done.
	 Will be back after more careful analysis with more in depth comments.

	Wolfgang Benedek

	
	Von: Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org>
	Datum: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:49:58 +0100
	An: "Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
	Betreff: [IRP] Ten punchy principles
	

	Dear IRP,
	
	Following on from Lisa's earlier email, I'm pleased to send out the draft ten Punchy Principles for the Internet that have been worked on by a small working group of people from the IRP. The working group was originally formulated at the 2010 Vilnius IGF and includes Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin (Global Partners, UK), Brett Solomon and Jochai Ben-Avie (Access, Australia/USA), Henrik Almström (APC, Sweden/South Africa), Karmen Turk (Lawyer, Estonia), Shaila Mistry (Jayco MMI Consulting, USA) and Carlos Affonso de Souza (FGV, Brazil). 
	
	The aim is for a version of these principles to be launched together with the online consultation platform for the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. They therefore accord with the current version of the Charter. Their purpose is two-fold. Firstly, to help mobilize, shape and inform the community debate on the Charter (Carlos has made it clear how their 10 Brazilian principles <http://www.cgi.br/english/regulations/resolution2009-003.htm> proved very valuable for the Brazilian Civil Framework for the Internet). Secondly, many people have said that they need a punchier advocacy tool which can be used, in conjunction with the longer Charter, as a framework for policy assessment and campaigning. Note: they are NOT designed to be used as a legal document.
	
	Clearly people will have very different views on these (as we have found in the smaller group) but I think they are a good starting point for a discussion. We have done some consultation in our own (Access) community on this draft, and there was some very good feedback which we are happy to share.
	
	As I understand it, the draft punchy principles are now open for discussion here, so that Lisa and the crew can take the final draft forward and put them on the site along with the Charter. Draft principles below.
	
	Brett
	

	 

	------ 
	

	
	

	DRAFT PRINCIPLES 
	

	
	

	Universality 

	All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights, which must respected,protected and fulfilled in the online environment

	 

	Accessibility

	Everyone has an equal right to access and use a secure and open Internet.

	 

	Neutrality 

	Everyone must have uniform access to the Internet's content, free from prioritization, discrimination, censorship, filtering or traffic control. 

	 

	Rights

	The Internet is a space for the promotion, protection and fulfillment of human rights. Everyone has the duty to respect the rights of all others in the online environment.

	             

	Expression

	Everyone has the right to hold and express opinions, and to seek, receive, and impart information on the Internet without arbitrary interference or surveillance.Everyone has the right to communicate anonymously online. 

	 

	Life, liberty and security

	The rights to life, liberty, and security must be respected, protected and fulfilled online. These rights must not be infringed upon, or used to infringe other rights, in the online environment. 

	 

	Privacy 

	Everyone has the right to privacy online free from surveillance, including the right to control how their personal data is collected, used, disclosed, retained and disposed.

	 

	Diversity

	Cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet must be promoted, and technical and policy innovation should be encouraged to facilitate diversity of expression.

	 

	Standards and regulation

	The Internet's architecture shall be based on open standards that facilitate interoperability and inclusion of all for all.

	 

	Governance 

	Rights must form the legal and normative foundations upon which the Internet operates and is governed. This shall happen in a transparent and multilateral manner, based on principles of openness, inclusive participation and accountability as prescribed by law.




	-- 
	Brett Solomon
	Access
	www.accessnow.org <http://www.accessnow.org/> 
	
	<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?language=en&id=42> 
	

	____________________________________________________________
	You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
	    governance at lists.cpsr.org
	To be removed from the list, visit:
	    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
	
	For all other list information and functions, see:
	    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
	To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
	    http://www.igcaucus.org/
	
	Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
	
	
	




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
E-Networking Research and Development
Nepal Wireless Networking Project (NWP)
Shiva Bhakta Marga-304, Lazimpat
Kathmandu, Nepal
Po.Box: 12651
Ph: +977-1-4428090
E-mail: enrd at wlink.com.np
http://www.enrd.org <http://www.enrd.org/> 
http://www.nepalwireless.net <http://www.nepalwireless.net/> 
http://www.himanchal.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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Mar 11 09:35:09 2011
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:35:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com>

Our hearts go out to all of you, in Japan and across the Pacific
Deirdre


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Mar 11 12:04:01 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:04:01 -0300
Subject: [governance] Comments on draft submission to the CSTD Working
 Group on Improvements to the IGF
In-Reply-To: <4D79DD29.7020707@itforchange.net>
References: <1299817221.12623.260.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
	<4D79DD29.7020707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=RjESkYw8D+-YkPgiXT7CAiKUU=h=PjDDVACYg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Sorry for not taking part on the recent discussion about our submission to
the new CSTD questionnaire. The discussion of specific questions for the
main sessions have taken much time from all those involved.

I would like to congratulate Jeremy for capturing so well the substance of
all our contributions so far. The text is comprehensive and clear.

Best,

Marília


On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 5:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
>
> On Friday 11 March 2011 09:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> Here is a summary of the comments that have been made on our draft
> statement at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/, and the suggested
> changes I'll be making to the statement in response.  Due to the timing
> of the deadline, I have no choice but to put the statement to a
> consensus call later today, so if you have any other comments, please
> make them immediately.
>
> PARA 1: A grammatical change suggested by Norbert; no issue with this.
>
> PARA 2: McTim suggests we get more specific about the IGF's lack of
> progress in fulfilling paras 72(b) and 72(c) of the Tunis Agenda
> (facilitating discourse and interfacing).  I suggest the simplest way to
> do this is just by adding "We give some recommendations on how the IGF
> could do this in sections 2 and 5 below."
>
> PARA 4: Norbert makes a similar remark about our observations on paras
> 72(e) and 72(g) (IG4D and recommendations).  Again, the best way to deal
> with this is to forward-reference: "Our suggestions for how the IGF
> might make better progress in these areas follow in sections 3 and 4
> respectively."
>
> PARA 11: McTim and Izumi said we are a bit too ambitious here.  McTim
> took objection to suggesting that we "integrate the IGF's outcomes into
> the programmes of other institutions".  So I propose we say "increase
> the visibility of the IGF's outcomes within other institutions".
>
>  If integrating into programmes of other institutions' is going too far,
> 'increasing the visiblity of the outcomes within other organizations' is too
> weak, and something, imho, not with much real meaning. We are looking for
> clear suggestions of IGF improvements here - about things that can be done
> and need to be done- and this 'increasing the visibility' formulation really
> doesnt suggest anything to me. I propose something in between these two
> formulations.
>
> 'IgF outcomes should be appropriately connected to the processes of other
> IG institutions'
>
>
>  Izumi
> didn't want to suggest rapporteurs who would "act as a proactive conduit
> for feedback from those institutions".  So I suggest "receive feedback
> from those institutions" instead.
>
> So, I will prepare an online poll to gauge consensus on the statement as
> it stands with the above amendments.  If possible, please provide any
> further comments (either here on the list or on the Web site) BEFORE I
> post the poll, ie. within the next six hours or so.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/80eeae21/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 11 13:13:24 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:13:24 -0300
Subject: [governance] CSTD Chairman's summary of the first meeting, Montreux
 25+26 February
Message-ID: <AANLkTinnpCtx+FqppyXBTt-CU5PQK+VuDpJZ+T8FAk_t@mail.gmail.com>

I take the opportunity to send you the concise summary of the IGF WG meeting
in Montreux, put together by the chair. I think it is superficial and does
not provide much enlightement about the meeting discussions, but it is good
to keep track of the official narrative.

Best,

Marília

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: cstdwg-igf <cstdwg-igf at unctad.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Subject: Working Group on improvements to the IGF: Chairman's summary of the
first meeting, Montreux 25+26 February
To: frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch
Cc: hassane.makki at bakom.admin.ch, thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch, Mongi
Hamdi <Mongi.Hamdi at unctad.org>


*On behalf of Frédéric Riehl, Chairperson of the Working Group on
improvements to the Internet Governance Forum*

Dear all,

Please find attached the Chairman's summary of the first meeting of the
Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum, which was
held in Montreux, Switzerland on 25 and 26 February 2011.





-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/13cfff66/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Meeting Montreux chairman's summary.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 70656 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/13cfff66/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From carloswatson at gmail.com  Fri Mar 11 13:08:00 2011
From: carloswatson at gmail.com (carlos watson)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:08:00 -0600
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Inicia_Evangelizaci=F3n_de_IPv6?=
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=bvP-fJoMB2pC6Xnp6xvpPj7J6nbZX8iTOp=hH@mail.gmail.com>

Costa Rica inicia el despliegue de IPv6.

Continue reading → <http://www.isoc-cr.org/?p=346>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/f0f05f24/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 11 18:03:07 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 08:03:07 +0900
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Thank you for the care and warm messages. Fortunately, myself
and family and relatives are all OK.

I was inside the subway and was shaken badly, the train stopped
for some 20 min before slowly moved to the nearest station. Then
walked back from nearly three hours, but no damage.

As the morning came, the news coming in are just terrible.
We are very concerned about the people in Northern Japan.

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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Mar 11 18:10:53 2011
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:10:53 +0500
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=MY5WXwUts7NMj4N-xo8S-YPo8kCKunZKYBZs7@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

It definitely is a relief to hear that you are safe but our prayers
are there for the affected.

Fouad

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thank you for the care and warm messages. Fortunately, myself
> and family and relatives are all OK.
>
> I was inside the subway and was shaken badly, the train stopped
> for some 20 min before slowly moved to the nearest station. Then
> walked back from nearly three hours, but no damage.
>
> As the morning came, the news coming in are just terrible.
> We are very concerned about the people in Northern Japan.
>
> 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 vanda at uol.com.br  Fri Mar 11 18:35:30 2011
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:35:30 +0000
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com><AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1978604480-1299886623-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1637585749-@b1.c4.bise7.blackberry>

Happy to heard you and family is OK! terrible times first Chile now Japan....
Hope thing can get fixed as soon as possible!
Vanda
Vanda Scartezini from BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 08:03:07 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Deirdre Williams<williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>; Rajendra Poudel<rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp>; shaila mistry<shailam at yahoo.com>; <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan

Dear all,

Thank you for the care and warm messages. Fortunately, myself
and family and relatives are all OK.

I was inside the subway and was shaken badly, the train stopped
for some 20 min before slowly moved to the nearest station. Then
walked back from nearly three hours, but no damage.

As the morning came, the news coming in are just terrible.
We are very concerned about the people in Northern Japan.

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 charlespmok at gmail.com  Fri Mar 11 18:39:08 2011
From: charlespmok at gmail.com (Charles Mok (gmail))
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 07:39:08 +0800
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin9HYJ3VzT45T=fx3r4kwcAar7Up6WGnE0KmL5t@mail.gmail.com>

So good to hear from you.  Friends from HK were thinking about you when we
heard the news.  Our prayers are with Japan and its people now...

Charles


On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thank you for the care and warm messages. Fortunately, myself
> and family and relatives are all OK.
>
> I was inside the subway and was shaken badly, the train stopped
> for some 20 min before slowly moved to the nearest station. Then
> walked back from nearly three hours, but no damage.
>
> As the morning came, the news coming in are just terrible.
> We are very concerned about the people in Northern Japan.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110312/fafcb857/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 11 18:42:32 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:42:32 +1300
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin9HYJ3VzT45T=fx3r4kwcAar7Up6WGnE0KmL5t@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin9HYJ3VzT45T=fx3r4kwcAar7Up6WGnE0KmL5t@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikro6Esetqv_a=47qqhhWZAZE8RuDffqX7pmOd6@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, Izumi, am really glad to hear that you and your family are all OK and I
can just imagine the discomfort of being shaken up in the subway.
Phew....Prayers are still with Japan and her people.

We are thinking of you all in Japan. Here in Fiji, tsunami did not strike
early this morning and I can hear the birds and dogs baking normally so
that's a pretty good sign. Thank you to all who sent messages of hope and
well wishes.

Warm Regards,

Sala

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Charles Mok (gmail) <charlespmok at gmail.com
> wrote:

> So good to hear from you.  Friends from HK were thinking about you when we
> heard the news.  Our prayers are with Japan and its people now...
>
> Charles
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Thank you for the care and warm messages. Fortunately, myself
>> and family and relatives are all OK.
>>
>> I was inside the subway and was shaken badly, the train stopped
>> for some 20 min before slowly moved to the nearest station. Then
>> walked back from nearly three hours, but no damage.
>>
>> As the morning came, the news coming in are just terrible.
>> We are very concerned about the people in Northern Japan.
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110312/b9696472/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 11 20:48:04 2011
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:48:04 -0500
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917DC6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Good to know you are ok, Izumi. Being in a subway during an 8.9 earthquake sounds really scary. 
We all see the TV images of the flooded areas, it looks horrific. I am afraid to catch up on the news and learn the death toll. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 6:03 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Deirdre Williams
> Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Rajendra Poudel; shaila mistry;
> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Thank you for the care and warm messages. Fortunately, myself and family
> and relatives are all OK.
> 
> I was inside the subway and was shaken badly, the train stopped for some
> 20 min before slowly moved to the nearest station. Then walked back from
> nearly three hours, but no damage.
> 
> As the morning came, the news coming in are just terrible.
> We are very concerned about the people in Northern Japan.
> 
> 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 nb at bollow.ch  Fri Mar 11 21:16:19 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 03:16:19 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] New questionnaire on the improvement of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com>
	(message from Marilia Maciel on Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:17:06 -0300)
References: <AANLkTikgs=Xg5vNbSq+Ga72V+UuQ-8PY1L6E-CFuqwHy@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110312021620.1138815C1DC@quill.bollow.ch>

Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> The Secretariat of the CSTD has sent the new version of the questionnaire on
> the improvements of the IGF, in accordance with the dicussions of 25 and 26
> February. Main changes are reflected in questions 1 to 3.

FYI, I am sending the following response in my personal capacity:

http://abiproc.com/IGF/2011-03-12_Norbert.pdf

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 iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 11 23:08:37 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:08:37 +0900
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917DC6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71440917DC6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimkARWNO8sDRZiQr7M2z_6O7kmR_bcBij1oqree@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, terrible, horrific, indeed. the tv news and video messages from
Internet is beyond words.

The probability for M 7+ earthquake to hit Japan North East region with 30
years has been - 99%. But no one expected M8+.

There is little damage in Tokyo (5 people were killed), but we still
feel afterquake every hour or more.

Total number of loss might reach a few thousands, at least.

izumi


2011/3/12 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> Good to know you are ok, Izumi. Being in a subway during an 8.9 earthquake sounds really scary.
> We all see the TV images of the flooded areas, it looks horrific. I am afraid to catch up on the news and learn the death toll.
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 12 07:44:20 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
Message-ID: <269801.54769.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi AIZU 

I just read the news that "Japan scrambles to avert radiation crisis after explosion reported at nuclear plant"
Yahoo News source quoted that "Radiation leaks from quake-hit nuclear plant in Japan after explosion blows off its roof". 

Is it true or just rumor?

We are worried and remembering the Atomic Bomb attack on Japan (history) and its bad effect on the ngenerations.

Hopping for the good (not the bad), and pray for all of you.

Imran

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:08 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:

>Yes, terrible, horrific, indeed. the tv news and video messages from
>Internet is beyond words.
>
>The probability for M 7+ earthquake to hit Japan North East region with 30
>years has been - 99%. But no one expected M8+.
>
>There is little damage in Tokyo (5 people were killed), but we still
>feel afterquake every hour or more.
>
>Total number of loss might reach a few thousands, at least.
>
>izumi
>
>
>2011/3/12 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
>> Good to know you are ok, Izumi. Being in a subway during an 8.9 earthquake sounds really scary.
>> We all see the TV images of the flooded areas, it looks horrific. I am afraid to catch up on the news and learn the death toll.
>>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Sat Mar 12 07:59:31 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:59:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <269801.54769.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <269801.54769.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=sSTRk-3pZQCSFREQdunP1-+mqqs6NgU+49sgj@mail.gmail.com>

In part it is true - BBC News has its video on the top page.
Yet, the explosion blusted the outer shell of the building
housing, the neuc reactor itself is contained in a steel
container that is (so far) safe, according to the cabinet
secretary on TV just 30 min go.

izumi


2011/3/12 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
> Dear Izumi AIZU
>
> I just read the news that "Japan scrambles to avert radiation crisis after explosion reported at nuclear plant"
> Yahoo News source quoted that "Radiation leaks from quake-hit nuclear plant in Japan after explosion blows off its roof".
>
> Is it true or just rumor?
>
> We are worried and remembering the Atomic Bomb attack on Japan (history) and its bad effect on the ngenerations.
>
> Hopping for the good (not the bad), and pray for all of you.
>
> Imran
>
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:08 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>>Yes, terrible, horrific, indeed. the tv news and video messages from
>>Internet is beyond words.
>>
>>The probability for M 7+ earthquake to hit Japan North East region with 30
>>years has been - 99%. But no one expected M8+.
>>
>>There is little damage in Tokyo (5 people were killed), but we still
>>feel afterquake every hour or more.
>>
>>Total number of loss might reach a few thousands, at least.
>>
>>izumi
>>
>>
>>2011/3/12 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
>>> Good to know you are ok, Izumi. Being in a subway during an 8.9 earthquake sounds really scary.
>>> We all see the TV images of the flooded areas, it looks horrific. I am afraid to catch up on the news and learn the death toll.
>>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 12 09:02:40 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 06:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
Message-ID: <706567.57276.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thanks to update.
May Allah keep the nuc reactor safe and protected.

Some people shared their views, 
who reached here through last flight from Sendal Airport 
Telling that the runway hardly permitted their flight 
just after the earthquake, where all the buildings of Airport  
were crashing/demolished before their eyes.

We also understand that the Disaster Recovery will also take time.

Keep intouch.

Good night.

Imran

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:59 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:

>In part it is true - BBC News has its video on the top page.
>Yet, the explosion blusted the outer shell of the building
>housing, the neuc reactor itself is contained in a steel
>container that is (so far) safe, according to the cabinet
>secretary on TV just 30 min go.
>
>izumi
>
>
>2011/3/12 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
>> Dear Izumi AIZU
>>
>> I just read the news that "Japan scrambles to avert radiation crisis after explosion reported at nuclear plant"
>> Yahoo News source quoted that "Radiation leaks from quake-hit nuclear plant in Japan after explosion blows off its roof".
>>
>> Is it true or just rumor?
>>
>> We are worried and remembering the Atomic Bomb attack on Japan (history) and its bad effect on the ngenerations.
>>
>> Hopping for the good (not the bad), and pray for all of you.
>>
>> Imran
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:08 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, terrible, horrific, indeed. the tv news and video messages from
>>>Internet is beyond words.
>>>
>>>The probability for M 7+ earthquake to hit Japan North East region with 30
>>>years has been - 99%. But no one expected M8+.
>>>
>>>There is little damage in Tokyo (5 people were killed), but we still
>>>feel afterquake every hour or more.
>>>
>>>Total number of loss might reach a few thousands, at least.
>>>
>>>izumi
>>>
>>>
>>>2011/3/12 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
>>>> Good to know you are ok, Izumi. Being in a subway during an 8.9 earthquake sounds really scary.
>>>> We all see the TV images of the flooded areas, it looks horrific. I am afraid to catch up on the news and learn the death toll.
>>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                  Japan
>                                 * * * * *
>           << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                www.anr.org

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 12 09:04:03 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 06:04:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
Message-ID: <970226.92413.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thanks to update.
May Allah keep the nuc reactor safe and protected.

Some people shared their views, 
who reached here through last flight from Sendal Airport 
Telling that the runway hardly permitted their flight 
To take off, just after the earthquake, where all the buildings of Airport  
were crashing/demolished before their eyes.

We also understand that the Disaster Recovery will also take time.

Keep intouch.

Good night.

Imran

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:59 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:

>In part it is true - BBC News has its video on the top page.
>Yet, the explosion blusted the outer shell of the building
>housing, the neuc reactor itself is contained in a steel
>container that is (so far) safe, according to the cabinet
>secretary on TV just 30 min go.
>
>izumi
>
>
>2011/3/12 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
>> Dear Izumi AIZU
>>
>> I just read the news that "Japan scrambles to avert radiation crisis after explosion reported at nuclear plant"
>> Yahoo News source quoted that "Radiation leaks from quake-hit nuclear plant in Japan after explosion blows off its roof".
>>
>> Is it true or just rumor?
>>
>> We are worried and remembering the Atomic Bomb attack on Japan (history) and its bad effect on the ngenerations.
>>
>> Hopping for the good (not the bad), and pray for all of you.
>>
>> Imran
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:08 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, terrible, horrific, indeed. the tv news and video messages from
>>>Internet is beyond words.
>>>
>>>The probability for M 7+ earthquake to hit Japan North East region with 30
>>>years has been - 99%. But no one expected M8+.
>>>
>>>There is little damage in Tokyo (5 people were killed), but we still
>>>feel afterquake every hour or more.
>>>
>>>Total number of loss might reach a few thousands, at least.
>>>
>>>izumi
>>>
>>>
>>>2011/3/12 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
>>>> Good to know you are ok, Izumi. Being in a subway during an 8.9 earthquake sounds really scary.
>>>> We all see the TV images of the flooded areas, it looks horrific. I am afraid to catch up on the news and learn the death toll.
>>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                  Japan
>                                 * * * * *
>           << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                www.anr.org

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dvbirve at yandex.ru  Sat Mar 12 09:53:40 2011
From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:53:40 +0300
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
Message-ID: <241831299941621@web66.yandex.ru>

Dear Izumi!

My prayers are with you in this difficult time and with all people in Japan!

May God keep Japan safe.

Andrey Shcherbovich (Russia)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 12 12:10:10 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:10:10 -0300
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=sSTRk-3pZQCSFREQdunP1-+mqqs6NgU+49sgj@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3F31E880646F4D928ADD3627F1CE4850@userPC>


I'm following this (from Rio) with excellent (English language) coverage
from NHK/CNN at
http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3&hpt=T1

Things seem to be escalating hour by hour--the evacuation zone has increased
over the last 5 hours from 3 km to 20 km!

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 10:00 AM
To: Imran Ahmed Shah
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; mueller at syr.edu
Subject: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan


In part it is true - BBC News has its video on the top page. Yet, the
explosion blusted the outer shell of the building housing, the neuc reactor
itself is contained in a steel container that is (so far) safe, according to
the cabinet secretary on TV just 30 min go.

izumi


2011/3/12 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
> Dear Izumi AIZU
>
> I just read the news that "Japan scrambles to avert radiation crisis 
> after explosion reported at nuclear plant" Yahoo News source quoted 
> that "Radiation leaks from quake-hit nuclear plant in Japan after 
> explosion blows off its roof".
>
> Is it true or just rumor?
>
> We are worried and remembering the Atomic Bomb attack on Japan 
> (history) and its bad effect on the ngenerations.
>
> Hopping for the good (not the bad), and pray for all of you.
>
> Imran
>
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:08 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>>Yes, terrible, horrific, indeed. the tv news and video messages from 
>>Internet is beyond words.
>>
>>The probability for M 7+ earthquake to hit Japan North East region 
>>with 30 years has been - 99%. But no one expected M8+.
>>
>>There is little damage in Tokyo (5 people were killed), but we still 
>>feel afterquake every hour or more.
>>
>>Total number of loss might reach a few thousands, at least.
>>
>>izumi
>>
>>
>>2011/3/12 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
>>> Good to know you are ok, Izumi. Being in a subway during an 8.9 
>>> earthquake sounds really scary. We all see the TV images of the 
>>> flooded areas, it looks horrific. I am afraid to catch up on the 
>>> news and learn the death toll.
>>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat Mar 12 14:46:34 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 08:46:34 +1300
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <3F31E880646F4D928ADD3627F1CE4850@userPC>
References: <AANLkTi=sSTRk-3pZQCSFREQdunP1-+mqqs6NgU+49sgj@mail.gmail.com>
	<3F31E880646F4D928ADD3627F1CE4850@userPC>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimN++kRewwwAywDgpbHQf_3Lon3jrdpGt0BaQru@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Michael for this. There is also a live update (blog) via

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/asia/live-blog-japan-earthquake

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I'm following this (from Rio) with excellent (English language) coverage
> from NHK/CNN at
> http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3&hpt=T1
>
> Things seem to be escalating hour by hour--the evacuation zone has
> increased
> over the last 5 hours from 3 km to 20 km!
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 10:00 AM
> To: Imran Ahmed Shah
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; mueller at syr.edu
> Subject: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
>
>
>  In part it is true - BBC News has its video on the top page. Yet, the
> explosion blusted the outer shell of the building housing, the neuc reactor
> itself is contained in a steel container that is (so far) safe, according
> to
> the cabinet secretary on TV just 30 min go.
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2011/3/12 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
> > Dear Izumi AIZU
> >
> > I just read the news that "Japan scrambles to avert radiation crisis
> > after explosion reported at nuclear plant" Yahoo News source quoted
> > that "Radiation leaks from quake-hit nuclear plant in Japan after
> > explosion blows off its roof".
> >
> > Is it true or just rumor?
> >
> > We are worried and remembering the Atomic Bomb attack on Japan
> > (history) and its bad effect on the ngenerations.
> >
> > Hopping for the good (not the bad), and pray for all of you.
> >
> > Imran
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:08 PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, terrible, horrific, indeed. the tv news and video messages from
> >>Internet is beyond words.
> >>
> >>The probability for M 7+ earthquake to hit Japan North East region
> >>with 30 years has been - 99%. But no one expected M8+.
> >>
> >>There is little damage in Tokyo (5 people were killed), but we still
> >>feel afterquake every hour or more.
> >>
> >>Total number of loss might reach a few thousands, at least.
> >>
> >>izumi
> >>
> >>
> >>2011/3/12 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> >>> Good to know you are ok, Izumi. Being in a subway during an 8.9
> >>> earthquake sounds really scary. We all see the TV images of the
> >>> flooded areas, it looks horrific. I am afraid to catch up on the
> >>> news and learn the death toll.
> >>>
> >>____________________________________________________________
> >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >>For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110313/e27f7b7f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Mar 13 04:18:25 2011
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:48:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals
In-Reply-To: <C95E063C.15766%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net>
	<C95E063C.15766%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikqYBUqofhDjBmaQBc-7Zza1Hb_8wPN+GADqtrx@mail.gmail.com>

As we are entering the new phase of IGF, it could be a good idea to
review and re-emphasize the concept of multi-stakeholder deliberations
and multistakeholder governance. Is there a way to introduce thematic
discussions on this foundation topic and dispel doubts and deal with
the hesitations?


Sivasubramanian M




On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Sorry to take so long to reply to this -
>
> In addition toi the excellent proposals put forward by Parminder, I wonder
> if we should tackle the general A2K area – access to knowledge. I personally
> would like to see a plenary session (I think IGF plenary topics have become
> boring and repetitive) - but at the least a good workshop would be useful.
>
> Others involved in this general area might have suggestions – but it is
> certainly a subject area where we can get some excellent input from all
> stakeholder groups and some stimulating debate.
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:50:55 +0530
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals
>
> Hi Jeremy
>
> I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which
> hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into
> the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately
> quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF
> Nairobi'.
>
> I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that
> IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular
> focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil
> society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy.
>
> In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF
> improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision
> on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has
> been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing
> pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing
> to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.)
>
> This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the
> open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why
> should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on
> one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this
> mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far
> the dominant platform for Internet?
>
> I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever
> in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy
> framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two
> largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the
> government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are
> moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy
> frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance
> companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big
> enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what
> happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication
> infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises.
>
> Anyway back to the topic,
>
> The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile
> Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real
> world IG would be two very different worlds.
>
> It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG'
>
> And I propose a third topic
>
> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG'
>
> CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the
> programme of the 2011 IGF meeting.  Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF
> improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but
> otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF.
>
> This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before.  So it
> is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme
> of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and
> reuse.  Here are relevant links:
>
> PROGRAMME:
>
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad)
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm)
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm)
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm)
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius)
>
> IMPROVEMENTS:
>
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs)
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall)
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements)
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work)
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work)
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF)
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF)
>
> I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights
> that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing
> any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November.
>
>
>
> --
> PK
>
> ________________________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Mar 13 04:21:18 2011
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:51:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikqYBUqofhDjBmaQBc-7Zza1Hb_8wPN+GADqtrx@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net>
	<C95E063C.15766%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<AANLkTikqYBUqofhDjBmaQBc-7Zza1Hb_8wPN+GADqtrx@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=6u5bW8yc=WqSEkSeRWBS0X=nrcu8UhZXmg=+r@mail.gmail.com>

Vijay, It is past midnight here, I am logging off



On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> As we are entering the new phase of IGF, it could be a good idea to
> review and re-emphasize the concept of multi-stakeholder deliberations
> and multistakeholder governance. Is there a way to introduce thematic
> discussions on this foundation topic and dispel doubts and deal with
> the hesitations?
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Sorry to take so long to reply to this -
>>
>> In addition toi the excellent proposals put forward by Parminder, I wonder
>> if we should tackle the general A2K area – access to knowledge. I personally
>> would like to see a plenary session (I think IGF plenary topics have become
>> boring and repetitive) - but at the least a good workshop would be useful.
>>
>> Others involved in this general area might have suggestions – but it is
>> certainly a subject area where we can get some excellent input from all
>> stakeholder groups and some stimulating debate.
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:50:55 +0530
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>> Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals
>>
>> Hi Jeremy
>>
>> I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which
>> hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into
>> the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately
>> quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF
>> Nairobi'.
>>
>> I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that
>> IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular
>> focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil
>> society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy.
>>
>> In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF
>> improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision
>> on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has
>> been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing
>> pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing
>> to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.)
>>
>> This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the
>> open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why
>> should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on
>> one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this
>> mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far
>> the dominant platform for Internet?
>>
>> I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever
>> in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy
>> framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two
>> largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the
>> government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are
>> moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy
>> frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance
>> companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big
>> enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what
>> happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication
>> infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises.
>>
>> Anyway back to the topic,
>>
>> The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile
>> Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real
>> world IG would be two very different worlds.
>>
>> It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG'
>>
>> And I propose a third topic
>>
>> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG'
>>
>> CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the
>> programme of the 2011 IGF meeting.  Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF
>> improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but
>> otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF.
>>
>> This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before.  So it
>> is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme
>> of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and
>> reuse.  Here are relevant links:
>>
>> PROGRAMME:
>>
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad)
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm)
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm)
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm)
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius)
>>
>> IMPROVEMENTS:
>>
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs)
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall)
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements)
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work)
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work)
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF)
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF)
>>
>> I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights
>> that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing
>> any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PK
>>
>> ________________________________
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Mar 13 04:25:14 2011
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:55:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=6u5bW8yc=WqSEkSeRWBS0X=nrcu8UhZXmg=+r@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D302387.5070203@itforchange.net>
	<C95E063C.15766%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<AANLkTikqYBUqofhDjBmaQBc-7Zza1Hb_8wPN+GADqtrx@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=6u5bW8yc=WqSEkSeRWBS0X=nrcu8UhZXmg=+r@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik82dvwk37Emtjhu-T_5tZMbvVngqrS613s4+44@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Vijay, It is past midnight here, I am logging off

( I am sorry, please ignore this, meant to be sent to my office staff ! )


>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As we are entering the new phase of IGF, it could be a good idea to
>> review and re-emphasize the concept of multi-stakeholder deliberations
>> and multistakeholder governance. Is there a way to introduce thematic
>> discussions on this foundation topic and dispel doubts and deal with
>> the hesitations?
>>
>>
>> Sivasubramanian M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry to take so long to reply to this -
>>>
>>> In addition toi the excellent proposals put forward by Parminder, I wonder
>>> if we should tackle the general A2K area – access to knowledge. I personally
>>> would like to see a plenary session (I think IGF plenary topics have become
>>> boring and repetitive) - but at the least a good workshop would be useful.
>>>
>>> Others involved in this general area might have suggestions – but it is
>>> certainly a subject area where we can get some excellent input from all
>>> stakeholder groups and some stimulating debate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:50:55 +0530
>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>> Subject: [governance] Agenda for IGF Nairobi - IGC proposals
>>>
>>> Hi Jeremy
>>>
>>> I think we should two separate threads for the next IGF's agenda, which
>>> hopefully will be taken up in the Feb MAG meeting, and for our inputs into
>>> the WG on IGF improvements. Both are very distinct issues and separately
>>> quite important . So excuse me to have this thread on 'agenda for IGF
>>> Nairobi'.
>>>
>>> I am particularly eager to get this discussion going, because I feel that
>>> IGC should be doing much more on substantive issues, and its almost singular
>>> focus on process issues is what has kept it insulated from much of the civil
>>> society outside the IG realm, which compromises its legitimacy.
>>>
>>> In middle of the hot discussions on composition of the WG on IGF
>>> improvements, Sala posted an email on the (globally) historic FCC decision
>>> on network neutrality. While there are some good points there, there has
>>> been a sellout on excluding mobile Internet from regulations disallowing
>>> pay-for-priority. (To read this in the context of my earielr emails pointing
>>> to how mobile Internet in India is already breaching NN boundaries.)
>>>
>>> This FC decision has the potential of splitting up the Internet into the
>>> open fixed line variety and corporate content dominated mobile Internet. Why
>>> should there be two kinds of Internet? Why do freedoms and rights count on
>>> one kind and are not so important on the mobile Internet? What does this
>>> mean for developing countries where mobile is slated to become the by far
>>> the dominant platform for Internet?
>>>
>>> I also consider it very significant that it is perhaps the first time ever
>>> in any substantial policy matter of such huge consequence that the policy
>>> framework was largely written up as a result of negotiations between two
>>> largest corporate players in the area - google and verizon - and then the
>>> government rubber stamped it. If this the new global governance model we are
>>> moving towards? I keep getting this picture in my mind of our health policy
>>> frameworks soon being written by drug companies and health insurance
>>> companies, and maybe the large private hospital chains, if they are big
>>> enough, before plaint governments rubber stamp it. That is exactly what
>>> happened in the present instance vis a vis the new communication
>>> infrastructure of the Internet that came with such egalitarian promises.
>>>
>>> Anyway back to the topic,
>>>
>>> The next IGF just must take up 'Network Neutrality' or in fact ' Mobile
>>> Network Neutrality' as its key plenary theme. Otherwise IGF and the real
>>> world IG would be two very different worlds.
>>>
>>> It should also continue with the plenary topic - 'development agenda for IG'
>>>
>>> And I propose a third topic
>>>
>>> 'Cross border Issues and implications of IG'
>>>
>>> CoE is discussing it, no reason why IGF should not.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like us to move towards preparing a submission about the
>>> programme of the 2011 IGF meeting.  Simultaneously, we can discuss IGF
>>> improvements, which if minor could go into that submission, but
>>> otherwise can be input for our new CSTD working group on the IGF.
>>>
>>> This is an exercise that we have, of course, gone through before.  So it
>>> is useful for us to look at some previous submissions on the programme
>>> of the IGF and on improvements, and see what we can simply rewrite and
>>> reuse.  Here are relevant links:
>>>
>>> PROGRAMME:
>>>
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 (Hyderabad)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/5 (Sharm)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/26 (Sharm)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/32 (Sharm)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/34 (Vilnius)
>>>
>>> IMPROVEMENTS:
>>>
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 (funding, deeper discussion, WGs)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/7 (format improvements, IGF as town-hall)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9 (MAG improvements)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/30 (MAG, funding, intersessional work)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/33 (MAG, outputs, intersessional work)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/41 (MAG improvements, links from IGF)
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45 (outputs, difficult issues, virtual IGF)
>>>
>>> I would suggest that people go through these and pick out the highlights
>>> that they would like to reiterate... as well, of course, as contributing
>>> any new points in light of the changed landscape since last November.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PK
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From qshatti at gmail.com  Sun Mar 13 06:12:12 2011
From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:12:12 +0300
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <241831299941621@web66.yandex.ru>
References: <241831299941621@web66.yandex.ru>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikyQ2yfAvTDAL1+k1nNsigibo8X_BDi2jpxO+3a@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi:
I hope that you and all your loved ones are safe and in good health.
May god be with you.

Qusai Al-Shatti

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Shcherbovich Andrey <dvbirve at yandex.ru> wrote:
> Dear Izumi!
>
> My prayers are with you in this difficult time and with all people in Japan!
>
> May God keep Japan safe.
>
> Andrey Shcherbovich (Russia)
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn  Sun Mar 13 15:32:02 2011
From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:32:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
Message-ID: <web-3638301@be3.planet.net.tn>

Dear Izumi,

Happy to learn that you and your relatives are safe.
I hope no more damage will occur and that the whole Japanese people 
will recover very soon from this huge disaster.

------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Vice Chairman of CIC
World Federation of Engineering Organizations
Phone : + 216 70 825 231
Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
Fax     : + 216 70 825 231
------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From email at hakik.org  Sun Mar 13 17:19:49 2011
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:19:49 +0000
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.c
 om>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
 <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110313212057.608554B2C2@npogroups.org>

Dear Izumi,

Pleased to learn that you and your family are safe. Our prayers are 
with all the people facing the disaster and hope things will recover soon.

Best regards,
Hakik


At 23:03 11-03-2011, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Thank you for the care and warm messages. Fortunately, myself
>and family and relatives are all OK.
>
>I was inside the subway and was shaken badly, the train stopped
>for some 20 min before slowly moved to the nearest station. Then
>walked back from nearly three hours, but no damage.
>
>As the morning came, the news coming in are just terrible.
>We are very concerned about the people in Northern Japan.
>
>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 pkisokau at gmail.com  Sun Mar 13 22:41:25 2011
From: pkisokau at gmail.com (Parkop Kisokau)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:41:25 +0800
Subject: [governance] Japan's Internet largely intact after earthquake,
 tsunami
Message-ID: <AANLkTinh8XYjXjh4U8LpFitCTw4qoFJRCP7OvXi0QOrz@mail.gmail.com>

The effects of the quake, in terms of human loss and economic damage, are
expected to be huge. The quake also disrupted electricity supplies and
knocked two nuclear power plants out of
commission<http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9214278/Rolling_blackouts_tsunami_damage_try_Japanese_companies>.
One reason Internet connectivity appeared to fare better could be that
undersea cables remained relatively untouched by the quake, unlike in 2006
when an earthquake in Taiwan resulted in a large number of major cable
breaks, Cowie said.

More on the link;
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9214358/Japan_s_Internet_largely_intact_after_earthquake_tsunami?taxonomyId=154


Parkop Kisokau
USTB
BJ - CN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110314/8fc7f469/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Mar 14 02:25:41 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:25:41 +0800
Subject: [governance] Consensus call results on statement to CSTD working
 group
Message-ID: <1300083941.28939.254.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

We have 40 in favour of issuing our statement to the CSTD working group
on improvements to the IGF, and none against, so we will take this as
approval.  The statement as issued (with some typographical corrections
by Izumi) is now on our Web site, linked from the front page.

Doubtless the response rate would have been higher if we had not been
pressed into concluding the statement at short notice, and if not for
the terrible natural calamity in Japan, but we must press on.

Anyway, this is just a starting point for the hard work which is still
ahead of our representatives on the CSTD working group.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110314/c469c5f4/attachment.bin>

From iza at anr.org  Mon Mar 14 11:06:19 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:06:19 +0900
Subject: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <20110313212101.188544B2C4@npogroups.org>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com> <20110313212101.188544B2C4@npogroups.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinH3XR4KbGxv6jpp0PidQSfEyRWCeQk=fBjtW_x@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Very encouraged by your warm words, and spurred by the
huge damages revealed, we are trying to find out what
exactly we can and should do to help those affected
and damaged in the vast North Eastern Japan.

I went to MIC today, for example, to discuss how to
support local governments, in terms of using the ICT.

It's too early to report, but I feel like that real "multi-stakeholoder"
work is essential for relief and recovery works.

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 f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it  Mon Mar 14 11:20:05 2011
From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:20:05 +0100
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinH3XR4KbGxv6jpp0PidQSfEyRWCeQk=fBjtW_x@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C99F89C0.5361%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at> <801088.49655.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com><AANLkTim0fji3BQjQAXUfo6e=SOqS+=ionFuqupor7=HE@mail.gmail.com><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><AANLkTi=LZqZ7zDPOp-0VNNviF0AeqLChdszvUH=Td-S2@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTi=O_Pqs1i2iVE_8Y2PG2KwehWun-EN_g+EoRRGY@mail.gmail.com> <20110313212101.188544B2C4@npogroups.org> <AANLkTinH3XR4KbGxv6jpp0PidQSfEyRWCeQk=fBjtW_x@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E68A8@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it>


Izumi,
I'm waiting for your report to know what kind of help the japanese people really need.
Here in Italy Government and nuclear lobby disperately try to minimize what is happened and it's better they are facing the real situation

 Fiorello

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di Izumi AIZU
Inviato: lunedì 14 marzo 2011 16.06
A: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Oggetto: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan

Dear all,

Very encouraged by your warm words, and spurred by the huge damages revealed, we are trying to find out what exactly we can and should do to help those affected and damaged in the vast North Eastern Japan.

I went to MIC today, for example, to discuss how to support local governments, in terms of using the ICT.

It's too early to report, but I feel like that real "multi-stakeholoder"
work is essential for relief and recovery works.

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 divina.meigs at orange.fr  Mon Mar 14 12:46:13 2011
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:46:13 +0100
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E68A8@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it>
Message-ID: <C9A404E5.1E8AB%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Dear Izumi 

Really relieved to hear from you. The news here in France are not good as
for the sequel tremors to come. And yet we are under the feeling that we are
not told everything... Is there anything planned to prevent more damage?
What can be done from here?

Best
Divina 


Le 14/03/11 16:20, « Fiorello Cortiana » <f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it> a
écrit :

> 
> Izumi,
> I'm waiting for your report to know what kind of help the japanese people
> really need.
> Here in Italy Government and nuclear lobby disperately try to minimize what is
> happened and it's better they are facing the real situation
> 
>  Fiorello
> 
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di Izumi AIZU
> Inviato: lunedì 14 marzo 2011 16.06
> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Oggetto: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Very encouraged by your warm words, and spurred by the huge damages revealed,
> we are trying to find out what exactly we can and should do to help those
> affected and damaged in the vast North Eastern Japan.
> 
> I went to MIC today, for example, to discuss how to support local governments,
> in terms of using the ICT.
> 
> It's too early to report, but I feel like that real "multi-stakeholoder"
> work is essential for relief and recovery works.
> 
> 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
> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From shailam at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 14 14:17:45 2011
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Consensus call results on statement to CSTD
 working group
In-Reply-To: <1300083941.28939.254.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
References: <1300083941.28939.254.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
Message-ID: <549113.85872.qm@web161920.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Hi Jeremy
Yes the window to participate was a little short. But I understand the need to 
move quickly.
Shaila 

 Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 



________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
To: governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 11:25:41 PM
Subject: [governance] Consensus call results on statement to CSTD working group

We have 40 in favour of issuing our statement to the CSTD working group
on improvements to the IGF, and none against, so we will take this as
approval.  The statement as issued (with some typographical corrections
by Izumi) is now on our Web site, linked from the front page.

Doubtless the response rate would have been higher if we had not been
pressed into concluding the statement at short notice, and if not for
the terrible natural calamity in Japan, but we must press on.

Anyway, this is just a starting point for the hard work which is still
ahead of our representatives on the CSTD working group.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110314/692364d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From shailam at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 14 14:19:11 2011
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Consensus call results on statement to CSTD
 working group
In-Reply-To: <1300083941.28939.254.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
References: <1300083941.28939.254.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
Message-ID: <461838.87987.qm@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Just as a  suggestion it might be helpful to have the due date and time in the 
subject file.

Shaila


________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
To: governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 11:25:41 PM
Subject: [governance] Consensus call results on statement to CSTD working group

We have 40 in favour of issuing our statement to the CSTD working group
on improvements to the IGF, and none against, so we will take this as
approval.  The statement as issued (with some typographical corrections
by Izumi) is now on our Web site, linked from the front page.

Doubtless the response rate would have been higher if we had not been
pressed into concluding the statement at short notice, and if not for
the terrible natural calamity in Japan, but we must press on.

Anyway, this is just a starting point for the hard work which is still
ahead of our representatives on the CSTD working group.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110314/e92c1e16/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Mar 14 14:39:42 2011
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:39:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] Session on IGF going on now at ICANN meeting
In-Reply-To: <20110314174829.DD50B15C1DC@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <6696a32e-8797-4352-a929-af0de21f5b1d@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <qwiM7UTe.1299770352.8143820.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu> <AANLkTikW9gq--yu55z9CT_Xw1qDU2NzdLpNgow+tEkf9@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=P5VyppjD7q1a5sX=cwp_hgbnFZ-EwRbTazG4X@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinPkeAs=ZX+gbtbwtSZOBC-1q1s5VjHS6kV26Zm@mail.gmail.com> <20110312011046.BF20515C1DC@quill.bollow.ch> <AANLkTikWQ7MWgwLzxaft=N8osjqMRy0+1q77nRj8aDgT@mail.gmail.com> <20110314174829.DD50B15C1DC@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <4276C260-1C9B-442F-8D3F-6E5D9E451A5E@graduateinstitute.ch>

Audiocast, scribing and Adobe connect options if anyone's interested

http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22211
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110314/188dd03e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Mar 14 15:16:07 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:46:07 -0430
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5BISOC=5D_Applications_now_open_-_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Next_Generation_Leaders_eLearning_programme_=93Shaping_t?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?he_Internet_=96_History_and_Futures=94_=28English_and_Fr?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ench=29?=
Message-ID: <4D7E6977.3030500@diplomacy.edu>



---------------------------------------------------------
Applications now open - Next Generation Leaders eLearning
programme “Shaping the Internet – History and Futures”
(English and French)
---------------------------------------------------------

Applications are now open for the Internet Society’s Next Generation Leaders (NGL) eLearning programme “Shaping the Internet – History and Futures”.

<http://www.diplomacy.edu/registration/Register.aspx?IDprogramme=5601a517-757e-4320-8ae0-b2631a76765e>

The Internet Society is pleased to call for applications from talented individuals seeking to join the new generation of Internet leaders, who will address the critical technology, policy, business, and education challenges that lie ahead.

Following the successful launch of the programme last year, in 2011 the Internet Society is offering concurrent classes in English and French. Both classes will start in the week of 16 May 2011.

The course, “Shaping the Internet – History and Futures”, is delivered by the DiploFoundation through their eLearning platform and learning methodology and features weekly online discussions of the course materials, moderated by a tutor and an expert facilitator.

The NGL programme is designed to advance the careers of individuals who have the potential to become local, regional, and international leaders within the Internet technology, policy, and governance communities. The curriculum empowers participants to share their particular expertise with colleagues while acquiring knowledge in areas outside of their specialties.

Places in the eLearning course are strictly limited, so all applications will be subject to a thorough selection process.

  * The deadline for applications is 8 April 2011. *


The Programme
---------------

The programme offers 20-25 places in each class for professionals from diverse stakeholder backgrounds in the fields of Internet technology, governance, and policy. Both courses are open to individuals from around the world. The programme will be conducted entirely online.

The programme includes four thematic parts, which take place over six months during 2011 (May to October, with an exam in the first week of November):

- The History of the Internet
- Technical Background - Internet Standards and Technology
- Internet Governance and Policy
- Emerging issues – Studies in Internet Policies, Processes and Diplomacy


Learning activities take place in an online classroom and include analysis of course materials, interactive group discussions using a variety of communication tools, assignments, and exams. Successful participants will receive a certificate of completion of the programme.


Languages
-----------
Course materials and moderated online discussions for each course are in English and French, respectively.


Target Audience
----------------
The project is designed for Internet Society members from academia, the public sector, technology industries, and civil society who are committed to the ongoing expansion of an open, sustainable Internet.

Applications from the following categories of individuals from both developed and developing countries are encouraged:

- officials in governmental ministries and departments dealing
  with ICT-related issues (for example, telecommunications,
  culture, education, foreign affairs, justice)
- officials in regulatory authorities or institutions dealing
  with Information Society, Internet, and ICT-related issues
- postgraduate students and researchers (for example,
  telecommunications, electrical engineering, law, economics,
  development studies, sociology)
- engineers in the Internet field
- civil society activists in the Internet field
- journalists covering Internet-related issues
- business people in the Internet field (for example, those
  managing ISPs or involved in software development).


Timeline
---------
- 14 March:   2011 Call for Applications begins
- 8 April:    2011 Call for Applications ends
- 28 April:   Selection Results released
- 16 May:     Online classes commence


Requirements
-------------

Applicants are required to have:

- met the age requirement (20-40 years old)
- a basic awareness of, and interest in, Internet-related issues
- knowledge and experience of the multi-stakeholder approach in
  international affairs
- a professional background and relevant work or academic experience
  in the Internet field
- member status in ISOC
- fluency in English or French
- good writing skills, ability to summarize information, and focus on
  details
- regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient)
- minimum of 8 hours commitment per week during each thematic part of
  the online course (this is perhaps the single most important
  requirement and should be evaluated seriously by any potential applicant)
- readiness to participate in online consultations (once a week at specified
  times)


Deadline for Applications
--------------------------
The deadline for applications is 8 April  2011, by midnight UTC/GMT.


How to Apply
--------------
For more information about the full Next Generation Leaders programme, including details on how to apply to either eLearning course, please visit:

     http://www.internetsociety.org/leaders

If you have any questions, please contact<leaders at internetsociety.org>.

The Next Generation Leaders programme is supported by Nominet Trust and operates under the patronage of the European Commission for Information Society and Media. Delivery of the eLearning programme in French is sponsored by AFNIC.

--
_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests&  Subscriptions from the My Account menu.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: VirginiaP.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 148 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110314/525fac82/attachment.vcf>

From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Mar 14 15:14:43 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:44:43 -0430
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5BISOC=5D_Candidatures_ouvertes_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=96_Programme_Next_Generation_Leaders_=AB_Fa=E7onner_l?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=92Internet_=96_Histoire_et_Avenir_=BB_=28fran=E7ais_et_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?anglais=29?=
Message-ID: <4D7E6923.7080301@gmail.com>


[English version to follow]

---------------------------------------------------------
Candidatures ouvertes – Programme Next Generation Leaders
« Façonner l’Internet – Histoire et Avenir »
(français et anglais)
---------------------------------------------------------

Les candidatures sont désormais ouvertes pour le programme Next Generation Leaders (NGL) de l'Internet Society  « Façonner l’Internet – Histoire et Avenir ».

L’Internet Society a le plaisir d’annoncer l’appel à candidatures de personnes talentueuses souhaitant se joindre à la prochaine génération de leaders de l'Internet qui se penchera sur les défis technologiques, politiques, commerciaux et éducatifs qui se profilent.

<http://www.diplomacy.edu/registration-fr/Register.aspx?IDprogramme=f8030668-325d-45d1-938f-bca7c293e9e9>

Suite au lancement réussi du programme l’année dernière, l’Internet Society propose en 2011 des cours de formation simultanés en anglais et en français. Les deux formations commenceront dans la semaine du 16 mai 2011.

La formation « Façonner l’Internet – Histoire et Avenir » sera assurée par DiploFoundation par l’intermédiaire de sa plateforme de formation à distance et sa méthodologie d’apprentissage. Elle comprend des discussions hebdomadaires en ligne portant sur le matériel pédagogique, animées par un tuteur et un formateur expert.

Le programme NGL est destiné à faire évoluer la carrière de personnes dotées d’un potentiel de leadership à l'échelle locale, régionale et internationale au sein des communautés Internet en matière de technologie, politiques et gouvernance. Le programme permet aux participants de partager leur expertise avec leurs collègues tout en acquérant des connaissances dans des domaines autres que leurs spécialités.

Les places pour la formation à distance étant strictement limitées, toutes les candidatures seront donc soumises à un processus de sélection rigoureux.

  * La date limite de dépôt des candidatures est le 8 avril 2011. *


Le programme
--------------
Le programme offre 20 à 25 places par cours pour des professionnels issus de divers horizons dans les domaines de la technologie, la gouvernance et les politiques liées à Internet. Les deux cours de formation sont ouverts aux participants du monde entier. Le programme se déroulera entièrement en ligne.

Le programme comprend quatre parties thématiques et s’étendra sur six mois (de mai à octobre 2011, avec un examen la première semaine de novembre) :

- Histoire de l’Internet
- Origines techniques – Normes et technologie Internet
- Gouvernance et politiques liées à l’Internet
- Questions émergentes – Étude des politiques, processus et diplomatie de l’Internet


Les activités d'apprentissage se dérouleront dans une salle de cours en ligne et comporteront l'analyse du matériel pédagogique, des discussions de groupe interactives reposant sur plusieurs outils de communication, des devoirs et des examens. Les participants qui auront suivi le cours avec succès recevront un diplôme de conclusion du programme.


Langues
---------
Le matériel pédagogique et les discussions animées en ligne pour chaque cours de formation sont en anglais et français, respectivement.


Public ciblé
--------------
Le projet est destiné aux membres de l’Internet Society issus du monde universitaire, du secteur public, des industries technologiques et de la société civile, engagés dans l'expansion continue d'un Internet ouvert et durable.

Les candidatures des catégories de personnes suivantes, issues à la fois de pays développés et en développement, sont encouragées :

- représentants des ministères et départements gouvernementaux
  traitant des questions liées aux TIC (télécommunications,
  culture, éducation, affaires étrangères, justice, par exemple) ;
- représentants des autorités ou institutions de réglementation
  s’occupant de la société de l’information, de l’Internet et
  des questions liées aux TIC ;
- étudiants de troisième cycle et chercheurs (en télécommunications,
  génie électrique, droit, économie, développement et sociologie,
  par exemple) ;
- ingénieurs dans le domaine de l’Internet ;
- militants de la société civile dans le domaine de l’Internet  ;
- journalistes couvrant les questions liées à l’Internet  ;
- entrepreneurs dans le domaine de l’Internet (fournisseurs d’accès
  Internet ou personnes impliquées dans le développement de logiciels,
  par exemple).


CALENDRIER
-----------

- 14 mars :    Ouverture de l’appel à candidatures 2011
- 8 avril :    Clôture de l’appel à candidatures 2011
- 28 avril :   Divulgation des résultats de la sélection
- 16 mai :     Début des cours en ligne


Critères de sélection
----------------------

Les candidats doivent :

- avoir l’âge requis (de 20 à 40 ans) ;
- avoir des notions de base en matière de, ou être intéressés
  par, les questions liées à l’Internet ;
- disposer de connaissances et d’expérience en approche
  multi-parties prenantes en termes d’affaires internationales ;
- avoir une formation académique et/ou une expérience
  professionnelle appropriées dans le domaine de l’Internet ;
- être membre de l’ISOC
- maîtriser l’anglais ou le français ;
- avoir de bonnes capacités de rédaction, capacité à résumer
  l’information et à se concentrer sur les détails ;
- disposer d’une connexion Internet (haut débit de préférence)
- avoir au moins 8 heures de disponibilité hebdomadaire pendant
  chaque partie thématique de la formation en ligne (il s'agit
  du critère de sélection le plus important qui doit être évalué
  sérieusement par tous les candidats éventuels) ;
- être prêts à participer aux consultations en ligne (une fois
  par semaine à des heures précises).


Date limite de dépôt des candidatures
--------------------------------------
La date limite de dépôt des candidatures et le 08 avril 2011 à minuit UTC/GMT.


Comment déposer une candidature
---------------------------------
Pour en savoir plus sur le programme complet Next Generation Leaders (Leaders de la prochaine génération), y compris obtenir des détails sur la façon de poser sa candidature à l’un des cours de formation à distance, veuillez consulter :

     http://www.internetsociety.org/leaders

Pour toute question, veuillez contacter<leaders at internetsociety.org>.

Le programme Next Generation Leaders (Leaders de la prochaine génération) est soutenu par Nominet Trust et est parrainé par la Commission européenne chargée de la société de l'information et des médias. Le déroulement du programme de formation à distance en français est parrainé par l’AFNIC.

--
_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests&  Subscriptions from the My Account menu.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 14 15:55:35 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
Message-ID: <155297.39306.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi,
How are you? Thank you keeping us update.
Divina is right, as we have seen the videos, the disaster is very huge comparing to the statistics and figures which are being released step by step, time to time.

Its is good to seek the support through the Facility of ICT.
Please let us know if we can do something from here, physically or remotely.

Thanks and Best Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:46 PKT Divina MEIGS wrote:

>Dear Izumi 
>
>Really relieved to hear from you. The news here in France are not good as
>for the sequel tremors to come. And yet we are under the feeling that we are
>not told everything... Is there anything planned to prevent more damage?
>What can be done from here?
>
>Best
>Divina 
>
>
>Le 14/03/11 16:20, « Fiorello Cortiana » <f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it> a
>écrit :
>
>> 
>> Izumi,
>> I'm waiting for your report to know what kind of help the japanese people
>> really need.
>> Here in Italy Government and nuclear lobby disperately try to minimize what is
>> happened and it's better they are facing the real situation
>> 
>>  Fiorello
>> 
>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>> Da: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di Izumi AIZU
>> Inviato: lunedì 14 marzo 2011 16.06
>> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Oggetto: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Very encouraged by your warm words, and spurred by the huge damages revealed,
>> we are trying to find out what exactly we can and should do to help those
>> affected and damaged in the vast North Eastern Japan.
>> 
>> I went to MIC today, for example, to discuss how to support local governments,
>> in terms of using the ICT.
>> 
>> It's too early to report, but I feel like that real "multi-stakeholoder"
>> work is essential for relief and recovery works.
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Mon Mar 14 19:55:58 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:55:58 +0900
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <155297.39306.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <155297.39306.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinNZLGww9M-K13yg3PnVWqc7u2g_u6SEKUn_SDm@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
The official stats and figures of the scope and degree of damages
are being released only after they are "confirmed". They are trying
to suppress the over-heated speculations that might, they think,
cause panics. In part, I understand this.

Now, the nuclear reactor could have been seriously damaged
and much attention is paid on this matter. The Power company
is not doing the best job so is the government. However, again,
it is very important to keep things "under control" and while we
tend to criticize these, we also need to know that this is quite
an unprecedented event and now one is really prepared to deal.
Of course, in terms of professional risk management, there are
things neglected or were neglected. But now may not be the
time to discuss these.

Most people here in Japan are remaining very calm. If million
of people start to act irrationally, it's no easy to keep order,
Already, there are no butteries you can buy here in Tokyo,
as the power supply will start to stop on rotational basis.
Gasoline supply is also very limited and long que of cars
to the fuel station is commonly seen.

But most of the people's sentiment is - "we have to bear
these difficulties, it's a lot less than those who lost their
lives, houses, family and friends."

best,

izumi

2011/3/15 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
> Dear Izumi,
> How are you? Thank you keeping us update.
> Divina is right, as we have seen the videos, the disaster is very huge comparing to the statistics and figures which are being released step by step, time to time.
>
> Its is good to seek the support through the Facility of ICT.
> Please let us know if we can do something from here, physically or remotely.
>
> Thanks and Best Regards
>
> Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:46 PKT Divina MEIGS wrote:
>
>>Dear Izumi
>>
>>Really relieved to hear from you. The news here in France are not good as
>>for the sequel tremors to come. And yet we are under the feeling that we are
>>not told everything... Is there anything planned to prevent more damage?
>>What can be done from here?
>>
>>Best
>>Divina
>>
>>
>>Le 14/03/11 16:20, « Fiorello Cortiana » <f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it> a
>>écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Izumi,
>>> I'm waiting for your report to know what kind of help the japanese people
>>> really need.
>>> Here in Italy Government and nuclear lobby disperately try to minimize what is
>>> happened and it's better they are facing the real situation
>>>
>>>  Fiorello
>>>
>>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>>> Da: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di Izumi AIZU
>>> Inviato: lunedì 14 marzo 2011 16.06
>>> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Oggetto: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Very encouraged by your warm words, and spurred by the huge damages revealed,
>>> we are trying to find out what exactly we can and should do to help those
>>> affected and damaged in the vast North Eastern Japan.
>>>
>>> I went to MIC today, for example, to discuss how to support local governments,
>>> in terms of using the ICT.
>>>
>>> It's too early to report, but I feel like that real "multi-stakeholoder"
>>> work is essential for relief and recovery works.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From vanda at uol.com.br  Mon Mar 14 20:31:25 2011
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:31:25 +0000
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinNZLGww9M-K13yg3PnVWqc7u2g_u6SEKUn_SDm@mail.gmail.com>
References: <155297.39306.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com><AANLkTinNZLGww9M-K13yg3PnVWqc7u2g_u6SEKUn_SDm@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <136998710-1300149179-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-732891122-@b1.c4.bise7.blackberry>

Izumi, since I have been in the government before I totally understand their position and I believe they are doing the best. Sometimes look that we could do better but outside it is hard to figure out the amount of work they are doing to fix thing as such. Let's give them some credit!
Vanda Scartezini from BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:55:58 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Subject: Re: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan

Hi,
The official stats and figures of the scope and degree of damages
are being released only after they are "confirmed". They are trying
to suppress the over-heated speculations that might, they think,
cause panics. In part, I understand this.

Now, the nuclear reactor could have been seriously damaged
and much attention is paid on this matter. The Power company
is not doing the best job so is the government. However, again,
it is very important to keep things "under control" and while we
tend to criticize these, we also need to know that this is quite
an unprecedented event and now one is really prepared to deal.
Of course, in terms of professional risk management, there are
things neglected or were neglected. But now may not be the
time to discuss these.

Most people here in Japan are remaining very calm. If million
of people start to act irrationally, it's no easy to keep order,
Already, there are no butteries you can buy here in Tokyo,
as the power supply will start to stop on rotational basis.
Gasoline supply is also very limited and long que of cars
to the fuel station is commonly seen.

But most of the people's sentiment is - "we have to bear
these difficulties, it's a lot less than those who lost their
lives, houses, family and friends."

best,

izumi

2011/3/15 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
> Dear Izumi,
> How are you? Thank you keeping us update.
> Divina is right, as we have seen the videos, the disaster is very huge comparing to the statistics and figures which are being released step by step, time to time.
>
> Its is good to seek the support through the Facility of ICT.
> Please let us know if we can do something from here, physically or remotely.
>
> Thanks and Best Regards
>
> Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:46 PKT Divina MEIGS wrote:
>
>>Dear Izumi
>>
>>Really relieved to hear from you. The news here in France are not good as
>>for the sequel tremors to come. And yet we are under the feeling that we are
>>not told everything... Is there anything planned to prevent more damage?
>>What can be done from here?
>>
>>Best
>>Divina
>>
>>
>>Le 14/03/11 16:20, « Fiorello Cortiana » <f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it> a
>>écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Izumi,
>>> I'm waiting for your report to know what kind of help the japanese people
>>> really need.
>>> Here in Italy Government and nuclear lobby disperately try to minimize what is
>>> happened and it's better they are facing the real situation
>>>
>>>  Fiorello
>>>
>>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>>> Da: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di Izumi AIZU
>>> Inviato: lunedì 14 marzo 2011 16.06
>>> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Oggetto: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Very encouraged by your warm words, and spurred by the huge damages revealed,
>>> we are trying to find out what exactly we can and should do to help those
>>> affected and damaged in the vast North Eastern Japan.
>>>
>>> I went to MIC today, for example, to discuss how to support local governments,
>>> in terms of using the ICT.
>>>
>>> It's too early to report, but I feel like that real "multi-stakeholoder"
>>> work is essential for relief and recovery works.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Mar 14 21:13:34 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:13:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] FW: News Alert: New Blast Reported at Japanese Nuclear
 Plant as Workers           Struggle to Cool Reactor
In-Reply-To: <201103150009.p2F09E2a005098@mx1.syr.edu>
References: <201103150009.p2F09E2a005098@mx1.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994C5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

FYI.

Our sympathies.

Lee
________________________________________
From: NYTimes.com News Alert [nytdirect at nytimes.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 8:01 PM
To: Lee W McKnight
Subject: News Alert: New Blast Reported at Japanese Nuclear Plant as Workers           Struggle to Cool Reactor

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Mon, March 14, 2011 -- 8:00 PM ET
-----

New Blast Reported at Japanese Nuclear Plant as Workers Struggle to Cool Reactor

An explosion early Tuesday morning may have damaged the inner
steel containment vessel of the No. 2 reactor at Japan's
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, leading to the wide
release of radioactive materials there and forcing the
evacuation of emergency workers, the plant's operator said.

The blast appeared to be different -- and more severe -- than
those that at two other troubled reactor at the same nuclear
complex because this one, reported to have occurred at 6:14
a.m., happened in the "pressure suppression room" in the
cooling area of the reactor, raising the possibility to
damage to the reactor's containment vessel.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?emc=na


About This E-Mail
You received this message because you are signed up to receive breaking news
alerts from NYTimes.com.

To unsubscribe, change your e-mail address or to sign up for daily headlines
or other newsletters, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/email

NYTimes.com
620 Eighth Ave.
New York, NY 10018

Copyright 2011 The New York Times Company


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 14 21:17:17 2011
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:17:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Consensus call results on statement to CSTD
 working group
In-Reply-To: <1300083941.28939.254.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
References: <1300083941.28939.254.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik1hP=Tw+m2yunbjWH8CXdzOS7V47_s8sBCAg7K@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy,
First of all I applaud all of the hard work that has gone into the document.
Second life reared up over me this morning and swallowed all of my
time so I don't have a leg to stand on (I realised that it was 6pm GMT
as I dashed between Lower 6A in CEHI and Lower 6B in OTW)
but thirdly I was a bit miffed this morning when you announced the
results of a poll that had been stated to be open until 6pm GMT.
The statement has my support in principle, but my plan was to finish
reading through the latest version so that I could offer informed
consent.
Please don't send me to Coventry because I didn't vote this time.
Best wishes to all, but especially to everyone who has been affected
by what has happened and is happening in Japan
Deirdre

On 14 March 2011 02:25, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> We have 40 in favour of issuing our statement to the CSTD working group
> on improvements to the IGF, and none against, so we will take this as
> approval.  The statement as issued (with some typographical corrections
> by Izumi) is now on our Web site, linked from the front page.
>
> Doubtless the response rate would have been higher if we had not been
> pressed into concluding the statement at short notice, and if not for
> the terrible natural calamity in Japan, but we must press on.
>
> Anyway, this is just a starting point for the hard work which is still
> ahead of our representatives on the CSTD working group.
>
> --
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Consumers for Fair Financial Services
> World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011
>
> Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
> competitive markets in financial services for all.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Mon Mar 14 21:59:57 2011
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Divide between ITU and IETF take on MPLS MOA runs deep
Message-ID: <sympa.1300154255.4214.733@lists.cpsr.org>

Divide between ITU and IETF take on MPLS MOA runs deep 
By Iljitsch van Beijnum | for arstechnica.com

Art. Ref.:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/divide-between-itu-and-ietf-take-on-mpls-moa-runs-deep.ars
-
A week ago, we reported on long-simmering differences of opinion between the ITU-T (the International Telecommunication Union Standardization Sector) and the IETF (the Internet Engineering Task Force) that erupted to the surface recently. It's hard to escape the conclusion that despite the fact that these are two organizations creating communication standards, and lots of participation and liaising back and forth happened, communication severely broke down between them. Each entertains very different interpretations of the same events. 

Originally, the two standards organizations had agreed to work together on protocols to manage MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching)—an IETF technology—in transport networks operated by telcos—traditionally, the ITU's constituency. Two groups of vendors had proposed two different protocols for Transport MPLS/MPLS Transport Profile (T-MPLS/MPLS-TP), and especially its network management (NM), also known as Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM). 

The IETF adopted the protocol that is closer aligned with the way it normally does things, much to the dismay of the ITU, which has a proposal that fits better within the traditional telecom environment. After failing to get any traction in the IETF, the second group of vendors petitioned the ITU-T to adopt its protocol in addition to the one being worked on in the IETF. Late last month the ITU-T, after failing to reach consensus, voted on the matter, and decided to go ahead with the second protocol. As we reported earlier, this didn't go over well in IETF circles. 

Russ Housley, the IETF chair, has suggested that in the ITU, "optional extensions are added until nobody objects anymore." Greg Jones, Counsellor for the ITU-T Study Group 15, disagrees with Houseley's take. "The ITU's objective is to develop international, interoperable, non-discriminatory standards," Jones told Ars. "We strive to ensure that our standards [meet] the requirements of as much of our membership as possible. This is normally done by consensus but ultimately the membership can decide, by majority voting, to avoid including all the options that various stakeholders want. It is a more democratic process than the IETF 'rough consensus' process, which is subjective and basically leaves the decision to the IETF 'leadership.' In any case, there are many examples of IETF protocols having too many options." 

We asked Jones why only 16 of the 192 countries that participate in the ITU actually voted on the proposal. "The vote is taken by the Member States that have registered for and are physically present in the meeting. Unfortunately the vote was called very late on the last day of the meeting and many member States had already left the meeting." 

But why now? Why wasn't the ITU's intention to progress two protocols communicated to the IETF leadership during the joint meeting in August? "This was communicated to the IETF leadership in August as documented in the report of that meeting." Jones explains. "The IETF refused to discuss the agreement despite ITU's request. Also, the technical and timing concerns have been expressed both in IETF meetings and on the IETF mailing lists for close to two years." 

"It is true that we did not want to discuss changes to the JWT agreement. The people that would be involved in such a discussion were the same people needed to deliver against the existing agreement," Housely responded when presented with Jones' explanation of events. "The ITU was already complaining that the MPLS working group was taking too long. Pulling those people away from the documents to work on a revision to the JWT agreement would make the documents take even longer." (The JWT agreement consists of 115 Powerpoint slides.) 

One of the contentious issues is "unilateral disbanding by the IETF of its group assigned to work with ITU." Housley pointed out that this group was merely a design team. In the IETF process, a design team is a small group tasked to hash out some issue. Once that's done, the design team reports back to the working group that created it, and the work is continued in the working group. From the IETF's perspective, the fact that a design team is disbanded is a good thing; it means that the working group as a whole can continue to make progress. 

Jones says this caused a problem for the ITU. "The MPLS Interoperability Design (MEAD) team was proposed by the ITU/IETF Joint Working Team. The MEAD team was a key part of the interaction between the ITU and the IETF," he explained. "Since it was disbanded, without consulting ITU, the view of many in ITU is that IETF has taken decisions on the direction of the work without consulting the ITU, informing the ITU of these decisions, or requesting confirmation that the resulting solutions produced by the IETF will meet the needs of all of the members of the ITU."

However, in October 2009, the IETF did send a liaison statement to the ITU which states: 

The main MPLS-TP requirements work has been published as RFC 5654, and the two subsidiary requirements documents (NM and OAM) are close to publication with IETF last call ending later this week. The other key documents (the framework documents) have been adopted as MPLS working group documents and their text is substantially in place. Furthermore, a large number of the necessary solutions documents have been started and have good foundations. 

With this in mind, we think that the MEAD team has successfully delivered on its objectives. In view of the need to ensure that the MPLS-TP work is fully open to participation by everyone in the IETF and ITU-T communities, and with the desire to "normalize" the process of document production and evolution, we have decided to close the MEAD team with immediate effect.

This is indeed a unilateral decision, but again the IETF says it is in line with how it works. The IETF/ITU Joint Working Team agreement recommends that the groups "jointly agree to work together and bring transport requirements into the IETF and extend IETF MPLS forwarding, OAM, survivability, network management and control plane protocols to meet those requirements through the IETF Standards Process." 

Are there clear technical advantages to the "second protocol" that the ITU is developing? "Yes," Jones says. "Packet/optical transport network management requires carrier-grade protocols that can ensure fault detection and repair within strict time limits. It is also important that the OAM solution fits into the existing operational model to minimize the need for staff retraining. The ITU OAM protocol clearly addresses these strict requirements. The IETF OAM tools are still under development.

"The reality is most vendors involved in the debate over the past three years will implement both protocols to address different market needs. The ITU solution offers lower cost and complexity for applications in the optical transport network." 

---
-30-____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar 14 22:24:00 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:54:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] WIPO director general on future of copyright in a
 digital arena
Message-ID: <4D7ECDC0.2000709@itforchange.net>

see http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/speeches/dg_blueskyconf_11.html

Important issue for us, and for the IGF.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/30998962/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Mar 14 23:37:41 2011
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:37:41 -0400
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <136998710-1300149179-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-732891122-@b1.c4.bise7.blackberry>
References: <155297.39306.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTinNZLGww9M-K13yg3PnVWqc7u2g_u6SEKUn_SDm@mail.gmail.com>
	<136998710-1300149179-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-732891122-@b1.c4.bise7.blackberry>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimqCf9NYZ3uARQTNv4Xqkuf8p423J46GH1dsowN@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

It's been a relieved to hear that you made it out of the subway and are
fine, along with your family. As we've been watching the unprecedented
earthquake, followed by the tsunami and now explosions at nuclear reactors
in your country, I as many others am praying and hoping that the worse of
the catastrophe is behind us (although, in effect, we fear to hear of a
devastating final dead toll.) My heart goes out to you and your country
fellow people as well as all people living in Japan.

Mawaki

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:

> Izumi, since I have been in the government before I totally understand
> their position and I believe they are doing the best. Sometimes look that we
> could do better but outside it is hard to figure out the amount of work they
> are doing to fix thing as such. Let's give them some credit!
> Vanda Scartezini from BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
> Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:55:58
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
> Subject: Re: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
>
> Hi,
> The official stats and figures of the scope and degree of damages
> are being released only after they are "confirmed". They are trying
> to suppress the over-heated speculations that might, they think,
> cause panics. In part, I understand this.
>
> Now, the nuclear reactor could have been seriously damaged
> and much attention is paid on this matter. The Power company
> is not doing the best job so is the government. However, again,
> it is very important to keep things "under control" and while we
> tend to criticize these, we also need to know that this is quite
> an unprecedented event and now one is really prepared to deal.
> Of course, in terms of professional risk management, there are
> things neglected or were neglected. But now may not be the
> time to discuss these.
>
> Most people here in Japan are remaining very calm. If million
> of people start to act irrationally, it's no easy to keep order,
> Already, there are no butteries you can buy here in Tokyo,
> as the power supply will start to stop on rotational basis.
> Gasoline supply is also very limited and long que of cars
> to the fuel station is commonly seen.
>
> But most of the people's sentiment is - "we have to bear
> these difficulties, it's a lot less than those who lost their
> lives, houses, family and friends."
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
> 2011/3/15 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
> > Dear Izumi,
> > How are you? Thank you keeping us update.
> > Divina is right, as we have seen the videos, the disaster is very huge
> comparing to the statistics and figures which are being released step by
> step, time to time.
> >
> > Its is good to seek the support through the Facility of ICT.
> > Please let us know if we can do something from here, physically or
> remotely.
> >
> > Thanks and Best Regards
> >
> > Imran Ahmed Shah
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:46 PKT Divina MEIGS wrote:
> >
> >>Dear Izumi
> >>
> >>Really relieved to hear from you. The news here in France are not good as
> >>for the sequel tremors to come. And yet we are under the feeling that we
> are
> >>not told everything... Is there anything planned to prevent more damage?
> >>What can be done from here?
> >>
> >>Best
> >>Divina
> >>
> >>
> >>Le 14/03/11 16:20, « Fiorello Cortiana » <f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it>
> a
> >>écrit :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Izumi,
> >>> I'm waiting for your report to know what kind of help the japanese
> people
> >>> really need.
> >>> Here in Italy Government and nuclear lobby disperately try to minimize
> what is
> >>> happened and it's better they are facing the real situation
> >>>
> >>>  Fiorello
> >>>
> >>> -----Messaggio originale-----
> >>> Da: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di Izumi AIZU
> >>> Inviato: lunedì 14 marzo 2011 16.06
> >>> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> Oggetto: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> Very encouraged by your warm words, and spurred by the huge damages
> revealed,
> >>> we are trying to find out what exactly we can and should do to help
> those
> >>> affected and damaged in the vast North Eastern Japan.
> >>>
> >>> I went to MIC today, for example, to discuss how to support local
> governments,
> >>> in terms of using the ICT.
> >>>
> >>> It's too early to report, but I feel like that real
> "multi-stakeholoder"
> >>> work is essential for relief and recovery works.
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>____________________________________________________________
> >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >>For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110314/859397a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 15 00:48:34 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:48:34 +0900
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <C9A404E5.1E8AB%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11011E68A8@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it>
 <C9A404E5.1E8AB%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinFCQCjG7nFzMXuFnKUG-wV5DC2S3rHnyzVYavO@mail.gmail.com>

Divina,

Thanks for the care.
As for your question, I assume it's about nuclear power station
possible meltdown. To tell you the truth, the straight answer is
I don't know. Maybe they are covering some facts, maybe not.
In general, there have been severe criticisms in the past
against power company whose nuclear reactor had serious
trouble, yet they tried to hide the truth. So, I don't think they
are trying to hide the truth intentionally. What I see is that
they are very careful in sending the information out, or
reporting even to the Prime ministers office. And yes
that is frustrating and also source of problem per se.

Now the cabinet office is setting up a joint crisis management
center with TEPCO, the power company, to share the operation.
Whether the experts team and politicians team with bureaucrats
work better or worse remains to be seen.

izumi

2011/3/15 Divina MEIGS <divina.meigs at orange.fr>:
> Dear Izumi
>
> Really relieved to hear from you. The news here in France are not good as
> for the sequel tremors to come. And yet we are under the feeling that we are
> not told everything... Is there anything planned to prevent more damage?
> What can be done from here?
>
> Best
> Divina
>
>
> Le 14/03/11 16:20, « Fiorello Cortiana » <f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it> a
> écrit :
>
>>
>> Izumi,
>> I'm waiting for your report to know what kind of help the japanese people
>> really need.
>> Here in Italy Government and nuclear lobby disperately try to minimize what is
>> happened and it's better they are facing the real situation
>>
>>  Fiorello
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 15 01:12:35 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:12:35 +0800
Subject: [governance] Consensus call results on statement to CSTD
 working group
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik1hP=Tw+m2yunbjWH8CXdzOS7V47_s8sBCAg7K@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1300083941.28939.254.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>
	 <AANLkTik1hP=Tw+m2yunbjWH8CXdzOS7V47_s8sBCAg7K@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1300165955.2779.7.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320>

On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 21:17 -0400, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> but thirdly I was a bit miffed this morning when you announced the
> results of a poll that had been stated to be open until 6pm GMT.

Sorry, I did intend to wait until then, but I got the times mixed up!
In fact I only realised when you mentioned it just now.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Consumers for Fair Financial Services
World Consumer Rights Day, 15 March 2011

Join the global consumer movement in demanding access to safe, fair and
competitive markets in financial services for all.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/wcrd2011

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/a5bd6e77/attachment.bin>

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 15 01:51:29 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <136998710-1300149179-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-732891122-@b1.c4.bise7.blackberry>
References: <155297.39306.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com><AANLkTinNZLGww9M-K13yg3PnVWqc7u2g_u6SEKUn_SDm@mail.gmail.com> <136998710-1300149179-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-732891122-@b1.c4.bise7.blackberry>
Message-ID: <889288.28441.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi, 
 
I regard your feeling and comments.
It was not the intention to criticize someone (e.g. source of information or the 
media etc.), 
rather than this, I just expressed my feeling that the situation of the disaster 
level might be worst and higher than the level we know. And with the same level 
of understanding, feeling and fear of the huge disaster, 

we all pray (with the purity and depth of the heart) for the safety of human 
lives which are being hearted by the natural calamity.
 
We not only appreciate the Rescue and Disaster Management activities but also 
highly appreciate the unity, 

discipline and self-motivation to help others which has been the significant 
qualities of the Japanese Nation and 

which we are observing in the videos.
 
Let us know if we can do anything.
 
Best Regards
 
Imran Ahmed Shah
________________________________
From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sent: Tue, 15 March, 2011 5:31:25
Subject: Re: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan

Izumi, since I have been in the government before I totally understand their 
position and I believe they are doing the best. Sometimes look that we could do 
better but outside it is hard to figure out the amount of work they are doing to 
fix thing as such. Let's give them some credit!
Vanda Scartezini from BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:55:58 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Subject: Re: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan

Hi,
The official stats and figures of the scope and degree of damages
are being released only after they are "confirmed". They are trying
to suppress the over-heated speculations that might, they think,
cause panics. In part, I understand this.

Now, the nuclear reactor could have been seriously damaged
and much attention is paid on this matter. The Power company
is not doing the best job so is the government. However, again,
it is very important to keep things "under control" and while we
tend to criticize these, we also need to know that this is quite
an unprecedented event and now one is really prepared to deal.
Of course, in terms of professional risk management, there are
things neglected or were neglected. But now may not be the
time to discuss these.

Most people here in Japan are remaining very calm. If million
of people start to act irrationally, it's no easy to keep order,
Already, there are no butteries you can buy here in Tokyo,
as the power supply will start to stop on rotational basis.
Gasoline supply is also very limited and long que of cars
to the fuel station is commonly seen.

But most of the people's sentiment is - "we have to bear
these difficulties, it's a lot less than those who lost their
lives, houses, family and friends."

best,

izumi

2011/3/15 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
> Dear Izumi,
> How are you? Thank you keeping us update.
> Divina is right, as we have seen the videos, the disaster is very huge 
>comparing to the statistics and figures which are being released step by step, 
>time to time.
>
> Its is good to seek the support through the Facility of ICT.
> Please let us know if we can do something from here, physically or remotely.
>
> Thanks and Best Regards
>
> Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:46 PKT Divina MEIGS wrote:
>
>>Dear Izumi
>>
>>Really relieved to hear from you. The news here in France are not good as
>>for the sequel tremors to come. And yet we are under the feeling that we are
>>not told everything... Is there anything planned to prevent more damage?
>>What can be done from here?
>>
>>Best
>>Divina
>>
>>
>>Le 14/03/11 16:20, « Fiorello Cortiana » <f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it> a
>>écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Izumi,
>>> I'm waiting for your report to know what kind of help the japanese people
>>> really need.
>>> Here in Italy Government and nuclear lobby disperately try to minimize what 
>is
>>> happened and it's better they are facing the real situation
>>>
>>>  Fiorello
>>>
>>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>>> Da: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Per conto di Izumi AIZU
>>> Inviato: lunedì 14 marzo 2011 16.06
>>> A: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Oggetto: Re: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Very encouraged by your warm words, and spurred by the huge damages 
revealed,
>>> we are trying to find out what exactly we can and should do to help those
>>> affected and damaged in the vast North Eastern Japan.
>>>
>>> I went to MIC today, for example, to discuss how to support local 
>governments,
>>> in terms of using the ICT.
>>>
>>> It's too early to report, but I feel like that real "multi-stakeholoder"
>>> work is essential for relief and recovery works.
>>>
>>> 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 
>>>
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing 
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ 
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 
>>
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing 

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/ 

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110314/51a8adb2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr  Tue Mar 15 03:50:39 2011
From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:50:39 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=5BISOC=5D_Candidatures_ouvertes_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=93_Programme_Next_Generation_Leaders_=C2=AB_Fa=C3=A7onne?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?r_l=E2=80=99Internet_=E2=80=93_Histoire_et_Avenir_=C2=BB_=28fra?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?n=C3=A7ais_et_anglais=29?=
In-Reply-To: <4D7E6923.7080301@gmail.com>
References: <4D7E6923.7080301@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481830.55583.qm@web25908.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Hi Ginger, 
Do I disseminate this programme in local contacts here ? 

Regards

 NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président
www.rtcb.bi


Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général
www.bytc.bi
Tel : +257 79 981459




________________________________
De : Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
À : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Envoyé le : Lun 14 mars 2011, 21h 14min 43s
Objet : [governance] [ISOC] Candidatures ouvertes – Programme Next Generation 
Leaders « Façonner l’Internet – Histoire et Avenir » (français et anglais)


[English version to follow]

---------------------------------------------------------
Candidatures ouvertes – Programme Next Generation Leaders
« Façonner l’Internet – Histoire et Avenir »
(français et anglais)
---------------------------------------------------------

Les candidatures sont désormais ouvertes pour le programme Next Generation 
Leaders (NGL) de l'Internet Society  « Façonner l’Internet – Histoire et Avenir 
».

L’Internet Society a le plaisir d’annoncer l’appel à candidatures de personnes 
talentueuses souhaitant se joindre à la prochaine génération de leaders de 
l'Internet qui se penchera sur les défis technologiques, politiques, commerciaux 
et éducatifs qui se profilent.

<http://www.diplomacy.edu/registration-fr/Register.aspx?IDprogramme=f8030668-325d-45d1-938f-bca7c293e9e9>


Suite au lancement réussi du programme l’année dernière, l’Internet Society 
propose en 2011 des cours de formation simultanés en anglais et en français. Les 
deux formations commenceront dans la semaine du 16 mai 2011.

La formation « Façonner l’Internet – Histoire et Avenir » sera assurée par 
DiploFoundation par l’intermédiaire de sa plateforme de formation à distance et 
sa méthodologie d’apprentissage. Elle comprend des discussions hebdomadaires en 
ligne portant sur le matériel pédagogique, animées par un tuteur et un formateur 
expert.

Le programme NGL est destiné à faire évoluer la carrière de personnes dotées 
d’un potentiel de leadership à l'échelle locale, régionale et internationale au 
sein des communautés Internet en matière de technologie, politiques et 
gouvernance. Le programme permet aux participants de partager leur expertise 
avec leurs collègues tout en acquérant des connaissances dans des domaines 
autres que leurs spécialités.

Les places pour la formation à distance étant strictement limitées, toutes les 
candidatures seront donc soumises à un processus de sélection rigoureux.

* La date limite de dépôt des candidatures est le 8 avril 2011. *


Le programme
--------------
Le programme offre 20 à 25 places par cours pour des professionnels issus de 
divers horizons dans les domaines de la technologie, la gouvernance et les 
politiques liées à Internet. Les deux cours de formation sont ouverts aux 
participants du monde entier. Le programme se déroulera entièrement en ligne.

Le programme comprend quatre parties thématiques et s’étendra sur six mois (de 
mai à octobre 2011, avec un examen la première semaine de novembre) :

- Histoire de l’Internet
- Origines techniques – Normes et technologie Internet
- Gouvernance et politiques liées à l’Internet
- Questions émergentes – Étude des politiques, processus et diplomatie de 
l’Internet


Les activités d'apprentissage se dérouleront dans une salle de cours en ligne et 
comporteront l'analyse du matériel pédagogique, des discussions de groupe 
interactives reposant sur plusieurs outils de communication, des devoirs et des 
examens. Les participants qui auront suivi le cours avec succès recevront un 
diplôme de conclusion du programme.


Langues
---------
Le matériel pédagogique et les discussions animées en ligne pour chaque cours de 
formation sont en anglais et français, respectivement.


Public ciblé
--------------
Le projet est destiné aux membres de l’Internet Society issus du monde 
universitaire, du secteur public, des industries technologiques et de la société 
civile, engagés dans l'expansion continue d'un Internet ouvert et durable.

Les candidatures des catégories de personnes suivantes, issues à la fois de pays 
développés et en développement, sont encouragées :

- représentants des ministères et départements gouvernementaux
traitant des questions liées aux TIC (télécommunications,
culture, éducation, affaires étrangères, justice, par exemple) ;
- représentants des autorités ou institutions de réglementation
s’occupant de la société de l’information, de l’Internet et
des questions liées aux TIC ;
- étudiants de troisième cycle et chercheurs (en télécommunications,
génie électrique, droit, économie, développement et sociologie,
par exemple) ;
- ingénieurs dans le domaine de l’Internet ;
- militants de la société civile dans le domaine de l’Internet  ;
- journalistes couvrant les questions liées à l’Internet  ;
- entrepreneurs dans le domaine de l’Internet (fournisseurs d’accès
Internet ou personnes impliquées dans le développement de logiciels,
par exemple).


CALENDRIER
-----------

- 14 mars :    Ouverture de l’appel à candidatures 2011
- 8 avril :    Clôture de l’appel à candidatures 2011
- 28 avril :   Divulgation des résultats de la sélection
- 16 mai :     Début des cours en ligne


Critères de sélection
----------------------

Les candidats doivent :

- avoir l’âge requis (de 20 à 40 ans) ;
- avoir des notions de base en matière de, ou être intéressés
par, les questions liées à l’Internet ;
- disposer de connaissances et d’expérience en approche
multi-parties prenantes en termes d’affaires internationales ;
- avoir une formation académique et/ou une expérience
professionnelle appropriées dans le domaine de l’Internet ;
- être membre de l’ISOC
- maîtriser l’anglais ou le français ;
- avoir de bonnes capacités de rédaction, capacité à résumer
l’information et à se concentrer sur les détails ;
- disposer d’une connexion Internet (haut débit de préférence)
- avoir au moins 8 heures de disponibilité hebdomadaire pendant
chaque partie thématique de la formation en ligne (il s'agit
du critère de sélection le plus important qui doit être évalué
sérieusement par tous les candidats éventuels) ;
- être prêts à participer aux consultations en ligne (une fois
par semaine à des heures précises).


Date limite de dépôt des candidatures
--------------------------------------
La date limite de dépôt des candidatures et le 08 avril 2011 à minuit UTC/GMT.


Comment déposer une candidature
---------------------------------
Pour en savoir plus sur le programme complet Next Generation Leaders (Leaders de 
la prochaine génération), y compris obtenir des détails sur la façon de poser sa 
candidature à l’un des cours de formation à distance, veuillez consulter :

    http://www.internetsociety.org/leaders

Pour toute question, veuillez contacter<leaders at internetsociety.org>.

Le programme Next Generation Leaders (Leaders de la prochaine génération) est 
soutenu par Nominet Trust et est parrainé par la Commission européenne chargée 
de la société de l'information et des médias. Le déroulement du programme de 
formation à distance en français est parrainé par l’AFNIC.

--
_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests&  Subscriptions from the My Account menu.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/e1045212/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 07:09:55 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 06:39:55 -0430
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=5BISOC=5D_Candidatures_ouvertes_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=93_Programme_Next_Generation_Leaders_=C2=AB_Fa=C3=A7onne?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?r_l=E2=80=99Internet_=E2=80=93_Histoire_et_Avenir_=C2=BB_=28fra?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?n=C3=A7ais_et_anglais=29?=
In-Reply-To: <481830.55583.qm@web25908.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <4D7E6923.7080301@gmail.com> <481830.55583.qm@web25908.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4D7F4903.6030601@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/8aa63d29/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 08:27:13 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:27:13 -0300
Subject: [governance] My responses to the Questionnaire Working Group on
 improvements to the IGF
Message-ID: <AANLkTincWKv2HCuFPK0ro9V08N+H7gYfbz4y6i2UqQOx@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please find my contribution attached. Happy to receive comments and
suggestions that can help us prepare for the meeting in geneva next week.
For the sake of transparency and to help WG members coordinate, I have also
asked the Secretariat to upload all contributions they receive on their
website.

Marília


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Questionnaire Working Group on improvements to the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF)
To: cstdwg-igf <cstdwg-igf at unctad.org>
Cc: frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch, hassane.makki at bakom.admin.ch,
thomas.schneider at bakom.admin.ch, Mongi Hamdi <Mongi.Hamdi at unctad.org>


Dear Mr. Frédéric Riehl and Mr. Mongi Hamdi,

Please find attached my contribution to the second questionnaire.
If possible, I would like to suggest that all the contributions are made
available online in a timely manner, so the participants in the working
group are able to know each other's views before the next meeting in Geneva.
That will help us coordinate positions in a more efficient manner.

I take the opportunity to thank you for the work that has been carried out
by the Commission.

Best regards,

Marília Maciel


On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:17 AM, cstdwg-igf <cstdwg-igf at unctad.org> wrote:

> *On behalf of Frédéric Riehl, Chairperson of the Working Group on
> improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (apologies if you have already
> received this email before)*
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
>
> As the Chair of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF), I am pleased to send you a questionnaire drafted by
> the Working Group at their first meeting which was held in Montreux,
> Switzerland on 25 and 26 February .
>
> The Working Group on improvments to the IGF was set up pursuant to
> resolution 2010/2 of the UN Economic and Social Council on the "Assessment
> of the progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes
> of the World Summit on the Information Society". The Working Group was
> tasked to ".. seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all
> other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum, in line
> with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda" and to "make recommendations,
> as appropriate, to the [Commission on Science and Technology for Development
> (CSTD) ] at its fourteenth session in 2011, in a report that would
> constitute an input from the Commission to the General Assembly, through the
> Economic and Social Council, should the mandate of the Internet Governance
> Forum be extended".
>
> In line with its mandate, the Working Group has compiled the attached
> questionnaire to collect the thoughts of all stakeholders on improvements to
> the Internet Governance Forum. I would be grateful if you could send us your
> thoughts, comments and points of view on the themes raised in the
> questionnaire and to submit them in written form by email (
> cstdwg-igf at unctad.org) by *14 March 2011*.
>
> I thank you in advance for taking the time to complete the questionnaire.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Frédéric Riehl
>
> Chairperson of the Working Group in improvments to the Internet Governance
> Forum
> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD)
>



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/e6364fea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSTD_IGF_WG_-_second_questionnaire_-_Marilia_Maciel.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 268261 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/e6364fea/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From baher.esmat at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 12:32:09 2011
From: baher.esmat at gmail.com (Baher Esmat)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:32:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on IGF - Response of Internet
 technical and academic community
Message-ID: <AANLkTint3LWCjNGX4d4_bpqybKSZ+UYFJNK3nBgdGMq1@mail.gmail.com>

All,

Attached you will find the response of the Internet technical and academic
community to the questionnaire drafted at the WG first meeting in Montreux
25-26 Feb 2011.

Best,
Baher
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/bb390ee5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Questionnaire WGIGF Internet tech and academic community 14March2011.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 241777 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/bb390ee5/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 12:53:35 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:53:35 -0300
Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on IGF - Response of Internet
 technical and academic community
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTint3LWCjNGX4d4_bpqybKSZ+UYFJNK3nBgdGMq1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTint3LWCjNGX4d4_bpqybKSZ+UYFJNK3nBgdGMq1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimgz0-8DcEJNPMaEqJCW6r1E5aMXgEag2dpYgJ5@mail.gmail.com>

I am currently writing a post about the upcoming meeting, is your submission
available somewhere online, so I can link it?

Thank you.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Attached you will find the response of the Internet technical and academic
> community to the questionnaire drafted at the WG first meeting in Montreux
> 25-26 Feb 2011.
>
> Best,
> Baher
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/f8b1ef14/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From bommelaer at isoc.org  Tue Mar 15 14:55:13 2011
From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:55:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on IGF - Response of Internet
 technical and academic community
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimgz0-8DcEJNPMaEqJCW6r1E5aMXgEag2dpYgJ5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110315185532.CD9074B349@npogroups.org>

Dear Marilia,

 

The contribution is available here:
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/wsis/docs/wg-igf_20110314.pdf 

 

Best,

Constance 

 

  _____  

From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel
Sent: mardi 15 mars 2011 17:54
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Baher Esmat
Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on IGF - Response of Internet
technical and academic community

 

I am currently writing a post about the upcoming meeting, is your submission
available somewhere online, so I can link it?

Thank you.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at gmail.com> wrote:

All,

 

Attached you will find the response of the Internet technical and academic
community to the questionnaire drafted at the WG first meeting in Montreux
25-26 Feb 2011. 

 

Best,

Baher


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/4229e370/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 15:03:02 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:03:02 -0300
Subject: [governance] CSTD Working Group on IGF - Response of Internet
 technical and academic community
In-Reply-To: <20110315185529.390AD4B25E@npogroups.org>
References: <AANLkTimgz0-8DcEJNPMaEqJCW6r1E5aMXgEag2dpYgJ5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110315185529.390AD4B25E@npogroups.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinMQdvfKCDL9MHGXi1VZMw+bu=UUjx9kjGA=qiW@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you very much!

Marília

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer at isoc.org>wrote:

>  Dear Marilia,
>
>
>
> The contribution is available here:
> http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/wsis/docs/wg-igf_20110314.pdf
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Constance
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] *On Behalf Of *Marilia Maciel
>
> *Sent:* mardi 15 mars 2011 17:54
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Baher Esmat
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] CSTD Working Group on IGF - Response of
> Internet technical and academic community
>
>
>
> I am currently writing a post about the upcoming meeting, is your
> submission available somewhere online, so I can link it?
>
> Thank you.
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Attached you will find the response of the Internet technical and academic
> community to the questionnaire drafted at the WG first meeting in Montreux
> 25-26 Feb 2011.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Baher
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/347d0b88/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 15:11:55 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:55 -0300
Subject: [governance] Call for EuroDIG hub registration (please help
 disseminate)
Message-ID: <AANLkTikkcge=C36AwPLjgkV9zYgoZ_Yr0HonhBOcvh5P@mail.gmail.com>

(Sorry for any cross-posting)


Dear colleagues,


The Pan-*European dialogue on Internet governance (EuroDIG) **will take
place on 30-31 May in Belgrade, Serbia. *

* *

*The programme of the meeting is available
here<http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2011/programme>,
and will discuss issues such as privacy and anonymity, freedom of speech,
digital literacy and emerging internet services and bisiness
models<http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2011/programme/plenary/new-services>
**, **to name just a few.*

* *

Several factors may hamper physical attendance to the EuroDIG, such as
professional commitments and travel costs. *But staying in* *your home city
does not mean that it is not possible to follow the debates. There will be
interactive channels for e-participation. *You can follow the discussions
from home, watching the webcast of the event and* *participating in chat.
But it is also possible to organize *EuroDig hubs*.



*What are the Hubs?*

The hubs are local meetings that take place in parallel with the main
meeting. People can watch the webcast together and send questions (text or
video) that will be answered by panelists in EuroDIG. In addition, hub
organizers can hold debates to discuss the themes introduced at the Eurodig,
but from a local perspective. There are several advantages in creating a
hub: it helps to raise awareness about Internet Governance issues, it
fosters networking among participants and community building and it
encourages follow-up activities.

*To learn more **about the hubs and to** register a hub**, please visit:**
http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2011/information/remote-participation*

* *

*
*

*If you have any questions, please contact:*

* *

*Marília Maciel: *mmaciel at eurodig.org

*Bernard Sadaka: *bsadaka at eurodig.org


Best regards,
Marília Maciel

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/4b681d89/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 17:05:25 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:05:25 -0300
Subject: [governance] WIPO director general on future of copyright in a
 digital arena
In-Reply-To: <4D7ECDC0.2000709@itforchange.net>
References: <4D7ECDC0.2000709@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgD3qAYHcbfOKzqu0f7jWcgbpeW=WXJvYH1Gs2@mail.gmail.com>

It is a very interesting text. WIPO tries to modernize its discourse but
dangerous policies end up being supported by it. The paragraph about
internet intermediaries is illustrative.



In addition, the discourse of the bureaucracy is not necessarily the
dominant path of action that the organization will follow. It all depends on
the correlation of interests among members of the organization, and right
now the discussions (particularly regarding copyright) are far from
reflecting a balance of interests. The blocking on the discussions about a
treaty that would allow the adaptation of works for the blind and the
cross-border flow of these works is a clear example.



About that, the interview with former member of the European Parliament,
David Hammerstein, is worth reading: http://www.keionline.org/node/1087



On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  see http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/speeches/dg_blueskyconf_11.html
>
> Important issue for us, and for the IGF.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/0dca5b41/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Mar 15 17:47:24 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:47:24 +0100
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinNZLGww9M-K13yg3PnVWqc7u2g_u6SEKUn_SDm@mail.gmail.c
 om>
References: <155297.39306.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTinNZLGww9M-K13yg3PnVWqc7u2g_u6SEKUn_SDm@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110315223639.05de44f8@jefsey.com>

At 00:55 15/03/2011, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>Hi,
>The official stats and figures of the scope and degree of damages
>are being released only after they are "confirmed". They are trying
>to suppress the over-heated speculations that might, they think,
>cause panics. In part, I understand this.
>
>Now, the nuclear reactor could have been seriously damaged
>and much attention is paid on this matter. The Power company
>is not doing the best job so is the government. However, again,
>it is very important to keep things "under control" and while we
>tend to criticize these, we also need to know that this is quite
>an unprecedented event and now one is really prepared to deal.
>Of course, in terms of professional risk management, there are
>things neglected or were neglected. But now may not be the
>time to discuss these.
>
>Most people here in Japan are remaining very calm. If million
>of people start to act irrationally, it's no easy to keep order,
>Already, there are no butteries you can buy here in Tokyo,
>as the power supply will start to stop on rotational basis.
>Gasoline supply is also very limited and long que of cars
>to the fuel station is commonly seen.
>
>But most of the people's sentiment is - "we have to bear
>these difficulties, it's a lot less than those who lost their
>lives, houses, family and friends."
>
>best,
>
>izumi

Please know that the world is impressed by the Japanese people 
attitude. We understand you feel you are under-informed, but a panic 
is so quickly started and the Internet is here. Also, there is no 
criticism of the Power company, but a great attention to what they do 
because the entire world learns about the issue at the same time.  We 
are in France particularly concerned since 90% of our electrical 
power comes from atomic plants. We also are very impressed by the way 
large buildings resisted to an 9 earthquake and by the strength of 
the Tsunami. The entire world feels concerned and the believers pray 
for you folks. And obviously everyone fears about new possible quakes.
Be sure that you, Japanese, have all our respect and admiration as 
well as our sorrows.
jfc



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 17:48:19 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:18:19 -0430
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
Message-ID: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/c2578a84/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu  Tue Mar 15 17:57:33 2011
From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:57:33 +0000
Subject: [governance] WIPO director general on future of copyright in a
 digital arena
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikgD3qAYHcbfOKzqu0f7jWcgbpeW=WXJvYH1Gs2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <GEsUMfV7.1300226253.5910990.y.morenets@againstcybercrime.eu>

Thank you Marilia,

Yuliya

Le 15/3/2011, "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> a écrit:

>It is a very interesting text. WIPO tries to modernize its discourse but
>dangerous policies end up being supported by it. The paragraph about
>internet intermediaries is illustrative.
>
>
>
>In addition, the discourse of the bureaucracy is not necessarily the
>dominant path of action that the organization will follow. It all depends on
>the correlation of interests among members of the organization, and right
>now the discussions (particularly regarding copyright) are far from
>reflecting a balance of interests. The blocking on the discussions about a
>treaty that would allow the adaptation of works for the blind and the
>cross-border flow of these works is a clear example.
>
>
>
>About that, the interview with former member of the European Parliament,
>David Hammerstein, is worth reading: http://www.keionline.org/node/1087
>
>
>
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>  see http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/speeches/dg_blueskyconf_11.html
>>
>> Important issue for us, and for the IGF.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>FGV Direito Rio
>
>Center for Technology and Society
>Getulio Vargas Foundation
>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From hindenburgo at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 18:42:11 2011
From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:42:11 -0300
Subject: [governance] US Military blocks access to popular video websites
Message-ID: <AANLkTinFR3XHuTjbcCU=XuG1YW6rCdFCi7VW=+qFTXZP@mail.gmail.com>

Read  the Associated Press 'news "Military blocks access to popular video
websites":
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/TECHNOLOGY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME

-- 
Hindenburgo Francisco Pires
Professor Adjunto do Instituto de Geografia
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ
http://www.cibergeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/99bd1363/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From hindenburgo at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 19:06:19 2011
From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:06:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: US Military blocks access to popular video
 websites
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinFR3XHuTjbcCU=XuG1YW6rCdFCi7VW=+qFTXZP@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinFR3XHuTjbcCU=XuG1YW6rCdFCi7VW=+qFTXZP@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=pQL3KTAO=rzbuZNTY6TYCk9j3_hrL39DGWchb@mail.gmail.com>

Read  the Associated Press 'news "Military blocks access to popular video
websites":

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PENTAGON_WEBSITES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hindenburgo Pires <hindenburgo at gmail.com>
Date: 2011/3/15
Subject: US Military blocks access to popular video websites
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org



Read  the Associated Press 'news "Military blocks access to popular video
websites":
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/TECHNOLOGY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME

-- 
Hindenburgo Francisco Pires
Professor Adjunto do Instituto de Geografia
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ
http://www.cibergeo.org




-- 
Hindenburgo Francisco Pires
Professor Adjunto do Instituto de Geografia
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ
http://www.cibergeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110316/f4f82231/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 15 22:05:25 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:05:25 +0900
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110315223639.05de44f8@jefsey.com>
References: <155297.39306.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinNZLGww9M-K13yg3PnVWqc7u2g_u6SEKUn_SDm@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110315223639.05de44f8@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimSn_z2DPSkj5tmY+VrXOx6XE-5F3CNwNZioa8m@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks all who are supporting us.

There have been some media coverage how people outside
Japan are concerned, supporting, and encouraging us.

There are healthy criticisms also inside and outside Japan about
the way the government, ruling party, power company and others
in charge are handling the situation. I think most of them are valid.

My gut feel however, at least inside Japan, is that we better do something
we can do before making noise about others. I have a lot to say about
"them", yes, but that is of second priority for me.

There are people, especially those who are hit directly by the earthquake,
Tsunami, and also nuclear station failure, who are seriously affected.
There are people like us, had minor trouble, being exposed to unknown
social instability, power shortage, food and gas supply problems, etc.
There are a lot of people now working to provide relief and reconstruction
works. And also people trying to contribute to help and relief works.

I am trying to figure out how best I can do. So far, I am trying to organize
a small group of people, to make some informal coordination around
ICT related areas. I am also starting to think, given much support from
friends here and elsewhere from outside Japan, to share the relevant
information to the international community, so that we all can sync,
informal, but effective ways.

Any advice and suggestions are much appreciated.

izumi


2011/3/16 JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>:
> At 00:55 15/03/2011, Izumi AIZU wrote:

>
> Please know that the world is impressed by the Japanese people attitude. We
> understand you feel you are under-informed, but a panic is so quickly
> started and the Internet is here. Also, there is no criticism of the Power
> company, but a great attention to what they do because the entire world
> learns about the issue at the same time.  We are in France particularly
> concerned since 90% of our electrical power comes from atomic plants. We
> also are very impressed by the way large buildings resisted to an 9
> earthquake and by the strength of the Tsunami. The entire world feels
> concerned and the believers pray for you folks. And obviously everyone fears
> about new possible quakes.
> Be sure that you, Japanese, have all our respect and admiration as well as
> our sorrows.
> jfc
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From nhklein at gmx.net  Tue Mar 15 22:33:22 2011
From: nhklein at gmx.net (nhklein)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:33:22 +0700
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimSn_z2DPSkj5tmY+VrXOx6XE-5F3CNwNZioa8m@mail.gmail.com>
References: <155297.39306.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinNZLGww9M-K13yg3PnVWqc7u2g_u6SEKUn_SDm@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110315223639.05de44f8@jefsey.com> <AANLkTimSn_z2DPSkj5tmY+VrXOx6XE-5F3CNwNZioa8m@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D802172.6030802@gmx.net>

On 03/16/2011 09:05 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Thanks all who are supporting us.
>
> There have been some media coverage how people outside
> Japan are concerned, supporting, and encouraging us.
>
> There are healthy criticisms also inside and outside Japan about
> the way the government, ruling party, power company and others
> in charge are handling the situation. I think most of them are valid.
>
> My gut feel however, at least inside Japan, is that we better do something
> we can do before making noise about others. I have a lot to say about
> "them", yes, but that is of second priority for me.
>
> There are people, especially those who are hit directly by the earthquake,
> Tsunami, and also nuclear station failure, who are seriously affected.
> There are people like us, had minor trouble, being exposed to unknown
> social instability, power shortage, food and gas supply problems, etc.
> There are a lot of people now working to provide relief and reconstruction
> works. And also people trying to contribute to help and relief works.
>
> I am trying to figure out how best I can do. So far, I am trying to organize
> a small group of people, to make some informal coordination around
> ICT related areas. I am also starting to think, given much support from
> friends here and elsewhere from outside Japan, to share the relevant
> information to the international community, so that we all can sync,
> informal, but effective ways.
>
> Any advice and suggestions are much appreciated.
>
> izumi

Dear Izumi,

we are all so much surprised by the power of nature - but I want to add: 
surprised also by the calm and orderly responses of people (as far as we 
can know through personal reports and the media) in spite of the total 
disruption of infrastructure in the affected areas.

As for your question on suggestions - after the end of Second World War 
and being a refugee in Germany, expelled from Yugoslavia - for several 
years our family (mother and children) were separated from my father, 
until a Red Cross database (on paper - no ICT yet) was able to establish 
contact again.

I am sure there are tremendous immediate needs to be met first - but it 
will be an evenly tremendous task to locate people (alive, and perished 
in the earthquake and tsunami). Maybe that is not only a task "for the 
authorities" but also something where Internet activists can create 
networked networks? Was it not also done after the Kobe earthquake?


Norbert

-- 
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit
The Mirror: regular reports and comments from Cambodia.


The last Sunday Mirror:
Technical Policy Ministry Staff Challenges Higher Authorities
Sunday, 6.3.2011

You can read it at this address:
http://tinyurl.com/4otgrtj


There is something new from time to time - at least every weekend.

http://www.cambodiamirror.org

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de  Tue Mar 15 23:51:45 2011
From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:51:45 +0100
Subject: AW: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimSn_z2DPSkj5tmY+VrXOx6XE-5F3CNwNZioa8m@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2501B4904B0F47AFB1FA041D50F49018@philipafdca855>

Dear Izumi,
I join Norbert's words: all our thoughts and heart are with the Japanese
people, who have impressed us with their countenance, humanity and courage.
Words seem inadequate to express my condolences and sadness.
Since you asked for suggestions I allow myself to write a few random ideas:
- a crowd map where supermarkets/suppliers can announce what they have in
stock (and where) and what they've run out of. 
- an "exchange market-place" where people can exchange things off and list
the things they are in need (may be of help for volunteers)
- a general site where all hospitals can register the names/pictures of the
victims (most probably already existent)
- for people with handicaps or too old to understand the internet: a site
where they can place a message voice/ video

Warm regards,
Lorena


________________________________________________
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
Research Assistant
Department of Political Theory
Geschwister-Scholl-Institut 
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München 
Oettingenstraße 67
80538 Munich
Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. März 2011 03:05
An: Governance List
Betreff: Re: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan

Thanks all who are supporting us.

There have been some media coverage how people outside
Japan are concerned, supporting, and encouraging us.

There are healthy criticisms also inside and outside Japan about
the way the government, ruling party, power company and others
in charge are handling the situation. I think most of them are valid.

My gut feel however, at least inside Japan, is that we better do something
we can do before making noise about others. I have a lot to say about
"them", yes, but that is of second priority for me.

There are people, especially those who are hit directly by the earthquake,
Tsunami, and also nuclear station failure, who are seriously affected.
There are people like us, had minor trouble, being exposed to unknown
social instability, power shortage, food and gas supply problems, etc.
There are a lot of people now working to provide relief and reconstruction
works. And also people trying to contribute to help and relief works.

I am trying to figure out how best I can do. So far, I am trying to organize
a small group of people, to make some informal coordination around
ICT related areas. I am also starting to think, given much support from
friends here and elsewhere from outside Japan, to share the relevant
information to the international community, so that we all can sync,
informal, but effective ways.

Any advice and suggestions are much appreciated.

izumi


2011/3/16 JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>:
> At 00:55 15/03/2011, Izumi AIZU wrote:

>
> Please know that the world is impressed by the Japanese people attitude.
We
> understand you feel you are under-informed, but a panic is so quickly
> started and the Internet is here. Also, there is no criticism of the Power
> company, but a great attention to what they do because the entire world
> learns about the issue at the same time.  We are in France particularly
> concerned since 90% of our electrical power comes from atomic plants. We
> also are very impressed by the way large buildings resisted to an 9
> earthquake and by the strength of the Tsunami. The entire world feels
> concerned and the believers pray for you folks. And obviously everyone
fears
> about new possible quakes.
> Be sure that you, Japanese, have all our respect and admiration as well as
> our sorrows.
> jfc
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 16 00:48:06 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AW: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <2501B4904B0F47AFB1FA041D50F49018@philipafdca855>
References: <2501B4904B0F47AFB1FA041D50F49018@philipafdca855>
Message-ID: <855470.70469.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi, How are you?
 
Thank you for asking suggestions. Also agree with the ideas of Norbert and 
Lorena for the utilization of ICT for the disaster affected communities.
 
I would also propose the utilization of UShahidi application 
(http://ushahidi.com/) to establishment the portal for this purpose and to 
collection the critical information where the immediate attention is required. 
In this application, the basic input is through mobile phone text or MMS 
messages as well as the GPS position. The same application was used for the 
survival activities in Haiti Earthquake.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/01/how-mapping-sms-platforms-saved-lives-in-haiti-earthquake011.html

 
The rescue teams (either from the authorities or social and civil groups of 
volunteers), may have access to the portal where the messages are being reported 
along with the criticality indications to approach and to provide the remedy or 
support.
 
Function:
On receiving of SMS, the mechanism plot a circle or dot on the map according to 
the GPS Position and store the information into database according to the 
categories defined. People can submit their views and comments as a thread 
discussion.
 
Utilization:
People of the country may trigger alert, critical information, incident reports, 
mentioning that where and what is needed.
For example, if there is a crack in the road, someone can take the picture of it 
and send to a pre-announced mobile number along with the GPS Position, location 
and are zip code etc to the portal. It will display on the webpage. The Road 
Construction services may be triggered to focus the critical needs of repair 
etc. 

 
Similarly it can be used to report shortfall of the drinking water, milk, food, 
first-aid requirement, rescue services, to report to demolish a badly shocked 
building of construction which may be dangerous. 

 
It is also a good idea about taking the pictures of the victims, missing 
persons, children and old age people (and uploading on the same portal).

Note: This access to some categories of information may be restricted among the 
rescue teams only or to limit the access within the country, if there are some 
reservation arises.
 
 Thanks & Regards
 
Imran Ahmed Shah

________________________________
From: Lorena Jaume-Palasi <Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sent: Wed, 16 March, 2011 8:51:45
Subject: AW: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan

Dear Izumi,
I join Norbert's words: all our thoughts and heart are with the Japanese
people, who have impressed us with their countenance, humanity and courage.
Words seem inadequate to express my condolences and sadness.
Since you asked for suggestions I allow myself to write a few random ideas:
- a crowd map where supermarkets/suppliers can announce what they have in
stock (and where) and what they've run out of. 
- an "exchange market-place" where people can exchange things off and list
the things they are in need (may be of help for volunteers)
- a general site where all hospitals can register the names/pictures of the
victims (most probably already existent)
- for people with handicaps or too old to understand the internet: a site
where they can place a message voice/ video

Warm regards,
Lorena


________________________________________________
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A.
Research Assistant
Department of Political Theory
Geschwister-Scholl-Institut 
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München 
Oettingenstraße 67
80538 Munich
Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 90 20
Fax: +49 (0)89 2180 90 22


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. März 2011 03:05
An: Governance List
Betreff: Re: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan

Thanks all who are supporting us.

There have been some media coverage how people outside
Japan are concerned, supporting, and encouraging us.

There are healthy criticisms also inside and outside Japan about
the way the government, ruling party, power company and others
in charge are handling the situation. I think most of them are valid.

My gut feel however, at least inside Japan, is that we better do something
we can do before making noise about others. I have a lot to say about
"them", yes, but that is of second priority for me.

There are people, especially those who are hit directly by the earthquake,
Tsunami, and also nuclear station failure, who are seriously affected.
There are people like us, had minor trouble, being exposed to unknown
social instability, power shortage, food and gas supply problems, etc.
There are a lot of people now working to provide relief and reconstruction
works. And also people trying to contribute to help and relief works.

I am trying to figure out how best I can do. So far, I am trying to organize
a small group of people, to make some informal coordination around
ICT related areas. I am also starting to think, given much support from
friends here and elsewhere from outside Japan, to share the relevant
information to the international community, so that we all can sync,
informal, but effective ways.

Any advice and suggestions are much appreciated.

izumi


2011/3/16 JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>:
> At 00:55 15/03/2011, Izumi AIZU wrote:

>
> Please know that the world is impressed by the Japanese people attitude.
We
> understand you feel you are under-informed, but a panic is so quickly
> started and the Internet is here. Also, there is no criticism of the Power
> company, but a great attention to what they do because the entire world
> learns about the issue at the same time.  We are in France particularly
> concerned since 90% of our electrical power comes from atomic plants. We
> also are very impressed by the way large buildings resisted to an 9
> earthquake and by the strength of the Tsunami. The entire world feels
> concerned and the believers pray for you folks. And obviously everyone
fears
> about new possible quakes.
> Be sure that you, Japanese, have all our respect and admiration as well as
> our sorrows.
> jfc
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110315/b35acff7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Mar 16 01:48:27 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:48:27 +0300
Subject: AW: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <855470.70469.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <2501B4904B0F47AFB1FA041D50F49018@philipafdca855> <855470.70469.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikkUJM+6Pp7KEmgC16i=v_P2auL42kvXRUMTq1G@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  Dear Izumi, How are you?
>
>
>
> Thank you for asking suggestions. Also agree with the ideas of Norbert and
> Lorena for the utilization of ICT for the disaster affected communities.
>
>
>
> I would also propose the utilization of UShahidi application (
> http://ushahidi.com/)
>


a ushahidi instance was up 2 hours after the quake.

http://www.sinsai.info/ushahidi/


Also Google people finder is proving useful.

http://japan.person-finder.appspot.com/?lang=en

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110316/aa177eef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk  Wed Mar 16 05:39:13 2011
From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:39:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>

Meanwhile, this "net neutrality summit" which it is feared will give rise to a 2 speed internet is happening in the UK today.... watch this space.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net-neutrality

Lisa

From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque
Sent: 15 March 2011 21:48
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in different shapes and forms?

From Wired.com:
Developers are accusing Apple of intentionally slowing down web apps that run on iPhones and iPads in order to make apps from the Apple's popular app store more appealing, according to a report from The Register<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/15/apple_ios_throttles_web_apps_on_home_screen/>.


http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/app-store-html5-slowdown/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
--


Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IGCBP Coordinator
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu/ig<http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110316/68ef8db5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 16 06:39:06 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:39:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
Message-ID: <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F at SERVER01.globalpartners.local
 >, at 09:39:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Lisa Horner 
<LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> writes
>Meanwhile, this ?net neutrality summit? which it is feared will give 
>rise to a 2 speed internet is happening in the UK today.... watch this 
>space.
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net
>-neutrality

There is already a 2 speed Internet.

Pay $10 a month and get one speed, pay $50 a month and get a higher one.

What people want is the $50 Internet for $10, and for everyone in the 
country to be able to watch a High Definition[3] TV programme at once.

[1] About three megabits per second.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Mar 16 08:19:03 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:19:03 +0100
Subject: R: [governance] 8.9 earthquake in Japan
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimSn_z2DPSkj5tmY+VrXOx6XE-5F3CNwNZioa8m@mail.gmail.c
 om>
References: <155297.39306.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTinNZLGww9M-K13yg3PnVWqc7u2g_u6SEKUn_SDm@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110315223639.05de44f8@jefsey.com>
 <AANLkTimSn_z2DPSkj5tmY+VrXOx6XE-5F3CNwNZioa8m@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110316131435.0b9091b0@jefsey.com>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mitchfleming/5530645285/in/photostream/#/photos/mitchfleming/5530645285/in/photostream/lightbox/
Might be a powerful image to use, may be in changing the text with 
something more positive for the future.
It reminds Takashi Nagai in Nagasaki.
jfc

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar 16 09:08:54 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:38:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 16 March 2011 04:09 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message 
> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F at SERVER01.globalpartners.local
> >, at 09:39:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Lisa Horner 
> <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> writes
>> Meanwhile, this ?net neutrality summit? which it is feared will give 
>> rise to a 2 speed internet is happening in the UK today.... watch 
>> this space.
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net
>> -neutrality
>
> There is already a 2 speed Internet.
>
> Pay $10 a month and get one speed, pay $50 a month and get a higher one.

Roland, why dont you just accept, and not keep confusing people, that 
there is big structural difference between differing speeds as per what 
content user pays, and differing speeds as per what content provider 
pays, and the Net neutrality issue deals with the second issue alone. 
You dont have to agree with the NN guys on what is right and what is 
wrong, but why keep muddying established definitions.
>
> What people want is the $50 Internet for $10, and for everyone in the 
> country to be able to watch a High Definition[3] TV programme at once.

No, that is not at all what NN advoactes want, and you know that. This 
is now gone to the levels of outright misguiding propoganda.

Parminder


>
> [1] About three megabits per second.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110316/621a99e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Mar 16 10:50:03 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:50:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>,<4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994CD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

On a related note....we (we = Lee with assistance of SU iSchool grad student Wyan Smith)  are  preparing a chapter on 'Open Internet and Network Neutrality.' 

For a forthcoming online bibliographic reference work from Oxford University Press.

The chapter is to include/annotate up to 150 references on the topic(s).

Now the request of fellow igcers (and lurkers): 

If you happen to have some favorite 'net neutrality' and/or 'open Internet' references, please forward to Wyan at: wysmith at syr.edu.  Only reward I can offer for your possible good deed is..a possible mention of your name in acknowledgments.

thanks,

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:08 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in different shapes and forms?

On Wednesday 16 March 2011 04:09 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F at SERVER01.globalpartners.local<mailto:16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F at SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
>, at 09:39:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Lisa Horner <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk><mailto:LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> writes
Meanwhile, this ?net neutrality summit? which it is feared will give rise to a 2 speed internet is happening in the UK today.... watch this space.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net
-neutrality

There is already a 2 speed Internet.

Pay $10 a month and get one speed, pay $50 a month and get a higher one.

Roland, why dont you just accept, and not keep confusing people, that there is big structural difference between differing speeds as per what content user pays, and differing speeds as per what content provider pays, and the Net neutrality issue deals with the second issue alone. You dont have to agree with the NN guys on what is right and what is wrong, but why keep muddying established definitions.

What people want is the $50 Internet for $10, and for everyone in the country to be able to watch a High Definition[3] TV programme at once.

No, that is not at all what NN advoactes want, and you know that. This is now gone to the levels of outright misguiding propoganda.

Parminder



[1] About three megabits per second.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Wed Mar 16 11:26:20 2011
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:26:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] WIPO director general on future of copyright in a
 digital arena
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikgD3qAYHcbfOKzqu0f7jWcgbpeW=WXJvYH1Gs2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D7ECDC0.2000709@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikgD3qAYHcbfOKzqu0f7jWcgbpeW=WXJvYH1Gs2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinVxT2a-wYx7KCRJEAoLvddt=CQ0tbfez21yT+9@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marilia,

I agree with you.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN)
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net



2011/3/15 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>

> It is a very interesting text. WIPO tries to modernize its discourse but
> dangerous policies end up being supported by it. The paragraph about
> internet intermediaries is illustrative.
>
>
>
> In addition, the discourse of the bureaucracy is not necessarily the
> dominant path of action that the organization will follow. It all depends on
> the correlation of interests among members of the organization, and right
> now the discussions (particularly regarding copyright) are far from
> reflecting a balance of interests. The blocking on the discussions about a
> treaty that would allow the adaptation of works for the blind and the
> cross-border flow of these works is a clear example.
>
>
>
> About that, the interview with former member of the European Parliament,
> David Hammerstein, is worth reading: http://www.keionline.org/node/1087
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>  see
>> http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/speeches/dg_blueskyconf_11.html
>>
>> Important issue for us, and for the IGF.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110316/17a30d0d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 16 12:02:42 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:42 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>

In message <4D80B666.4070403 at itforchange.net>, at 18:38:54 on Wed, 16
Mar 2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>
>
>On Wednesday 16 March 2011 04:09 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>  In message <
>  16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F at SERVER01.globalpartners.local
>  >, at 09:39:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Lisa Horner
>  <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> writes
>
>>    Meanwhile, this ?net neutrality summit? which it is feared will
>>    give rise to a 2 speed internet is happening in the UK today....
>>    watch this space.
>
>>    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net
>>    -neutrality
>  There is already a 2 speed Internet.
>  Pay $10 a month and get one speed, pay $50 a month and get a higher
>  one.
>
>Roland, why dont you just accept, and not keep confusing people, that
>there is big structural difference between differing speeds as per what
>content user pays, and differing speeds as per what content provider
>pays, and the Net neutrality issue deals with the second issue alone.

Unfortunately, that might be what *you* think NN means, and for all I
know it's the standard meaning in your country. It's absolutely not what
they mean when the UK press writes about it. (Think about it - the
biggest issue is restricting P2P and NNTP downloads of pirate movies,
what "content provider" is there who would pay the networks to remove
that restriction?)

>You dont have to agree with the NN guys on what is right and what is
>wrong, but why keep muddying established definitions.

I would be very happy if there were differing words for the various
differing "meanings". Unfortunately, there are many different concepts
which are all given the same name (NN). What I'm trying to do here is
*agree* that there is this confusion, and that the outcome of so-called
"Network Neutrality" debate in the UK is irrelevant to much of the rest
of the world, because it's a different thing that's being debated.

>  What people want is the $50 Internet for $10, and for everyone in
>  the country to be able to watch a High Definition[3] TV programme at
>  once.
>No, that is not at all what NN advoactes want, and you know that.

But it's what the UK NN advocates want, it was a UK-based discussion
that was linked to.

Here's what I posted in another forum about NN, a few days ago, hope it
helps clarify things:

<quote>

Net Neutrality means different things to different people.

Here in the UK it's about throttling bandwidth hogs like P2P and iPlayer
  in the busy hours.

In developing countries it's about Megabytes per dollar being the same
  on fixed and mobile networks (fat chance of that in developed
  countries either).

In some jurisdictions it's about blocking VoIP (but that tends to be an
  incumbent nationalised telco protecting PSTN revenue and the ability
  to wiretap the calls, not bandwidth).

In the USA it means throttling specific sites which don't pay you to
  deliver their bandwidth-hogging content. (Although to some extent
  that's also the iPlayer issue in UK). And a suspicion that as the big
  ISPs are owned by telcos, they might start blocking VoIP as well.

[Although Skype video is an example of a site where the final two of the
above can get a bit entangled].

</quote>
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ivarhartmann at gmail.com  Wed Mar 16 13:51:13 2011
From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:51:13 -0300
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
 <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>

Roland,
if there are different definitions used by different groups of people,
wouldn't you want to use the definition Parminder referred to when you're
communicating with the audience in this list? I don't believe we're all from
the UK here, or are we?
Ivar


On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 13:02, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com
> wrote:

> In message <4D80B666.4070403 at itforchange.net>, at 18:38:54 on Wed, 16
> Mar 2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
> >
> >
> >On Wednesday 16 March 2011 04:09 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> >  In message <
> >  16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F at SERVER01.globalpartners.local
> >  >, at 09:39:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Lisa Horner
> >  <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> writes
> >
> >>    Meanwhile, this ?net neutrality summit? which it is feared will
> >>    give rise to a 2 speed internet is happening in the UK today....
> >>    watch this space.
> >
> >>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net
> >>    -neutrality
> >  There is already a 2 speed Internet.
> >  Pay $10 a month and get one speed, pay $50 a month and get a higher
> >  one.
> >
> >Roland, why dont you just accept, and not keep confusing people, that
> >there is big structural difference between differing speeds as per what
> >content user pays, and differing speeds as per what content provider
> >pays, and the Net neutrality issue deals with the second issue alone.
>
> Unfortunately, that might be what *you* think NN means, and for all I
> know it's the standard meaning in your country. It's absolutely not what
> they mean when the UK press writes about it. (Think about it - the
> biggest issue is restricting P2P and NNTP downloads of pirate movies,
> what "content provider" is there who would pay the networks to remove
> that restriction?)
>
> >You dont have to agree with the NN guys on what is right and what is
> >wrong, but why keep muddying established definitions.
>
> I would be very happy if there were differing words for the various
> differing "meanings". Unfortunately, there are many different concepts
> which are all given the same name (NN). What I'm trying to do here is
> *agree* that there is this confusion, and that the outcome of so-called
> "Network Neutrality" debate in the UK is irrelevant to much of the rest
> of the world, because it's a different thing that's being debated.
>
> >  What people want is the $50 Internet for $10, and for everyone in
> >  the country to be able to watch a High Definition[3] TV programme at
> >  once.
> >No, that is not at all what NN advoactes want, and you know that.
>
> But it's what the UK NN advocates want, it was a UK-based discussion
> that was linked to.
>
> Here's what I posted in another forum about NN, a few days ago, hope it
> helps clarify things:
>
> <quote>
>
> Net Neutrality means different things to different people.
>
> Here in the UK it's about throttling bandwidth hogs like P2P and iPlayer
>  in the busy hours.
>
> In developing countries it's about Megabytes per dollar being the same
>  on fixed and mobile networks (fat chance of that in developed
>  countries either).
>
> In some jurisdictions it's about blocking VoIP (but that tends to be an
>  incumbent nationalised telco protecting PSTN revenue and the ability
>  to wiretap the calls, not bandwidth).
>
> In the USA it means throttling specific sites which don't pay you to
>  deliver their bandwidth-hogging content. (Although to some extent
>  that's also the iPlayer issue in UK). And a suspicion that as the big
>  ISPs are owned by telcos, they might start blocking VoIP as well.
>
> [Although Skype video is an example of a site where the final two of the
> above can get a bit entangled].
>
> </quote>
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110316/fb38b2a2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 16 15:07:20 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:07:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF at mail.gmail.com>, at 
14:51:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann 
<ivarhartmann at gmail.com> writes
>Roland,
>if there are different definitions used by different groups of people,
>wouldn't you want to use the definition Parminder referred to when
>you're communicating with the audience in this list?

Even if the UK authorities allow the ISPs to be non-Neutral, that's of 
little relevance to Parminder's issues because "neutrality" has a 
different context.

>I don't believe we're all from the UK here, or are we?

Nor are we all from Parminder's part of the world, with the issues he's 
concerned about.

So I think we are in fierce agreement.

Roland.

>On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 13:02, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>  In message <4D80B666.4070403 at itforchange.net>, at 18:38:54 on Wed,
>  16
>  Mar 2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>  >
>  >
>  >On Wednesday 16 March 2011 04:09 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>  >  In message <
>  >  
>  16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F at SERVER01.globalpartners.local
>  >  >, at 09:39:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Lisa Horner
>  >  <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> writes
>  >
>  >>    Meanwhile, this ?net neutrality summit? which it is feared will
>  >>    give rise to a 2 speed internet is happening in the UK
>  today....
>  >>    watch this space.
>  >
>  >>    
>  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net
>  >>    -neutrality
>  >  There is already a 2 speed Internet.
>  >  Pay $10 a month and get one speed, pay $50 a month and get a
>  higher
>  >  one.
>  >
>  >Roland, why dont you just accept, and not keep confusing people,
>  that
>  >there is big structural difference between differing speeds as per
>  what
>  >content user pays, and differing speeds as per what content
>  provider
>  >pays, and the Net neutrality issue deals with the second issue
>  alone.
>
>  Unfortunately, that might be what *you* think NN means, and for all
>  I
>  know it's the standard meaning in your country. It's absolutely not
>  what
>  they mean when the UK press writes about it. (Think about it - the
>  biggest issue is restricting P2P and NNTP downloads of pirate
>  movies,
>  what "content provider" is there who would pay the networks to
>  remove
>  that restriction?)
>
>  >You dont have to agree with the NN guys on what is right and what
>  is
>  >wrong, but why keep muddying established definitions.
>
>  I would be very happy if there were differing words for the various
>  differing "meanings". Unfortunately, there are many different
>  concepts
>  which are all given the same name (NN). What I'm trying to do here
>  is
>  *agree* that there is this confusion, and that the outcome of
>  so-called
>  "Network Neutrality" debate in the UK is irrelevant to much of the
>  rest
>  of the world, because it's a different thing that's being debated.
>
>  >  What people want is the $50 Internet for $10, and for everyone in
>  >  the country to be able to watch a High Definition[3] TV programme
>  at
>  >  once.
>  >No, that is not at all what NN advoactes want, and you know that.
>
>  But it's what the UK NN advocates want, it was a UK-based discussion
>  that was linked to.
>
>  Here's what I posted in another forum about NN, a few days ago, hope
>  it
>  helps clarify things:
>
>  <quote>
>
>  Net Neutrality means different things to different people.
>
>  Here in the UK it's about throttling bandwidth hogs like P2P and
>  iPlayer
>   in the busy hours.
>
>  In developing countries it's about Megabytes per dollar being the
>  same
>   on fixed and mobile networks (fat chance of that in developed
>   countries either).
>
>  In some jurisdictions it's about blocking VoIP (but that tends to be
>  an
>   incumbent nationalised telco protecting PSTN revenue and the
>  ability
>   to wiretap the calls, not bandwidth).
>
>  In the USA it means throttling specific sites which don't pay you to
>   deliver their bandwidth-hogging content. (Although to some extent
>   that's also the iPlayer issue in UK). And a suspicion that as the
>  big
>   ISPs are owned by telcos, they might start blocking VoIP as well.
>
>  [Although Skype video is an example of a site where the final two of
>  the
>  above can get a bit entangled].
>
>  </quote>
>  --
>  Roland Perry
>  ____________________________________________________________
>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Mar 16 15:46:58 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:46:58 +1200
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
	<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
	<7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
	<Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
	<AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
	<pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=3D6r6_+go+M3-eMoLD489tLsk==+CRx06xcpe@mail.gmail.com>

(Thinking out loud)

For ISPs who have a diverse range of products, ie, different
bandwidths and resiliency and resulting product offerings where the
residential customer pays for x service and corporate customer who can
maybe afford fibre to the building pays y.

ISPs may argue that where a corporate customer pays for premium he gets premium.

My understanding of Network Neutrality was in the manner (rationale,
policy, commercial decisions) in which ISPs or operators translate it
into prioritisation of "packets".

Speed is a different issue, but wilful routing of packets based on
capacity to pay, is another issue. But where, an ISP is limited by the
Grade of Quality of means of transmission  that it cannot be
accountable for, that is quite a different issue.

One of the challenges in developing countries where their ADSL has all
grades of copper quality (diminishing quality) where you have links
between old and new copper means that there is bound to be problems
with resiliency.

Depending on the governance strucutures in place within jurisdictions,
if some of those countries who are already struggling with constrained
resources refuse to give these operators "access deficit", it has a
direct impact on investments etc.

There are all kinds of inter-linkages and IG issues at play here.







On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Roland Perry
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 14:51:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann
> <ivarhartmann at gmail.com> writes
>>
>> Roland,
>> if there are different definitions used by different groups of people,
>> wouldn't you want to use the definition Parminder referred to when
>> you're communicating with the audience in this list?
>
> Even if the UK authorities allow the ISPs to be non-Neutral, that's of
> little relevance to Parminder's issues because "neutrality" has a different
> context.
>
>> I don't believe we're all from the UK here, or are we?
>
> Nor are we all from Parminder's part of the world, with the issues he's
> concerned about.
>
> So I think we are in fierce agreement.
>
> Roland.
>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 13:02, Roland Perry
>> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>  In message <4D80B666.4070403 at itforchange.net>, at 18:38:54 on Wed,
>>  16
>>  Mar 2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >On Wednesday 16 March 2011 04:09 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>>  >  In message <
>>  >
>>  16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F at SERVER01.globalpartners.local
>>  >  >, at 09:39:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Lisa Horner
>>  >  <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> writes
>>  >
>>  >>    Meanwhile, this ?net neutrality summit? which it is feared will
>>  >>    give rise to a 2 speed internet is happening in the UK
>>  today....
>>  >>    watch this space.
>>  >
>>  >>
>>  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net
>>  >>    -neutrality
>>  >  There is already a 2 speed Internet.
>>  >  Pay $10 a month and get one speed, pay $50 a month and get a
>>  higher
>>  >  one.
>>  >
>>  >Roland, why dont you just accept, and not keep confusing people,
>>  that
>>  >there is big structural difference between differing speeds as per
>>  what
>>  >content user pays, and differing speeds as per what content
>>  provider
>>  >pays, and the Net neutrality issue deals with the second issue
>>  alone.
>>
>>  Unfortunately, that might be what *you* think NN means, and for all
>>  I
>>  know it's the standard meaning in your country. It's absolutely not
>>  what
>>  they mean when the UK press writes about it. (Think about it - the
>>  biggest issue is restricting P2P and NNTP downloads of pirate
>>  movies,
>>  what "content provider" is there who would pay the networks to
>>  remove
>>  that restriction?)
>>
>>  >You dont have to agree with the NN guys on what is right and what
>>  is
>>  >wrong, but why keep muddying established definitions.
>>
>>  I would be very happy if there were differing words for the various
>>  differing "meanings". Unfortunately, there are many different
>>  concepts
>>  which are all given the same name (NN). What I'm trying to do here
>>  is
>>  *agree* that there is this confusion, and that the outcome of
>>  so-called
>>  "Network Neutrality" debate in the UK is irrelevant to much of the
>>  rest
>>  of the world, because it's a different thing that's being debated.
>>
>>  >  What people want is the $50 Internet for $10, and for everyone in
>>  >  the country to be able to watch a High Definition[3] TV programme
>>  at
>>  >  once.
>>  >No, that is not at all what NN advoactes want, and you know that.
>>
>>  But it's what the UK NN advocates want, it was a UK-based discussion
>>  that was linked to.
>>
>>  Here's what I posted in another forum about NN, a few days ago, hope
>>  it
>>  helps clarify things:
>>
>>  <quote>
>>
>>  Net Neutrality means different things to different people.
>>
>>  Here in the UK it's about throttling bandwidth hogs like P2P and
>>  iPlayer
>>   in the busy hours.
>>
>>  In developing countries it's about Megabytes per dollar being the
>>  same
>>   on fixed and mobile networks (fat chance of that in developed
>>   countries either).
>>
>>  In some jurisdictions it's about blocking VoIP (but that tends to be
>>  an
>>   incumbent nationalised telco protecting PSTN revenue and the
>>  ability
>>   to wiretap the calls, not bandwidth).
>>
>>  In the USA it means throttling specific sites which don't pay you to
>>   deliver their bandwidth-hogging content. (Although to some extent
>>   that's also the iPlayer issue in UK). And a suspicion that as the
>>  big
>>   ISPs are owned by telcos, they might start blocking VoIP as well.
>>
>>  [Although Skype video is an example of a site where the final two of
>>  the
>>  above can get a bit entangled].
>>
>>  </quote>
>>  --
>>  Roland Perry
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To 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
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From Elvana.THACI at coe.int  Wed Mar 16 16:45:00 2011
From: Elvana.THACI at coe.int (THACI Elvana)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:45:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] Council of Europe: Call for Comments & conference on
 Internet Freedom
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=3D6r6_+go+M3-eMoLD489tLsk==+CRx06xcpe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com><16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local><7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com><4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net><Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk><AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com><pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com> <AANLkTi=3D6r6_+go+M3-eMoLD489tLsk==+CRx06xcpe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <946641AC34E0E54FBB7E559B13CF36B703F3786F@ASTERIX.key.coe.int>

Dear all, 
 
Please note this call for comments on: 
 
- a proposal for a draft Council of Europe Committee of Ministers declaration on Internet governance principles;
- a proposal for a draft Council of Europe Committee of Ministers recommendation on the protection and promotion of Internet's universality, integrity and openness. 
 
The relevant documents are available at  http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media-dataprotection/conf-internet-freedom/ ( see call for comments section).  
 
Also, please note that they are at a preliminary stage and will be discussed at the Council of Europe conference: Internet Freedom -From Principles to Global Treaty Law?, which will take place in Strasbourg on 18 and 19 April 2011.
 
Your comments are welcome.
 
Best regards, 
 
Elvana Thaçi 
InfoSoc, Media and Data Protection Division 
Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs 
Council of Europe 
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex 
Tel.  + 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98 
Fax. + 33 (0) 3 88 41 27 05 
E-mail: elvana.thaci at coe.int 
Internet:http://www.coe.int/media-dataprotection 
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 16 18:26:23 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:26:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
References:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC07@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <OFFAD27F1B.B11364E8-ONC1257854.003B6886-C1257854.003B77C5@unog.un.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC1E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear List
 
I fully support the IGC CS paper which was coordinated by Jeremy for the forthcoming IGF Improvement working group end of March 2011 in Geneva. I just wanted to let you know that I personally will be unable to participate. Since more than one year those dates are blocked for an expert meeting on "Governance of the Internet of Things" which I have to organize. Unfortunately the CSTD did not consult in advance before they fixed the days.
 
However, based on my full support of the IGC CS statement, I have smmarized various interventions from the past and did put them into the attached paper which I have also forwarded to the UNCSTD secretariat.
 
Best wishes
 
Wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Montreux Proposal March 2011.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19176 bytes
Desc: Montreux Proposal March 2011.docx
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110316/4c8480cc/attachment.docx>

From pkisokau at gmail.com  Wed Mar 16 19:07:01 2011
From: pkisokau at gmail.com (Parkop Kisokau)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:07:01 +0800
Subject: [governance] Japan Earthquake: Tech Volunteers, Companies Rally
 Response
Message-ID: <AANLkTikR=qpp7T+huBdUJJrUaWxE=enX=f5=iM6kNUD=@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies for cross postings.

Crisis Commons <http://crisiscommons.org/> reports that more than 100
technology volunteers have signed up to lend their expertise to disaster
response and recovery efforts. The organization is also providing additional
support in the mobile and GIS areas through collaboration with
Appcelerator's mobile development community and GISCorps. Crisis Commons
says more volunteers are
needed<https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dHA2YkJvSjZxeE9oYkhNR0MtVTgyY1E6MQ>--
especially those with technical skills as well as those who can
provide
search, translation, writing and research skills.

A NetHope report issued March 12 notes that undersea telecommunication
cables in and out of Japan seem to have mostly survived. Mainland Chinese
carrier China Unicom said two or three cables between Japan and China have
been damaged, but traffic was being routed around the breaks. The quake
appears to have damaged the Asia Pacific Cable Network 2, which is owned by
a consortium of 14 telecom operators, let by AT&T.

http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Latest-News/Japan-Earthquake-Tech-Volunteers-Companies-Rally-Response-290134/?kc=CIOMINUTE03162011CIOA

Parkop Kisokau
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110317/29aa2bd2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 16 21:25:47 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:55:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk> <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com> <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>

I think there is enough commonality about what people consider under the 
Net neutrality (NN) rubric. Norway's NN guidelines, and the recent NN 
decision by US's FCC will make it clear.

It is not at all true that in UK primarily download speeds is what is 
meant by most when they speak of NN. For instance, the BBC Director 
General's comments at 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/19/mark-thompson-internet-bbc 
makes it clear. No idea why Roland should insist that the contours of 
the debate are not 'relatively' clear in this regard.

especially insidious is to link advocacy of NN to piracy. Quote from 
Roland's earlier email

 >Unfortunately, that might be what *you* think NN means, and for all   
I   know it's the standard meaning in your country. It's absolutely not  
what
 >they mean when the UK press writes about it. (Think about it - the   
biggest issue is restricting P2P and NNTP downloads of pirate  movies,  
what "content >provider" is there who would pay the networks to  remove  
that restriction?)

Roland, if when you hear p2p you just think piracy, that the biggest 
value of the Internet platform from a progressive point of view is lost 
on you.

On Thursday 17 March 2011 12:37 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message 
> <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF at mail.gmail.com>, at 
> 14:51:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann 
> <ivarhartmann at gmail.com> writes
>> Roland,
>> if there are different definitions used by different groups of people,
>> wouldn't you want to use the definition Parminder referred to when
>> you're communicating with the audience in this list?
>
> Even if the UK authorities allow the ISPs to be non-Neutral, that's of 
> little relevance to Parminder's issues because "neutrality" has a 
> different context.
>
>> I don't believe we're all from the UK here, or are we?
>
> Nor are we all from Parminder's part of the world, with the issues 
> he's concerned about.
>
> So I think we are in fierce agreement.
>
> Roland.
>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 13:02, Roland Perry 
>> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>  In message <4D80B666.4070403 at itforchange.net>, at 18:38:54 on Wed,
>>  16
>>  Mar 2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >On Wednesday 16 March 2011 04:09 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> >  In message <
>> >
>>  16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F at SERVER01.globalpartners.local 
>>
>> > >, at 09:39:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Lisa Horner
>> > <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> >>    Meanwhile, this ?net neutrality summit? which it is feared will
>> >>    give rise to a 2 speed internet is happening in the UK
>>  today....
>> >>    watch this space.
>> >
>> >>
>>  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net 
>>
>> >>    -neutrality
>> >  There is already a 2 speed Internet.
>> >  Pay $10 a month and get one speed, pay $50 a month and get a
>>  higher
>> >  one.
>> >
>> >Roland, why dont you just accept, and not keep confusing people,
>>  that
>> >there is big structural difference between differing speeds as per
>>  what
>> >content user pays, and differing speeds as per what content
>>  provider
>> >pays, and the Net neutrality issue deals with the second issue
>>  alone.
>>
>>  Unfortunately, that might be what *you* think NN means, and for all
>>  I
>>  know it's the standard meaning in your country. It's absolutely not
>>  what
>>  they mean when the UK press writes about it. (Think about it - the
>>  biggest issue is restricting P2P and NNTP downloads of pirate
>>  movies,
>>  what "content provider" is there who would pay the networks to
>>  remove
>>  that restriction?)
>>
>> >You dont have to agree with the NN guys on what is right and what
>>  is
>> >wrong, but why keep muddying established definitions.
>>
>>  I would be very happy if there were differing words for the various
>>  differing "meanings". Unfortunately, there are many different
>>  concepts
>>  which are all given the same name (NN). What I'm trying to do here
>>  is
>>  *agree* that there is this confusion, and that the outcome of
>>  so-called
>>  "Network Neutrality" debate in the UK is irrelevant to much of the
>>  rest
>>  of the world, because it's a different thing that's being debated.
>>
>> >  What people want is the $50 Internet for $10, and for everyone in
>> >  the country to be able to watch a High Definition[3] TV programme
>>  at
>> >  once.
>> >No, that is not at all what NN advoactes want, and you know that.
>>
>>  But it's what the UK NN advocates want, it was a UK-based discussion
>>  that was linked to.
>>
>>  Here's what I posted in another forum about NN, a few days ago, hope
>>  it
>>  helps clarify things:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>>  Net Neutrality means different things to different people.
>>
>>  Here in the UK it's about throttling bandwidth hogs like P2P and
>>  iPlayer
>>   in the busy hours.
>>
>>  In developing countries it's about Megabytes per dollar being the
>>  same
>>   on fixed and mobile networks (fat chance of that in developed
>>   countries either).
>>
>>  In some jurisdictions it's about blocking VoIP (but that tends to be
>>  an
>>   incumbent nationalised telco protecting PSTN revenue and the
>>  ability
>>   to wiretap the calls, not bandwidth).
>>
>>  In the USA it means throttling specific sites which don't pay you to
>>   deliver their bandwidth-hogging content. (Although to some extent
>>   that's also the iPlayer issue in UK). And a suspicion that as the
>>  big
>>   ISPs are owned by telcos, they might start blocking VoIP as well.
>>
>>  [Although Skype video is an example of a site where the final two of
>>  the
>>  above can get a bit entangled].
>>
>> </quote>
>>  --
>>  Roland Perry
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110317/c8c5273c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Mar 17 08:11:05 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:11:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC07@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<OFFAD27F1B.B11364E8-ONC1257854.003B6886-C1257854.003B77C5@unog.un.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC1E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim1vV+Mvme8huiFDMT=wdNqZ_N500HnS8pHbWHh@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Wolfgang,
I am sorry to hear you wont be able to be there. You will be missed.

By the way, all the contributions received are being made available online
here: http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/WGIGF_Contributions/

Best,

Marília

2011/3/16 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> Dear List
>
> I fully support the IGC CS paper which was coordinated by Jeremy for the
> forthcoming IGF Improvement working group end of March 2011 in Geneva. I
> just wanted to let you know that I personally will be unable to participate.
> Since more than one year those dates are blocked for an expert meeting on
> "Governance of the Internet of Things" which I have to organize.
> Unfortunately the CSTD did not consult in advance before they fixed the
> days.
>
> However, based on my full support of the IGC CS statement, I have smmarized
> various interventions from the past and did put them into the attached paper
> which I have also forwarded to the UNCSTD secretariat.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Wolfgang
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110317/7887901b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 17 09:14:13 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:14:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4D81631B.6030808 at itforchange.net>, at 06:55:47 on Thu, 17
Mar 2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>I think there is enough commonality about what people consider under
>the Net neutrality (NN) rubric. Norway's NN guidelines, and the recent
>NN decision by US's FCC will make it clear.

Only in as much as they define what those administrations mean by NN.

>It is not at all true that in UK primarily download speeds is what is
>meant by most when they speak of NN. For instance, the BBC Director
>General's comments at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/19/mark-thompson-internet-bbc
>makes it clear.

He's obviously lobbying from one point of view. Talking about his
apparent "right to deliver" content without paying anyone, at all.

But the money has to come from somewhere, and in the UK that's the end
users paying their monthly subscriptions to their ISPs. Unfortunately,
the majority aren't paying enough money to provision the network
sufficiently to deliver *everything* they demand *simultaneously*.

He went on to say:

        "Net neutrality ... mean[s] that, not matter how many fast lanes
        there are, the basic internet services – standard lane if you
        like – should itself provide a very good, and consistently and
        fairly delivered, service."

        "Supporting net neutrality does not mean being against premium
        high-speed services which households can choose to subscribe to
        and which guarantee the very highest quality experience of
        catchup and other internet resources,"

The problem being that his content is already *past* the point at which
it's straining the basic service. I doubt he'd be very happy to be told

        "OK, we can deliver your service at 'full speed' as long as you
        redesign it for half the bandwidth requirement".

As well as

        "and in the busy hour it might still be slowed down by someone
        else in the same household you are delivering your catch-up TV
        to, downloading a pirate [sorry, Parminder] movie and hogging
        the bandwidth they can afford to pay for".

And how ironic that the measures the ISPs are taking are such, that they
serve to protect the delivery of *his* content - by filtering out, by
time-of-day and protocol, the "competing" flows of P2P and NNTP which
would otherwise drown out his content (and/or make the user exceed their
monthly bandwidth cap very quickly, at which point nothing gets
through).

>No idea why Roland should insist that the contours of
>the debate are not 'relatively' clear in this regard.

Because there's still a great deal of muddle, between (but not limited
to):

o The speed of the local loop (physics lesson: why can't everyone get
   8Mbits per second however frail their copper is).

o The existence of monthly bandwidth caps, because most people buy their
   service "down to a price". The cheapest residential broadband
   representing as little as an hour of BBC iPlayer content a month.

o The congestion on backhaul links, which means you can't have every
   household downloading at full local loop speed at the same time.

>especially insidious is to link advocacy of NN to piracy.

Perhaps you could ask one of the most famous Torrent servers why they
are called "Pirate Bay", and confirm with some Usenet serving
organisations that their subscribers are downloading large collections
of 'Warez'.

But even if this material was in the public domain, my underlying point
stands - who is the "content provider" who could pay (either want to
pay, or afford to pay) the networks to deliver this P2P/NNTP content to
the end users. The ISPs know that there is no such entity, so aren't
stupid enough to be looking for a financial contribution from them.

>Roland, if when you hear p2p you just think piracy, that the biggest
>value of the Internet platform from a progressive point of view is lost
>on you.

I don't "just think piracy", but I'm realistic enough to think that very
few people are in fact using it to download Linux distribution CDs, or
all the other special pleading. And I'm not even suggesting banning P2P,
or banning any class of content from P2P. All that's proposed is
rate-limiting P2P/NNTP during the busiest hours, so people can use
iPlayer at all.

Finally, I confess to being a bit annoyed at the potential collateral
damage which is the limiting of text-based Usenet (my own ISP doesn't
rate limit NNTP). But if they did, I'm potentially suffering from a
delay in my (and my correspondents') freedom of speech. Although even
then, I can "route around" that damage by using Google Groups instead of
a classic NNTP service.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 17 23:23:45 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:23:45 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF:
 Compilation of responses to the questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <OF709731AC.BBDED226-ONC1257856.005C0DAC-C1257856.006099B5@unog.un.org>
References: <OF709731AC.BBDED226-ONC1257856.005C0DAC-C1257856.006099B5@unog.un.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik1vyEbk690cn9Ufd0FEufyWA9QDAJg34MewGhs@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

CSTD secretariat sent the Compilation of the Questionnaire
as attached.

izumi


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: cstdwg-igf <cstdwg-igf at unctad.org>
Date: 2011/3/18
Subject: Working Group on the improvement to the IGF: Compilation of
responses to the questionnaire



Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of Mr. Frederic Riehl, Chair of the Working Group on
Improvement to the Internet Governance Forum (WG-IGF), I have the
pleasure to transmit to you a compilation of responses to the
questionnaire of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet
Governance Forum received so far. Any additional responses that we
will receive after today will be made available to you individually.

All individual responses can also be consulted online at www.unctad.org/cstdwg.

With best regards,

*********************************************
Mongi Hamdi
Head of the Secretariat of the United Nations Commission
on Science and Technology for Development
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: compilation of contributions to questionnaire WGIGF.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 717312 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110318/87bab684/attachment.obj>

From rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp  Fri Mar 18 03:37:16 2011
From: rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp (Rajendra Poudel)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:37:16 +0900
Subject: [governance] Not Rumour! But need positive attitudes! (Japan
 Earthquacke and Tsunami)
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=dd5-vcyqg0MV5JuYxBiZ2FRDYCqQZ-KkDNFti@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,


We are the people now living inside Japan which has been hit by strongest
earthquake and Tsunami  on March 11, 2011. More then 129 million people are
living inside Japan.  The strong earthquake and Tsunami  has caused 5,700
people dead and 9.500 still missing. Due to the damage of the Fukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear plant has created lots of uncertainity to among us who are
living inside Japan.

We want to see hope!, we want to see success of human development! and we
want to save life of people.  Most of us who are living inside Japan are
passing our time with full of stress and uncertainity. Many TV news
channels, Radios, web blogs and medias has been broadcasting lots
of information about the Japan disaster. But some time some news or article
gives us lots of panic and we get in edge of loosing our faith.

Now we need positive thought inside our inner heart and mind.  So this is
the blog for sharing only your positive thought among the people living in
Japan.  People who are living in outside Japan please drop your positive
thought! You can write in both languages Japanese or English.

*WE CAN DO!, WE CAN SURVIVE!, WE CAN CONQUER! <goog_547828612>*

*WE NEED TO BE POSITIVE! <http://www.yagiten.com>*

Please drop only your positive thought in this blog!<http://www.yagiten.com>

*Precaution is necessary and can not be ignored in any cost,  but still let
us not loose our faith. Let us not be in uncertainity!  Be POSITIVE!  WE CAN
DO! <http://www.yagiten.com>*

*I like to request all the users of Social network such as Facebook, Twitter
please drop us positive message, but not rumour! We have been already hit by
earthquake, Tusmani and at last by Nuclear threat. **We people here in Japan
believe, every thing is possible. Just we need positive attitude!!*

*
*

*with best regards*

*Rajendra Poudel*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110318/c5b5b703/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 18 07:39:39 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:39:39 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <5F1nTYh7R0gNFAYQ@internetpolicyagency.com>

And a code of practice (for "traffic management transparency") has been 
launched, in UK:

<http://www.broadbanduk.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download
/gid,1335/Itemid,63/>

"The Internet, including the networks over which it runs, is a shared 
resource and it is therefore right and important that access to it is 
allocated appropriately between users."

"Traffic management ... of the overall network ... relates to practices 
applied to ensure the most efficient use of the network. This can 
involve deploying techniques to  prioritise  time-critical applications 
(e.g. video streaming) so that they work effectively even in  busy 
periods or congested locations. [and] ISPs can limit the throughput of 
non-time critical applications to provide a better experience for 
consumers accessing other types of traffic."

"Traffic management in relation to a customer’s contract... invoke 
data usage caps or fair usage policies"

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ivarhartmann at gmail.com  Fri Mar 18 08:28:46 2011
From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:58:46 +0430
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <5F1nTYh7R0gNFAYQ@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
 <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk> <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <5F1nTYh7R0gNFAYQ@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin9dUNgSkK8j6g=3Yr4QfP-B+PFEbNvSUx_yrDg@mail.gmail.com>

Try as I might, I can't think of something more dangerous than allowing ISPs
to determine and enforce rules about what is a *fair* use of internet
access.
Ivar

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 16:09, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com
> wrote:

> And a code of practice (for "traffic management transparency") has been
> launched, in UK:
>
> <http://www.broadbanduk.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download
> /gid,1335/Itemid,63/>
>
> "The Internet, including the networks over which it runs, is a shared
> resource and it is therefore right and important that access to it is
> allocated appropriately between users."
>
> "Traffic management ... of the overall network ... relates to practices
> applied to ensure the most efficient use of the network. This can involve
> deploying techniques to  prioritise  time-critical applications (e.g. video
> streaming) so that they work effectively even in  busy periods or congested
> locations. [and] ISPs can limit the throughput of non-time critical
> applications to provide a better experience for consumers accessing other
> types of traffic."
>
> "Traffic management in relation to a customer’s contract... invoke data
> usage caps or fair usage policies"
>
>
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110318/628d07d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 18 08:46:11 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:46:11 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin9dUNgSkK8j6g=3Yr4QfP-B+PFEbNvSUx_yrDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <5F1nTYh7R0gNFAYQ@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <AANLkTin9dUNgSkK8j6g=3Yr4QfP-B+PFEbNvSUx_yrDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mFPgzikTQ1gNFAqq@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTin9dUNgSkK8j6g=3Yr4QfP-B+PFEbNvSUx_yrDg at mail.gmail.com>, at 
16:58:46 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann 
<ivarhartmann at gmail.com> writes
>Try as I might, I can't think of something more dangerous than allowing 
>ISPs to determine and enforce rules about what is a fair use of 
>internet access

It's being done on volume of traffic. Too much traffic = unfair.

That's the point of the policy - to make it clear that they aren't 
looking at the content (for example).

There's even a "fair use" policy on this mailing list, if I recall 
correctly. Four (or is it five) off-topic emails a day is your limit. 
And that's after someone has looked at the content and decided it was 
"noise".
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Mar 18 10:47:41 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:47:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk> <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com> <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net> <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>




> But the money has to come from somewhere, and in the UK that's the end
> users paying their monthly subscriptions to their ISPs. Unfortunately,
> the majority aren't paying enough money to provision the network
> sufficiently to deliver *everything* they demand *simultaneously*.

Hi,

I am surprised you frame things that way. This sounds like the typical 
telco point of view. Content providers do also pay for the bandwidth 
they are using don't they?

If all of that is not enough money for expanding the infrastructure, the 
ISPs should perhaps raise the monthly fees we pay for our internet 
connection?
Charging content providers for delivery to end users is suspected to 
create all sorts of unpleasant side-effects we cannot possibly want.

jeanette
>
> He went on to say:
>
>          "Net neutrality ... mean[s] that, not matter how many fast lanes
>          there are, the basic internet services – standard lane if you
>          like – should itself provide a very good, and consistently and
>          fairly delivered, service."
>
>          "Supporting net neutrality does not mean being against premium
>          high-speed services which households can choose to subscribe to
>          and which guarantee the very highest quality experience of
>          catchup and other internet resources,"
>
> The problem being that his content is already *past* the point at which
> it's straining the basic service. I doubt he'd be very happy to be told
>
>          "OK, we can deliver your service at 'full speed' as long as you
>          redesign it for half the bandwidth requirement".
>
> As well as
>
>          "and in the busy hour it might still be slowed down by someone
>          else in the same household you are delivering your catch-up TV
>          to, downloading a pirate [sorry, Parminder] movie and hogging
>          the bandwidth they can afford to pay for".
>
> And how ironic that the measures the ISPs are taking are such, that they
> serve to protect the delivery of *his* content - by filtering out, by
> time-of-day and protocol, the "competing" flows of P2P and NNTP which
> would otherwise drown out his content (and/or make the user exceed their
> monthly bandwidth cap very quickly, at which point nothing gets
> through).
>
>> No idea why Roland should insist that the contours of
>> the debate are not 'relatively' clear in this regard.
>
> Because there's still a great deal of muddle, between (but not limited
> to):
>
> o The speed of the local loop (physics lesson: why can't everyone get
>     8Mbits per second however frail their copper is).
>
> o The existence of monthly bandwidth caps, because most people buy their
>     service "down to a price". The cheapest residential broadband
>     representing as little as an hour of BBC iPlayer content a month.
>
> o The congestion on backhaul links, which means you can't have every
>     household downloading at full local loop speed at the same time.
>
>> especially insidious is to link advocacy of NN to piracy.
>
> Perhaps you could ask one of the most famous Torrent servers why they
> are called "Pirate Bay", and confirm with some Usenet serving
> organisations that their subscribers are downloading large collections
> of 'Warez'.
>
> But even if this material was in the public domain, my underlying point
> stands - who is the "content provider" who could pay (either want to
> pay, or afford to pay) the networks to deliver this P2P/NNTP content to
> the end users. The ISPs know that there is no such entity, so aren't
> stupid enough to be looking for a financial contribution from them.
>
>> Roland, if when you hear p2p you just think piracy, that the biggest
>> value of the Internet platform from a progressive point of view is lost
>> on you.
>
> I don't "just think piracy", but I'm realistic enough to think that very
> few people are in fact using it to download Linux distribution CDs, or
> all the other special pleading. And I'm not even suggesting banning P2P,
> or banning any class of content from P2P. All that's proposed is
> rate-limiting P2P/NNTP during the busiest hours, so people can use
> iPlayer at all.
>
> Finally, I confess to being a bit annoyed at the potential collateral
> damage which is the limiting of text-based Usenet (my own ISP doesn't
> rate limit NNTP). But if they did, I'm potentially suffering from a
> delay in my (and my correspondents') freedom of speech. Although even
> then, I can "route around" that damage by using Google Groups instead of
> a classic NNTP service.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Mar 18 11:12:54 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:12:54 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4D83708D.9030803 at wzb.eu>, at 15:47:41 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011, 
Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes

>> But the money has to come from somewhere, and in the UK that's the end
>> users paying their monthly subscriptions to their ISPs. Unfortunately,
>> the majority aren't paying enough money to provision the network
>> sufficiently to deliver *everything* they demand *simultaneously*.
>
>Hi,
>
>I am surprised you frame things that way. This sounds like the typical 
>telco point of view. Content providers do also pay for the bandwidth 
>they are using don't they?

Even in the most content-provider friendly scenario, they only pay for 
the bandwidth from their server to the "cloud". They then expect it to 
reach its destination by magic.

If all ISPs had a good balance of high-volume content providers, and a 
large number of subscriber eyeballs, it might just even out. But real 
life's not like that.

>If all of that is not enough money for expanding the infrastructure, 
>the ISPs should perhaps raise the monthly fees we pay for our internet 
>connection?

They try, but consumers are too keen on being part of a "race to the 
bottom", where they'll buy the cheapest service on offer, and them 
complain it doesn't give them the highest performance possible.

I know that this makes me sound jaded, but I've been in the industry too 
long (since the early 90's as a connectivity provider) and it's simply 
the way the market works.

>Charging content providers for delivery to end users is suspected to 
>create all sorts of unpleasant side-effects we cannot possibly want.

The original model was that an ISP with most of the local market would 
be getting a few large payments from content providers and a lot of 
small payments from eyeballs. Which meant that each was making a 
contribution to the overall cost.

This breaks down, because the market goes global, and ISPs specialise in 
servers or eyeballs.

Add in IXPs (which I think are a very good idea) and you get the current 
standoff between content that says "you can't afford not to deliver me 
to your end user customers, they will walk to another provider 
otherwise", and eyeballs who say "you can't afford not to be available 
to me for free, without me you have no business".

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Mar 18 11:36:49 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:36:49 +0100
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet  in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
 <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838@jefsey.com>

All the discussed engineering is related to network operance tricks 
or rules. Governance is concerned with the architectural laws.

Architecturally, network neutrality is simple to define and test: it 
is when the quality of the end to end relation stays unaffected by 
the change of the operators of the intermediate network elements. 
This is why network neutrality will result from IUse generated 
competition among ISP, permitted by IUI ISP rotation.

This means the day the users' Intelligent Use Interface (IUI) may 
easily rotate ISPs in real time depending of the current 
price/quality ratio - quality incuding routing choices (ex. Echellon 
free). ISPs will start charging by neutrality and quality duration. 
This will be possible in using the NPTv6 solution presented by Fred 
Baker (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrw-nat66-12.txt) 
which is an upsidedown NAT66. It permits hosts to keep the same IPv6 
address and to appear on the network as two or more IPv6 addresses 
possibly at different ISPs.

jfc

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Mar 18 11:51:08 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:51:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk> <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com> <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net> <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu> <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>

The magic you are referring to consists of the fees paid by the 
subscribers. The subcribers pay what they are charged. I would have 
loved to pay more if more bandwidth had been available in the area of 
London where I used to live. Alas, that option did not and still does 
not exist.

The big telcos which immediately complain when the regulators considers 
minimum standards of bandwidth or modest rules of transparency also 
complain about the market because competition is so fierce. What exactly 
do they want? Return to the comfortable times of monopoly where they 
controlled both service standards and prices?

The idea that termination fees would enable ISPs to control content, 
suppliers and innovation scares me. Don't you find that a problem as well?

jeanette

On 18.03.2011 16:12, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4D83708D.9030803 at wzb.eu>, at 15:47:41 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011,
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes
>
>>> But the money has to come from somewhere, and in the UK that's the end
>>> users paying their monthly subscriptions to their ISPs. Unfortunately,
>>> the majority aren't paying enough money to provision the network
>>> sufficiently to deliver *everything* they demand *simultaneously*.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am surprised you frame things that way. This sounds like the typical
>> telco point of view. Content providers do also pay for the bandwidth
>> they are using don't they?
>
> Even in the most content-provider friendly scenario, they only pay for
> the bandwidth from their server to the "cloud". They then expect it to
> reach its destination by magic.
>
> If all ISPs had a good balance of high-volume content providers, and a
> large number of subscriber eyeballs, it might just even out. But real
> life's not like that.
>
>> If all of that is not enough money for expanding the infrastructure,
>> the ISPs should perhaps raise the monthly fees we pay for our internet
>> connection?
>
> They try, but consumers are too keen on being part of a "race to the
> bottom", where they'll buy the cheapest service on offer, and them
> complain it doesn't give them the highest performance possible.
>
> I know that this makes me sound jaded, but I've been in the industry too
> long (since the early 90's as a connectivity provider) and it's simply
> the way the market works.
>
>> Charging content providers for delivery to end users is suspected to
>> create all sorts of unpleasant side-effects we cannot possibly want.
>
> The original model was that an ISP with most of the local market would
> be getting a few large payments from content providers and a lot of
> small payments from eyeballs. Which meant that each was making a
> contribution to the overall cost.
>
> This breaks down, because the market goes global, and ISPs specialise in
> servers or eyeballs.
>
> Add in IXPs (which I think are a very good idea) and you get the current
> standoff between content that says "you can't afford not to deliver me
> to your end user customers, they will walk to another provider
> otherwise", and eyeballs who say "you can't afford not to be available
> to me for free, without me you have no business".
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 18 12:24:09 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:24:09 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <JvxLZt6pc4gNFA81@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4D837F6C.6070305 at wzb.eu>, at 16:51:08 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011, 
Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes
>The magic you are referring to consists of the fees paid by the 
>subscribers. The subcribers pay what they are charged.

No, they pay what they want to. Many ISPs have a range of charges from 
between $10 a month to $50 a month for different levels of service.

>I would have loved to pay more if more bandwidth had been available in 
>the area of London where I used to live. Alas, that option did not and 
>still does not exist.

Of course it does. Pay my ISP [Plus Net] £25+ a month for their 
"unlimited" 20MBit service and I believe you'll find it has no caps or 
traffic management. But most consumers seem to buy their £10/month 
service.

>The big telcos which immediately complain when the regulators considers 
>minimum standards of bandwidth or modest rules of transparency also 
>complain about the market because competition is so fierce. What 
>exactly do they want? Return to the comfortable times of monopoly where 
>they controlled both service standards and prices?

They'd like (as has always been the case) a level playing field between 
independent ISPs and those owned by the incumbent telco where it is 
suspected they get a better deal on the wholesale price. The regulator's 
job is to make sure that doesn't happen.

And it's not about a choice between a £10 and £25 a month - if an ISP 
can shave £1 off their retail price the market is sufficiently 
cuththroat that the cheaper provider will get all the business, but 
without it necessarily being as good technically.

>The idea that termination fees would enable ISPs to control content, 
>suppliers and innovation scares me. Don't you find that a problem as 
>well?

ISPs are controlling volume, not content.

I don't understand what you mean by controlling suppliers.

You cannot get blood from a stone. If I have an innovative product which 
requires more bandwidth than consumers have paid for, that's hardly the 
fault of the people supplying the bandwidth.

(I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Had an online product in 
1999 which required the degree of penetration of broadband we didn't see 
until perhaps 2005. But I didn't cry "censorship".)
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 18 12:25:06 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:25:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet  in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838@jefsey.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <bfTP1h7id4gNFAcs@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838 at jefsey.com>, at 16:36:49 
on Fri, 18 Mar 2011, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> remarked:
>All the discussed engineering is related to network operance tricks or 
>rules. Governance is concerned with the architectural laws.

There's also the laws of Physics.

>Architecturally, network neutrality is simple to define and test: it is 
>when the quality of the end to end relation stays unaffected by the 
>change of the operators of the intermediate network elements. This is 
>why network neutrality will result from IUse generated competition 
>among ISP, permitted by IUI ISP rotation.

If you were on an island with a 2 Megabit leased line, and had ten 
people wanting to stream BBC iPlayer at 1 Megabit each [which they 
naturally feel is possible because each of them only wants half the 
supplied bandwidth], what architecturally network neutral solution would 
you propose?

(Assume you'd asked if they wanted to pay 10x the monthly fee, and they 
all said "no").
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Mar 18 12:53:48 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:53:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com>,<4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

To wade back in for a second..did I miss something?

The last thing the Internet needs is termination fees...that would be the complete triumph of the 19th century over the 21st.  

Second, Content Delivery Networks exist...to get content from the cloud to end users, reliably.  Pretending they don't...or wishing they would go away....I don't see the point of that.  They are paid by the people who care, ie the content owners, whether that content is a movie; or an ad. 

As I have said before, the reason the Net Neutrality debate is confusing is...because the term itself is an intentional obfuscation from its first utterance; pushed by Google for its own purposes; and then abandoned by Google when its business interests changed (ie its deal with Verizon last summer.)

That the rest of us are still struggling to make sense of it...just shows how clever the original obfuscation was.

If, on other hand, we actually focused on 'what is an open Internet' - as the FCC to its credit did last December (ok, before being taken to court by Google's new best pal Verizon, and original bad boy of net neutrality Comcast (for throttling p2p and specifically BitTorrent, without any transparency as to what it was doing) - maybe, just maybe, we could stop proposing reviving 19th Century notions for our current century.

Or is that too much to hope for? The Internet economy is indeed, complicated and involves all sorts of transactions and 'free' services.....keeping the thing open and transparent as Jeanette longs for is more the point than trying to manage a command and control regulatory system which neither fits the technology, nor the incredibly dynamic users/creators ie all of us. imho.

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry
Subject: Re: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in different shapes and forms?

The magic you are referring to consists of the fees paid by the
subscribers. The subcribers pay what they are charged. I would have
loved to pay more if more bandwidth had been available in the area of
London where I used to live. Alas, that option did not and still does
not exist.

The big telcos which immediately complain when the regulators considers
minimum standards of bandwidth or modest rules of transparency also
complain about the market because competition is so fierce. What exactly
do they want? Return to the comfortable times of monopoly where they
controlled both service standards and prices?

The idea that termination fees would enable ISPs to control content,
suppliers and innovation scares me. Don't you find that a problem as well?

jeanette

On 18.03.2011 16:12, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4D83708D.9030803 at wzb.eu>, at 15:47:41 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011,
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes
>
>>> But the money has to come from somewhere, and in the UK that's the end
>>> users paying their monthly subscriptions to their ISPs. Unfortunately,
>>> the majority aren't paying enough money to provision the network
>>> sufficiently to deliver *everything* they demand *simultaneously*.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am surprised you frame things that way. This sounds like the typical
>> telco point of view. Content providers do also pay for the bandwidth
>> they are using don't they?
>
> Even in the most content-provider friendly scenario, they only pay for
> the bandwidth from their server to the "cloud". They then expect it to
> reach its destination by magic.
>
> If all ISPs had a good balance of high-volume content providers, and a
> large number of subscriber eyeballs, it might just even out. But real
> life's not like that.
>
>> If all of that is not enough money for expanding the infrastructure,
>> the ISPs should perhaps raise the monthly fees we pay for our internet
>> connection?
>
> They try, but consumers are too keen on being part of a "race to the
> bottom", where they'll buy the cheapest service on offer, and them
> complain it doesn't give them the highest performance possible.
>
> I know that this makes me sound jaded, but I've been in the industry too
> long (since the early 90's as a connectivity provider) and it's simply
> the way the market works.
>
>> Charging content providers for delivery to end users is suspected to
>> create all sorts of unpleasant side-effects we cannot possibly want.
>
> The original model was that an ISP with most of the local market would
> be getting a few large payments from content providers and a lot of
> small payments from eyeballs. Which meant that each was making a
> contribution to the overall cost.
>
> This breaks down, because the market goes global, and ISPs specialise in
> servers or eyeballs.
>
> Add in IXPs (which I think are a very good idea) and you get the current
> standoff between content that says "you can't afford not to deliver me
> to your end user customers, they will walk to another provider
> otherwise", and eyeballs who say "you can't afford not to be available
> to me for free, without me you have no business".
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Mar 18 14:54:54 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:54:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet   in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <bfTP1h7id4gNFAcs@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
 <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838@jefsey.com>
 <bfTP1h7id4gNFAcs@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110318191143.0586d508@jefsey.com>

At 17:25 18/03/2011, Roland Perry wrote:
>In message <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838 at jefsey.com>, at 
>16:36:49 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> remarked:
>>All the discussed engineering is related to network operance tricks 
>>or rules. Governance is concerned with the architectural laws.
>
>There's also the laws of Physics.

Architectural laws belongs to them. Actually operance is the trick, 
rule and contract stratum. Governance is the law (scientific and 
politic) stratum. Adminance is the constitutional stratum, i.e. in 
the digital ecosystem  the principles, the code and civilization. 
Principles are (as identified): permanent change (RFC 1958), 
simplicity (RFC 3439) and subsidiarity (IDNA2008). Code is the past 
that present uses and that permit possible. Civilization is what we 
commonly want to achieve: the WSIS told it: a "people centered, à 
charactèe humain, centrada en la persona" digital society.

>>Architecturally, network neutrality is simple to define and test: 
>>it is when the quality of the end to end relation stays unaffected 
>>by the change of the operators of the intermediate network 
>>elements. This is why network neutrality will result from IUse 
>>generated competition among ISP, permitted by IUI ISP rotation.

If we want to be pertinent on particulars we need to understand 
better the Internet: principles, codes and civilization, in order not 
to confuse what belongs to what. The most recent introduced issue is 
subsidiarity. It took time to get it swallowed and it will take time 
to get it digested. There are two principles that accompany it that 
have not even an English translation yet. The first is the principle 
of suppleance: how the ecosystem is to structurally respect the 
principe of subsidiarity when subsidiairity fails somewhere (please 
note that supplance is not solidarity which is a patch in a 
catastrophic situation). The second is what the whole network history 
taught us: it is the progressive subsidiarity which goes from 
centralization to subsidiarity via uncouplings that we name "layers" 
in the OSI model. (In addition we now need to learn about intricated 
networks,as we progress towards the WSIS target).

Once we will have well accomodated these notions enought (and this is 
a real new important effort for the mankind's noetic) we will 
probably understand at least three levels of response to your question:
    * does the technology make it possible ? If yes apply (operance) 
the rule I gave you to test the proposed solutions (architecture is 
the judge of good engineering, not engineering).
    * if not organize the political law (governance) to address the 
management of the shortage.
    * and confer with the involved parties to subsidise a research 
that could make it technically possible (adminance).
The responses do not come from messing the problem and saying we want 
the impossible, but to try to solve the problems and sorting them to 
address them one issue at a time.
jfc

>If you were on an island with a 2 Megabit leased line, and had ten 
>people wanting to stream BBC iPlayer at 1 Megabit each [which they 
>naturally feel is possible because each of them only wants half the 
>supplied bandwidth], what architecturally network neutral solution 
>would you propose?
>
>(Assume you'd asked if they wanted to pay 10x the monthly fee, and 
>they all said "no").

The problem is not with the Internet, but with the BBC and its 
commercial motivations to broadcast at 1 megabit for various merchant 
reasons instead of better quality at 0.1 Megabit. So, neutrality is 
first to make sure that IUse neutral solutions (we are out of the 
network, i.e. fringe to fringe) do not exist, that permit better 
quality stream broadcast requiring 0.1 Megabit do not exist, that 
obviously could be possible, but out of BBC (and Apple) commercial 
control and benefits. This is why we are to be careful about the 
difference between the network neutrality bound to the Internet 
legacy and the current merchandisation strategies, and the intrinsic 
brain to brain digital ecosystem neutrality various middle strata. At 
each stratum the architectural law is the same, but the scope is different.

If you really want to dig into the roots of the Internet neutrality, 
I suggest you read the begining of the RFC 3869 where the IAB 
explains where the lack of neutrality comes from.... something which 
accuses its now ISOC owner, and the civil society which does not 
oppose it. One must oppose and propose at the root.

Best.

BTW, is not Britain an Island?


>--
>Roland Perry
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110318/7fa5a1b9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 18 15:00:58 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:00:58 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 12:53:48 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> 
writes
>To wade back in for a second..did I miss something?
>
>The last thing the Internet needs is termination fees...that would be 
>the complete triumph of the 19th century over the 21st.

That's the USA perspective on NN. That a content provider should be able 
to have his content distributed throughout the Internet without paying 
at the point he hands the data over.

The opposite view is that networks require content to satisfy their user 
eyeballs, and are getting it for free... what you say below:

>Second, Content Delivery Networks exist...to get content from the cloud 
>to end users, reliably.  Pretending they don't...or wishing they would 
>go away....I don't see the point of that.

Yes, although there's also the cost of getting the data through the 
cloud.

>They are paid by the people who care, ie the content owners, whether 
>that content is a movie; or an ad.

But they are only being paid by the eyeballs!

>As I have said before, the reason the Net Neutrality debate is 
>confusing is...because the term itself is an intentional obfuscation 
>from its first utterance; pushed by Google for its own purposes; and 
>then abandoned by Google when its business interests changed (ie its 
>deal with Verizon last summer.)

That was about the cost of delivering YouTube to mobile phones (in 
excess of the monthly cap the phone user happened to have), wasn't it?

>That the rest of us are still struggling to make sense of it...just 
>shows how clever the original obfuscation was.

A non-discriminatory network is a fairly clear objective, but will tend 
to result in all content being jammed and all equally difficult to 
access. There's also to issue of quantity - is an episode of "Friends" 
at 350 Megabytes really equally important as 350 Megabytes of email?

I realise some would say you can't make decisions like that, but if 
someone in my household was stopping my email arriving because they were 
hogging the line with video, they'd be told to stop pretty quickly (or 
at least wait till I was done).

>If, on other hand, we actually focused on 'what is an open Internet' - 
>as the FCC to its credit did last December (ok, before being taken to 
>court by Google's new best pal Verizon, and original bad boy of net 
>neutrality Comcast (for throttling p2p and specifically BitTorrent, 
>without any transparency as to what it was doing) - maybe, just maybe, 
>we could stop proposing reviving 19th Century notions for our current 
>century.

The notion from the UK is to make it clear what you do.

>Or is that too much to hope for? The Internet economy is indeed, 
>complicated and involves all sorts of transactions and 'free' 
>services.....keeping the thing open and transparent as Jeanette longs 
>for is more the point than trying to manage a command and control 
>regulatory system which neither fits the technology, nor the incredibly 
>dynamic users/creators ie all of us. imho.

But you risk ending up with a virtual football stadium with twice as 
many spectators as seats. What happens then?

>___________________________________
>From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org 
>[governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann 
>[jeanette at wzb.eu]
>Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:51 AM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry
>Subject: Re: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet 
>in different shapes and forms?
>
>The magic you are referring to consists of the fees paid by the
>subscribers. The subcribers pay what they are charged. I would have
>loved to pay more if more bandwidth had been available in the area of
>London where I used to live. Alas, that option did not and still does
>not exist.
>
>The big telcos which immediately complain when the regulators considers
>minimum standards of bandwidth or modest rules of transparency also
>complain about the market because competition is so fierce. What exactly
>do they want? Return to the comfortable times of monopoly where they
>controlled both service standards and prices?
>
>The idea that termination fees would enable ISPs to control content,
>suppliers and innovation scares me. Don't you find that a problem as well?
>
>jeanette
>
>On 18.03.2011 16:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <4D83708D.9030803 at wzb.eu>, at 15:47:41 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011,
>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes
>>
>>>> But the money has to come from somewhere, and in the UK that's the end
>>>> users paying their monthly subscriptions to their ISPs. Unfortunately,
>>>> the majority aren't paying enough money to provision the network
>>>> sufficiently to deliver *everything* they demand *simultaneously*.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am surprised you frame things that way. This sounds like the typical
>>> telco point of view. Content providers do also pay for the bandwidth
>>> they are using don't they?
>>
>> Even in the most content-provider friendly scenario, they only pay for
>> the bandwidth from their server to the "cloud". They then expect it to
>> reach its destination by magic.
>>
>> If all ISPs had a good balance of high-volume content providers, and a
>> large number of subscriber eyeballs, it might just even out. But real
>> life's not like that.
>>
>>> If all of that is not enough money for expanding the infrastructure,
>>> the ISPs should perhaps raise the monthly fees we pay for our internet
>>> connection?
>>
>> They try, but consumers are too keen on being part of a "race to the
>> bottom", where they'll buy the cheapest service on offer, and them
>> complain it doesn't give them the highest performance possible.
>>
>> I know that this makes me sound jaded, but I've been in the industry too
>> long (since the early 90's as a connectivity provider) and it's simply
>> the way the market works.
>>
>>> Charging content providers for delivery to end users is suspected to
>>> create all sorts of unpleasant side-effects we cannot possibly want.
>>
>> The original model was that an ISP with most of the local market would
>> be getting a few large payments from content providers and a lot of
>> small payments from eyeballs. Which meant that each was making a
>> contribution to the overall cost.
>>
>> This breaks down, because the market goes global, and ISPs specialise in
>> servers or eyeballs.
>>
>> Add in IXPs (which I think are a very good idea) and you get the current
>> standoff between content that says "you can't afford not to deliver me
>> to your end user customers, they will walk to another provider
>> otherwise", and eyeballs who say "you can't afford not to be available
>> to me for free, without me you have no business".
>>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat Mar 19 02:30:30 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:30:30 +1200
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
	<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
	<7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
	<Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
	<AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
	<pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
	<o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
	<aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>

These are very interesting email exchanges by the list. The questions I have
are to what extent then should content be controlled and what are the rules
for the prioritisation of traffic and who decides? Is it the ISP that
decides or is the regulator that decides and the ISPs enforce.

What are the Traffic rules?

Should the person or persons downloading videos (whether they are pirate or
not) be profiled and given the option to purchase a different product line
so that they do not crowd up the Network? Or would the Network be crowded
anyway?

Does this mean that policy writers who will think about the dynamics behind
what would be rules to guide open networks, would they have to have some
kind of economic model to govern the supply and demand of the various types
of traffic within a country's national network?

I don't know these answers and am not certain I am asking the right
questions but I would really love to understand the dynamics of Internet
Governance surrounding these issues.

Sala

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <
> 93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at
> 12:53:48 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> writes
>
> To wade back in for a second..did I miss something?
>>
>> The last thing the Internet needs is termination fees...that would be the
>> complete triumph of the 19th century over the 21st.
>>
>
> That's the USA perspective on NN. That a content provider should be able to
> have his content distributed throughout the Internet without paying at the
> point he hands the data over.
>
> The opposite view is that networks require content to satisfy their user
> eyeballs, and are getting it for free... what you say below:
>
>
> Second, Content Delivery Networks exist...to get content from the cloud to
>> end users, reliably.  Pretending they don't...or wishing they would go
>> away....I don't see the point of that.
>>
>
> Yes, although there's also the cost of getting the data through the cloud.
>
>
> They are paid by the people who care, ie the content owners, whether that
>> content is a movie; or an ad.
>>
>
> But they are only being paid by the eyeballs!
>
>
> As I have said before, the reason the Net Neutrality debate is confusing
>> is...because the term itself is an intentional obfuscation from its first
>> utterance; pushed by Google for its own purposes; and then abandoned by
>> Google when its business interests changed (ie its deal with Verizon last
>> summer.)
>>
>
> That was about the cost of delivering YouTube to mobile phones (in excess
> of the monthly cap the phone user happened to have), wasn't it?
>
>
> That the rest of us are still struggling to make sense of it...just shows
>> how clever the original obfuscation was.
>>
>
> A non-discriminatory network is a fairly clear objective, but will tend to
> result in all content being jammed and all equally difficult to access.
> There's also to issue of quantity - is an episode of "Friends" at 350
> Megabytes really equally important as 350 Megabytes of email?
>
> I realise some would say you can't make decisions like that, but if someone
> in my household was stopping my email arriving because they were hogging the
> line with video, they'd be told to stop pretty quickly (or at least wait
> till I was done).
>
>
> If, on other hand, we actually focused on 'what is an open Internet' - as
>> the FCC to its credit did last December (ok, before being taken to court by
>> Google's new best pal Verizon, and original bad boy of net neutrality
>> Comcast (for throttling p2p and specifically BitTorrent, without any
>> transparency as to what it was doing) - maybe, just maybe, we could stop
>> proposing reviving 19th Century notions for our current century.
>>
>
> The notion from the UK is to make it clear what you do.
>
>
> Or is that too much to hope for? The Internet economy is indeed,
>> complicated and involves all sorts of transactions and 'free'
>> services.....keeping the thing open and transparent as Jeanette longs for is
>> more the point than trying to manage a command and control regulatory system
>> which neither fits the technology, nor the incredibly dynamic users/creators
>> ie all of us. imho.
>>
>
> But you risk ending up with a virtual football stadium with twice as many
> spectators as seats. What happens then?
>
>
> ___________________________________
>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [
>> governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann [
>> jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:51 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
>> different shapes and forms?
>>
>> The magic you are referring to consists of the fees paid by the
>> subscribers. The subcribers pay what they are charged. I would have
>> loved to pay more if more bandwidth had been available in the area of
>> London where I used to live. Alas, that option did not and still does
>> not exist.
>>
>> The big telcos which immediately complain when the regulators considers
>> minimum standards of bandwidth or modest rules of transparency also
>> complain about the market because competition is so fierce. What exactly
>> do they want? Return to the comfortable times of monopoly where they
>> controlled both service standards and prices?
>>
>> The idea that termination fees would enable ISPs to control content,
>> suppliers and innovation scares me. Don't you find that a problem as well?
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> On 18.03.2011 16:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> In message <4D83708D.9030803 at wzb.eu>, at 15:47:41 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011,
>>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes
>>>
>>>  But the money has to come from somewhere, and in the UK that's the end
>>>>> users paying their monthly subscriptions to their ISPs. Unfortunately,
>>>>> the majority aren't paying enough money to provision the network
>>>>> sufficiently to deliver *everything* they demand *simultaneously*.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am surprised you frame things that way. This sounds like the typical
>>>> telco point of view. Content providers do also pay for the bandwidth
>>>> they are using don't they?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even in the most content-provider friendly scenario, they only pay for
>>> the bandwidth from their server to the "cloud". They then expect it to
>>> reach its destination by magic.
>>>
>>> If all ISPs had a good balance of high-volume content providers, and a
>>> large number of subscriber eyeballs, it might just even out. But real
>>> life's not like that.
>>>
>>> If all of that is not enough money for expanding the infrastructure,
>>>> the ISPs should perhaps raise the monthly fees we pay for our internet
>>>> connection?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They try, but consumers are too keen on being part of a "race to the
>>> bottom", where they'll buy the cheapest service on offer, and them
>>> complain it doesn't give them the highest performance possible.
>>>
>>> I know that this makes me sound jaded, but I've been in the industry too
>>> long (since the early 90's as a connectivity provider) and it's simply
>>> the way the market works.
>>>
>>> Charging content providers for delivery to end users is suspected to
>>>> create all sorts of unpleasant side-effects we cannot possibly want.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The original model was that an ISP with most of the local market would
>>> be getting a few large payments from content providers and a lot of
>>> small payments from eyeballs. Which meant that each was making a
>>> contribution to the overall cost.
>>>
>>> This breaks down, because the market goes global, and ISPs specialise in
>>> servers or eyeballs.
>>>
>>> Add in IXPs (which I think are a very good idea) and you get the current
>>> standoff between content that says "you can't afford not to deliver me
>>> to your end user customers, they will walk to another provider
>>> otherwise", and eyeballs who say "you can't afford not to be available
>>> to me for free, without me you have no business".
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110319/2696af81/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 19 06:10:53 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:10:53 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet   in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110318191143.0586d508@jefsey.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838@jefsey.com>
 <bfTP1h7id4gNFAcs@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110318191143.0586d508@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <KUB7XBXtEIhNFA2r@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <7.0.1.0.2.20110318191143.0586d508 at jefsey.com>, at 19:54:54 
on Fri, 18 Mar 2011, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> writes

 >>If you were on an island with a 2 Megabit leased line, and had ten 
 >>people wanting to stream BBC iPlayer at 1 Megabit each [which they 
 >>naturally feel is possible because each of them only wants half the 
 >>supplied bandwidth], what architecturally network neutral solution 
 >>would you propose?
 >>
 >>(Assume you'd asked if they wanted to pay 10x the monthly fee, and 
 >>they all said "no").
>
>The problem is not with the Internet, but with the BBC and its 
>commercial motivations to broadcast at 1 megabit for various merchant 
>reasons instead of better quality at 0.1 Megabit.

I agree - the BBC is declaring a "right" to have its content transmitted 
at a rate which it has determined. Although because its a public-service 
broadcaster there isn't a "commercial motivation". No-one pays anything 
to the BBC specifically for this content. In some other countries there 
will be similar content available where the subscriber *is* paying, 
however.

>So, neutrality is first to make sure that IUse neutral solutions (we 
>are out of the network, i.e. fringe to fringe) do not exist, that 
>permit better quality stream broadcast requiring 0.1 Megabit do not 
>exist, that obviously could be possible, but out of BBC (and Apple) 
>commercial control and benefits.

If you want to watch a TV show at the same resolution as broadcast 
(especially on a wide-screen TV) then it does require 1 Megabit or more. 
That's quite an achievement, actually, because they use 4+ megabits for 
standard broadcast quality.

>This is why we are to be careful about the difference between the 
>network neutrality bound to the Internet legacy and the current 
>merchandisation strategies, and the intrinsic brain to brain digital 
>ecosystem neutrality various middle strata. At each stratum the 
>architectural law is the same, but the scope is different.
>
>If you really want to dig into the roots of the Internet neutrality, I 
>suggest you read the begining of the RFC 3869

It says that while TCP was a good initial congestion avoidance 
mechanism,

    "The congestion control mechanisms of the Internet need to be
    expanded and modified to meet a wide range of new requirements, from
    new applications such as streaming media and multicast to new
    environments such as wireless networks..."

Which is exactly what the UK networks are proposing.

>BTW, is not Britain an Island?

It is (well, a collection of islands). However, the BBC content and its 
viewers are all inside that island. (Another time perhaps we can discuss 
the non-neutrality of the content being prohibited to view outside the 
country). For my 'island' analogy to work inside the UK, you have to 
imagine every town is an island, with all the people in that town 
connected to one Internet Point-of-presence, and that PoP connected to 
the outside world by one limited connection.

For the majority of subscribers involved in this NN battle in the UK, 
that's actually very close to the architectural model. The main pinch 
point is that connection between the PoP and the 'Internet Cloud' (the 
backhaul), while individual subscribers also have varying degrees of 
quality of connection to the PoP (the "up to 8Mbits" issue), which can 
also become saturated by content.

If customers would pay more for their individual connections, there'd be 
money to upgrade the backhaul.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 19 06:08:37 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:08:37 -0300
Subject: [governance] FW: [Air-L] Coming soon - to each nation near you, its
 own internet
Message-ID: <983F030097E6432F91C7EDE1863CE90D@userPC>

 
May be of interest (and from the "they would say that wouldn't they"
department...
 
M 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Cavrak <Steve.Cavrak at uvm.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:38 AM
Subject: [Air-L] Coming soon - to each nation near you, its own internet
To: List Aoir <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>


Following our discussion of the "non-American" internet, twitter limiting
the scope of research, university presses and scholarly publication, and
ebook readings, Google felt encouraged to send me an alert to the following
guest editorial from the Bangkok Post on a proposed Balkanized Internet for
the future ...


Coming soon - to each nation, its own internet
Philip J Cunningham
Bangkok Post
Published: 12/03/2011 at 12:00 AM
http://j.mp/hHMDoX
aka
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/226318/coming-soon---to-each-nati
on-its-own-internet

During this era of incessant online babble, blogs, tweets and cacophonous
concatenations, the internet has become a virtual Tower of Babel, an
ambitious, overloaded unitary structure breaking at the seams. It's only a
matter of time before it crumbles.

That, in a nutshell, is the view put forward by a group of US military
thinkers in the latest issue of Strategic Studies Quarterly, who see the
breaking up and "Balkanisation of the Internet" as natural as it is
inevitable, and not without public benefit, assuming that the 'Net
reorganises along traditional, nationalistic lines.

.

Inspired by the folk wisdom that good fences make good neighbours, there is
a school of thought in the US military that posits a not-so-distant future
in which the worldwide web will be divided up along national lines.

The Rise of a Cybered Westphalian Age, authored by Chris C Demchak and Peter
Dombrowski for the spring 2011 issue of the Strategic Studies Quarterly
argues that the internet at present is too open and too unguarded.
Cyberspace, when compared to the contours of natural space, can be
understood as an under-regulated domain replete with badlands and bandits, a
frontier to be tamed and subdivided.

.


------

Here's the Journal's TOC for this issue. Each of the articles is available
as a downloadable PDF; comments are invited via email.

SSQ
Strategic Studies Quarterly
Spring 2011
Air University
Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base Montgomery, Alabama
http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/

Commentary

The Future of Things "Cyber"
Gen Michael V. Hayden, USAF, Retired

Part I

Feature Article

An Air Force Strategic Vision for 2020-2030
Gen John A. Shaud, USAF, Retired
Adam B. Lowther

Perspectives

Rise of a Cybered Westphalian Age
Chris C. Demchak
Peter Dombrowski

Retaliatory Deterrence in Cyberspace
Eric Sterner

Perspectives for Cyber Strategists on Law for Cyberwar
Maj Gen Charles J. Dunlap Jr., USAF, Retired

World Gone Cyber MAD: How "Mutually Assured Debilitation"
Is the Best Hope for Cyber Deterrence
Matthew D. Crosston

Nuclear Crisis Management and "Cyberwar":
Phishing for Trouble?
Stephen J. Cimbala

Cyberwar as a Confidence Game
Martin C. Libicki

Book Reviews

Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar
Martin C. Libicki
Reviewed by: COL Jeffrey L. Caton, USA, Retired

Cyberpower and National Security
Edited by: Franklin D. Kramer, Stuart H. Starr, and Larry K. Wentz
Reviewed by: Col Rizwan Ali, USAF

The Essential Herman Kahn: In Defense of Thinking
Edited by: Paul Dragos Aligica and Kenneth R. Weinstein
Reviewed by: Col Joe McCue, USAF, Retired
_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/




-- 

With Sincerest Best Wishes ,

Gene
Gene Loeb, Ph.D.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110319/22297e54/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 19 06:20:32 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:20:32 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW at mail.gmail.com>, at 
18:30:30 on Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> writes
>These are very interesting email exchanges by the list. The questions I
>have are to what extent then should content be controlled and what are
>the rules for the prioritisation of traffic and who decides? Is it the
>ISP that decides or is the regulator that decides and the ISPs enforce.

In the current UK case, the ISPs have identified some traffic (P2P and 
NNTP) which they say is causing most of the congestion. The regulator is 
asking them to be transparent about the measures introduced to 
rate-limit those two kinds of traffic.

It's not as sophisticated as it could be (I don't like to see text-only 
NNTP restricted because that's collateral damage). But I can now see who 
is going to be introducing measures.

>What are the Traffic rules?
> 
>Should the person or persons downloading videos (whether they are
>pirate or not) be profiled and given the option to purchase a different
>product line so that they do not crowd up the Network?

In most cases they already have that option. In most cases they simply 
choose not to pay the extra.

>Or would the Network be crowded anyway?

The network will still be crowded, but the ISP can prioritise the 
traffic of its higher-paying customers over that part of the network 
which matters. It can also use the higher revenue to buy higher 
bandwidth infrastructure (for everyone to benefit from).

>Does this mean that policy writers who will think about the dynamics
>behind what would be rules to guide open networks, would they have to
>have some kind of economic model to govern the supply and demand of the
>various types of traffic within a country's national network?

I'm sure the ISPs have very sophisticated models of the traffic flow 
inside their networks.

>I don't know these answers and am not certain I am asking the right
>questions but I would really love to understand the dynamics of
>Internet Governance surrounding these issues.

It's a consumer protection issue mainly. Although there's quite a lot of 
Internet Governance which is there to protect the rights of consumers 
(eg many of the rules regarding the behaviour of domain name registries 
towards their customers).

Roland.

> 
>Sala
>
>On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Roland Perry <
>roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>  In message <
>  93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu
>  >, at 12:53:48 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu
>  > writes
>
>
>>    To wade back in for a second..did I miss something?
>
>>    The last thing the Internet needs is termination fees...that
>>    would be the complete triumph of the 19th century over the 21st.
>
>
>  That's the USA perspective on NN. That a content provider should be
>  able to have his content distributed throughout the Internet without
>  paying at the point he hands the data over.
>
>  The opposite view is that networks require content to satisfy their
>  user eyeballs, and are getting it for free... what you say below:
>
>
>
>>    Second, Content Delivery Networks exist...to get content from the
>>    cloud to end users, reliably.  Pretending they don't...or wishing
>>    they would go away....I don't see the point of that.
>
>
>  Yes, although there's also the cost of getting the data through the
>  cloud.
>
>
>
>>    They are paid by the people who care, ie the content owners,
>>    whether that content is a movie; or an ad.
>
>
>  But they are only being paid by the eyeballs!
>
>
>
>>    As I have said before, the reason the Net Neutrality debate is
>>    confusing is...because the term itself is an intentional
>>    obfuscation from its first utterance; pushed by Google for its
>>    own purposes; and then abandoned by Google when its business
>>    interests changed (ie its deal with Verizon last summer.)
>
>
>  That was about the cost of delivering YouTube to mobile phones (in
>  excess of the monthly cap the phone user happened to have), wasn't
>  it?
>
>
>
>>    That the rest of us are still struggling to make sense of
>>    it...just shows how clever the original obfuscation was.
>
>
>  A non-discriminatory network is a fairly clear objective, but will
>  tend to result in all content being jammed and all equally difficult
>  to access. There's also to issue of quantity - is an episode of
>  "Friends" at 350 Megabytes really equally important as 350 Megabytes
>  of email?
>
>  I realise some would say you can't make decisions like that, but if
>  someone in my household was stopping my email arriving because they
>  were hogging the line with video, they'd be told to stop pretty
>  quickly (or at least wait till I was done).
>
>
>
>>    If, on other hand, we actually focused on 'what is an open
>>    Internet' - as the FCC to its credit did last December (ok,
>>    before being taken to court by Google's new best pal Verizon, and
>>    original bad boy of net neutrality Comcast (for throttling p2p
>>    and specifically BitTorrent, without any transparency as to what
>>    it was doing) - maybe, just maybe, we could stop proposing
>>    reviving 19th Century notions for our current century.
>
>
>  The notion from the UK is to make it clear what you do.
>
>
>
>>    Or is that too much to hope for? The Internet economy is indeed,
>>    complicated and involves all sorts of transactions and 'free'
>>    services.....keeping the thing open and transparent as Jeanette
>>    longs for is more the point than trying to manage a command and
>>    control regulatory system which neither fits the technology, nor
>>    the incredibly dynamic users/creators ie all of us. imho.
>
>
>  But you risk ending up with a virtual football stadium with twice as
>  many spectators as seats. What happens then?
>
>
>
>>    ___________________________________
>>    From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [
>>    governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>    [jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>    Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:51 AM
>>    To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry
>>    Subject: Re: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile
>>    Internet in different shapes and forms?
>
>>    The magic you are referring to consists of the fees paid by the
>>    subscribers. The subcribers pay what they are charged. I would
>>    have
>>    loved to pay more if more bandwidth had been available in the
>>    area of
>>    London where I used to live. Alas, that option did not and still
>>    does
>>    not exist.
>
>>    The big telcos which immediately complain when the regulators
>>    considers
>>    minimum standards of bandwidth or modest rules of transparency
>>    also
>>    complain about the market because competition is so fierce. What
>>    exactly
>>    do they want? Return to the comfortable times of monopoly where
>>    they
>>    controlled both service standards and prices?
>
>>    The idea that termination fees would enable ISPs to control
>>    content,
>>    suppliers and innovation scares me. Don't you find that a problem
>>    as well?
>
>>    jeanette
>
>>    On 18.03.2011 16:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>>      In message <4D83708D.9030803 at wzb.eu>, at 15:47:41 on Fri, 18
>>>      Mar 2011,
>>>      Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> writes
>
>
>>>>>          But the money has to come from somewhere, and in the UK
>>>>>          that's the end
>>>>>          users paying their monthly subscriptions to their ISPs.
>>>>>          Unfortunately,
>>>>>          the majority aren't paying enough money to provision the
>>>>>          network
>>>>>          sufficiently to deliver *everything* they demand
>>>>>          *simultaneously*.
>
>
>>>>        Hi,
>
>>>>        I am surprised you frame things that way. This sounds like
>>>>        the typical
>>>>        telco point of view. Content providers do also pay for the
>>>>        bandwidth
>>>>        they are using don't they?
>
>
>>>      Even in the most content-provider friendly scenario, they only
>>>      pay for
>>>      the bandwidth from their server to the "cloud". They then
>>>      expect it to
>>>      reach its destination by magic.
>
>>>      If all ISPs had a good balance of high-volume content
>>>      providers, and a
>>>      large number of subscriber eyeballs, it might just even out.
>>>      But real
>>>      life's not like that.
>
>
>>>>        If all of that is not enough money for expanding the
>>>>        infrastructure,
>>>>        the ISPs should perhaps raise the monthly fees we pay for
>>>>        our internet
>>>>        connection?
>
>
>>>      They try, but consumers are too keen on being part of a "race
>>>      to the
>>>      bottom", where they'll buy the cheapest service on offer, and
>>>      them
>>>      complain it doesn't give them the highest performance
>>>      possible.
>
>>>      I know that this makes me sound jaded, but I've been in the
>>>      industry too
>>>      long (since the early 90's as a connectivity provider) and
>>>      it's simply
>>>      the way the market works.
>
>
>>>>        Charging content providers for delivery to end users is
>>>>        suspected to
>>>>        create all sorts of unpleasant side-effects we cannot
>>>>        possibly want.
>
>
>>>      The original model was that an ISP with most of the local
>>>      market would
>>>      be getting a few large payments from content providers and a
>>>      lot of
>>>      small payments from eyeballs. Which meant that each was making
>>>      a
>>>      contribution to the overall cost.
>
>>>      This breaks down, because the market goes global, and ISPs
>>>      specialise in
>>>      servers or eyeballs.
>
>>>      Add in IXPs (which I think are a very good idea) and you get
>>>      the current
>>>      standoff between content that says "you can't afford not to
>>>      deliver me
>>>      to your end user customers, they will walk to another provider
>>>      otherwise", and eyeballs who say "you can't afford not to be
>>>      available
>>>      to me for free, without me you have no business".
>
>
>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>    To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>>    For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>    To 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 pbatreau at epistrophe.fr  Sat Mar 19 09:00:43 2011
From: pbatreau at epistrophe.fr (Philippe Batreau)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 14:00:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Igouv=2Enet_Le_R=E9seau_social_des_ac?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?teurs_francophones_de_la_gouvernance_de_l=27internet?=
Message-ID: <AANLkTin7CuD82Qg63_aMaTsFCG9oYFfHi3KU-gN39jOE@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

This is a message for french speaking people announcing a french
speaking social network about internet governance and e-government.

J'ai le plaisir de vous annoncer le lancement du réseau social
Igouv.net,  à l'adresse http://www.igouv.net

Igouv.net est le réseau social dédié aux acteurs francophones de de la
gouvernance de l'internet et de l'e-gouvernement.

Outil professionnel, Igouv.net vous permet de partager, mutualiser et
communiquer avec les autres membres du réseau pour une meilleure
exécution de vos missions et projets dans le cadre de la gouvernance
de l'internet et de l'e-gouvernement (partage d'expérience,
d’informations de documents).

Inédit, Igouv.net a été créé pour mettre à disposition de tous les
acteurs francophones de la gouvernance de l'internet et de
l'e-gouvernement un outil de travail et d'échanges dynamique et
interactif.

L’inscription sur Igouv.net est rapide et gratuite :
http://www.igouv.net/register/

- Complétez votre profil sans oublier de vous présenter ;
- Présentez-vous aux autres membres du réseau dans le forum du groupe igouv ;
- Inscrivez-vous aux groupes correspondant à vos centre d’intérêts et
proposez la création de groupes ;
- Invitez vos relations à vous rejoindre sur le réseau.

Dans l'attente de vous retrouver sur Igouv.net,

Cordialement,

Philippe Batreau
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From pbekono at gmail.com  Sat Mar 19 11:15:23 2011
From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:15:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Igouv=2Enet_Le_R=E9seau_social_de?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?s_acteurs_francophones_de_la_gouvernance_de_l=27internet?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin7CuD82Qg63_aMaTsFCG9oYFfHi3KU-gN39jOE@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin7CuD82Qg63_aMaTsFCG9oYFfHi3KU-gN39jOE@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikd=BK+sTahC1rNz--2NBMZLC4buKp6oQjEj7_e@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Philippe,

Merci pour le lien. Cette plateforme permettra certainement de booster
la contribution des francophones.

Pascal

Le 19/03/11, Philippe Batreau<pbatreau at epistrophe.fr> a écrit :
> Dear all,
>
> This is a message for french speaking people announcing a french
> speaking social network about internet governance and e-government.
>
> J'ai le plaisir de vous annoncer le lancement du réseau social
> Igouv.net,  à l'adresse http://www.igouv.net
>
> Igouv.net est le réseau social dédié aux acteurs francophones de de la
> gouvernance de l'internet et de l'e-gouvernement.
>
> Outil professionnel, Igouv.net vous permet de partager, mutualiser et
> communiquer avec les autres membres du réseau pour une meilleure
> exécution de vos missions et projets dans le cadre de la gouvernance
> de l'internet et de l'e-gouvernement (partage d'expérience,
> d’informations de documents).
>
> Inédit, Igouv.net a été créé pour mettre à disposition de tous les
> acteurs francophones de la gouvernance de l'internet et de
> l'e-gouvernement un outil de travail et d'échanges dynamique et
> interactif.
>
> L’inscription sur Igouv.net est rapide et gratuite :
> http://www.igouv.net/register/
>
> - Complétez votre profil sans oublier de vous présenter ;
> - Présentez-vous aux autres membres du réseau dans le forum du groupe igouv
> ;
> - Inscrivez-vous aux groupes correspondant à vos centre d’intérêts et
> proposez la création de groupes ;
> - Invitez vos relations à vous rejoindre sur le réseau.
>
> Dans l'attente de vous retrouver sur Igouv.net,
>
> Cordialement,
>
> Philippe Batreau
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Mar 19 14:35:27 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:35:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet    in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <KUB7XBXtEIhNFA2r@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
 <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838@jefsey.com>
 <bfTP1h7id4gNFAcs@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110318191143.0586d508@jefsey.com>
 <KUB7XBXtEIhNFA2r@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110319181004.05a39018@jefsey.com>

At 11:10 19/03/2011, Roland Perry wrote:
>If you want to watch a TV show at the same resolution as broadcast 
>(especially on a wide-screen TV) then it does require 1 Megabit or 
>more. That's quite an achievement, actually, because they use 4+ 
>megabits for standard broadcast quality.

And your eye has 40 slow channels to your brain. The margin left to 
better technology is huge. Read my definition back: it does call for 
innovation. Neutrality is first for everyone to have the best 
avaialble technology. RFC 3869 says (end of page 2):  "The principal 
thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main 
source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the 
Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.  In addition to issues 
about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect 
the content of the research, for example, towards or against the 
development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care 
about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on 
the Internet."

The network neutrality is in trouble. But the solution is not in 
managing what commercial funding led to, but in demanding public 
funding to at last respond to the IAB. And in heping grassoroots 
research. Europe decided not to do so at the WSIS, and to drop the 
hopes of developping countries in Tunis, with Martin Boyle 
representing us and playing the US card. We must reform that. To 
reform that is easy enough: to acknowledge the three areas involved 
(operance, governance, adminance) and to disqualify the absentees as 
stakeholders. For example, the non-participation of the IETF to the 
WSIS is proprely scandalous: this is the real source of the 
netneutrality issue. But Brian Carpenter, the Chair at the time, 
wrote me the less IETF is involved, the better.

We have a chance now, which is to use the current architectural 
evolution, and the IUse tiny community emergence, to change this. But 
it will take time and apostoles.

Best
jfc

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat Mar 19 22:38:13 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:38:13 +1200
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110319181004.05a39018@jefsey.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
	<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
	<7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
	<Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
	<AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
	<pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
	<o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838@jefsey.com>
	<bfTP1h7id4gNFAcs@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20110318191143.0586d508@jefsey.com>
	<KUB7XBXtEIhNFA2r@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20110319181004.05a39018@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikFragKAzHNJePco4Ys3w__6+-40ReH8P1XrwdA@mail.gmail.com>

Page 7 of this link is quite interesting:

https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:35 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> At 11:10 19/03/2011, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> If you want to watch a TV show at the same resolution as broadcast
>> (especially on a wide-screen TV) then it does require 1 Megabit or more.
>> That's quite an achievement, actually, because they use 4+ megabits for
>> standard broadcast quality.
>>
>
> And your eye has 40 slow channels to your brain. The margin left to better
> technology is huge. Read my definition back: it does call for innovation.
> Neutrality is first for everyone to have the best avaialble technology. RFC
> 3869 says (end of page 2):  "The principal thesis of this document is that
> if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet
> research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.  In
> addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can
> also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the
> development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the
> effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet."
>
> The network neutrality is in trouble. But the solution is not in managing
> what commercial funding led to, but in demanding public funding to at last
> respond to the IAB. And in heping grassoroots research. Europe decided not
> to do so at the WSIS, and to drop the hopes of developping countries in
> Tunis, with Martin Boyle representing us and playing the US card. We must
> reform that. To reform that is easy enough: to acknowledge the three areas
> involved (operance, governance, adminance) and to disqualify the absentees
> as stakeholders. For example, the non-participation of the IETF to the WSIS
> is proprely scandalous: this is the real source of the netneutrality issue.
> But Brian Carpenter, the Chair at the time, wrote me the less IETF is
> involved, the better.
>
> We have a chance now, which is to use the current architectural evolution,
> and the IUse tiny community emergence, to change this. But it will take time
> and apostoles.
>
> Best
> jfc
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110320/5f542ff1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sun Mar 20 03:53:36 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:53:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet  in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikFragKAzHNJePco4Ys3w__6+-40ReH8P1XrwdA@mail.gmail.c
 om>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
 <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838@jefsey.com>
 <bfTP1h7id4gNFAcs@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110318191143.0586d508@jefsey.com>
 <KUB7XBXtEIhNFA2r@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110319181004.05a39018@jefsey.com>
 <AANLkTikFragKAzHNJePco4Ys3w__6+-40ReH8P1XrwdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110320084812.052e70f0@jefsey.com>

At 03:38 20/03/2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>Page 7 of this link is quite interesting:
>
><https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf>https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf

Yes. A missing important figure would be the required power ratio. 
And to match this with the increased usage. Then to compare with the 
image compression and FEC impact. Another figure would be the 
advertising bandwidth cost. In our monney based world we must compute 
everything in ROI terms. At least as long as the FEC system is not 
replaced by a WSIS based system. One cannot have a dollard and a 
people centric world at the same time; here is the key to netneutralty.

jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110320/c0796a55/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 20 14:03:18 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 06:03:18 +1200
Subject: [governance] Rebuilding Egypt's Governance System
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=SAqo=FWguP9e519Bfuf6LbMopyzO=i=Mwsnm=@mail.gmail.com>

Dear List,

I woke up this morning through the TV (forgot to switch it off last night)
to a debate in Egypt on Aljazeera where a Panel of 3 were arguing about:-

1) where they should have immediate elections;
2)whether they should wait for a year or two before elections;
3)Who should re-write the constitution;
4)Within the referendum whether s.2 of the old constitution would be revised
(ie. Muslim country or not)?

As they were debating the issues, one of the panelists described that the
numerous laws and constitution format and contents were not developed by the
Egyptian people but by a select few. How does one develop a Political System
(Machinery) in a country that has never experienced one before.

What are the implications for Internet Governance? In light of the Decree
which disempowered the Telcos in Egypt against judically reviewing
administrative decisions when they were ordered to stop transmitting the
Internet, it will be interesting to see developments within their
constitution as it will have a direct correlation on issues of internet
governance in Egypt.

Regulatory contexts directly impact on behaviour of operators in any
jurisdiction. Whilst countries may have different political structures and
systems, at the end of the day, the international norms and standards
countries ratify or accede will determine national internet governance
contexts.



Warm Regards,
Sala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110321/936d17f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From zads911 at msn.com  Sun Mar 20 14:16:21 2011
From: zads911 at msn.com (Mohamed zahran)
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:16:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] Rebuilding Egypt's Governance System
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=SAqo=FWguP9e519Bfuf6LbMopyzO=i=Mwsnm=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=SAqo=FWguP9e519Bfuf6LbMopyzO=i=Mwsnm=@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SNT137-w3010D71EBEBA3C5D3D2F09F0B20@phx.gbl>


 
Dear salanieta
 
Dear salanieta
I would like to thank you for your Mail and for the point you talk about , I do think that we her in Egypt should keep our eye on that grantee that right and To make the Egyptian constitution contains principles for the new Internet Governance, you may suggest to help if you would like 


 
 
Regards,
Mohamed Zahran
Business Systems Analyst
Cell: +20129614467


 



Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 06:03:18 +1200
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Rebuilding Egypt's Governance System


Dear List,
 
I woke up this morning through the TV (forgot to switch it off last night) to a debate in Egypt on Aljazeera where a Panel of 3 were arguing about:-
 
1) where they should have immediate elections;
2)whether they should wait for a year or two before elections;
3)Who should re-write the constitution;
4)Within the referendum whether s.2 of the old constitution would be revised (ie. Muslim country or not)?
 
As they were debating the issues, one of the panelists described that the numerous laws and constitution format and contents were not developed by the Egyptian people but by a select few. How does one develop a Political System (Machinery) in a country that has never experienced one before.
 
What are the implications for Internet Governance? In light of the Decree which disempowered the Telcos in Egypt against judically reviewing administrative decisions when they were ordered to stop transmitting the Internet, it will be interesting to see developments within their constitution as it will have a direct correlation on issues of internet governance in Egypt.
 
Regulatory contexts directly impact on behaviour of operators in any jurisdiction. Whilst countries may have different political structures and systems, at the end of the day, the international norms and standards countries ratify or accede will determine national internet governance contexts.
 
 
 
Warm Regards,
Sala 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110320/664fcc51/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 20 14:26:39 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 06:26:39 +1200
Subject: [governance] Rebuilding Egypt's Governance System
In-Reply-To: <SNT137-w3010D71EBEBA3C5D3D2F09F0B20@phx.gbl>
References: <AANLkTi=SAqo=FWguP9e519Bfuf6LbMopyzO=i=Mwsnm=@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT137-w3010D71EBEBA3C5D3D2F09F0B20@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimTpjqKiwnSBnK4CEsQsP2+GD708jC40juQkKic@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Zahran,

I would be happy to help offer assist. I have had a read of some basic legal
instruments, the ones, I found in English where I noticed the absence of
judicial review mechanisms.

Warm Regards,

Sala

2011/3/21 Mohamed zahran <zads911 at msn.com>

>
> Dear salanieta
>
> Dear salanieta
> I would like to thank you for your Mail and for the point you talk about ,
> I do think that we her in Egypt should keep our eye on that grantee that
> right and To make the Egyptian constitution contains principles for the
> new Internet Governance, you may suggest to help if you would like
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Regards,*
>
> Mohamed Zahran
>
> Business Systems Analyst
>
> Cell: +20129614467
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 06:03:18 +1200
> From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Rebuilding Egypt's Governance System
>
>
> Dear List,
>
> I woke up this morning through the TV (forgot to switch it off last night)
> to a debate in Egypt on Aljazeera where a Panel of 3 were arguing about:-
>
> 1) where they should have immediate elections;
> 2)whether they should wait for a year or two before elections;
> 3)Who should re-write the constitution;
> 4)Within the referendum whether s.2 of the old constitution would be
> revised (ie. Muslim country or not)?
>
> As they were debating the issues, one of the panelists described that the
> numerous laws and constitution format and contents were not developed by the
> Egyptian people but by a select few. How does one develop a Political System
> (Machinery) in a country that has never experienced one before.
>
> What are the implications for Internet Governance? In light of the Decree
> which disempowered the Telcos in Egypt against judically reviewing
> administrative decisions when they were ordered to stop transmitting the
> Internet, it will be interesting to see developments within their
> constitution as it will have a direct correlation on issues of internet
> governance in Egypt.
>
> Regulatory contexts directly impact on behaviour of operators in any
> jurisdiction. Whilst countries may have different political structures and
> systems, at the end of the day, the international norms and standards
> countries ratify or accede will determine national internet governance
> contexts.
>
>
>
> Warm Regards,
> Sala
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110321/e518d051/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 21 07:15:44 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:15:44 -0300
Subject: [governance] Community ICT supports in Emergency and Immediate
 Post-Emergency Japan-email archive
Message-ID: <22B3B1C3638E431DA0CD1367693C7739@userPC>

http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ci-text-cis

The archive of on-going email interactions concerning possible
community/grassroots ICT supports in Emergency and Immediate Post-Emergency
Japan.

Subscription details are available through the archive site.

Best,

M


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Mar 21 08:02:00 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:02:00 +0000
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikFragKAzHNJePco4Ys3w__6+-40ReH8P1XrwdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838@jefsey.com>
 <bfTP1h7id4gNFAcs@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110318191143.0586d508@jefsey.com>
 <KUB7XBXtEIhNFA2r@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110319181004.05a39018@jefsey.com>
 <AANLkTikFragKAzHNJePco4Ys3w__6+-40ReH8P1XrwdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Mwk6Ooo44zhNFAFM@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTikFragKAzHNJePco4Ys3w__6+-40ReH8P1XrwdA at mail.gmail.com>, at 
14:38:13 on Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> writes
>Page 7 of this link is quite interesting:
>
>https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf

"Broadband speed and availability", I assume.

Yes. It does show how demand for bandwidth is increasing exponentially.

You could almost replace their "speed bands" with 2.5G, 3G, 3.9G and 4G.

But remember that a lot of mobile data plans will also have caps 
(probably averaging 1GB a month - so that a DVD-quality movie is going 
to take 4 months, not merely 34 hours!)

Brings back memories of when downloading a big email attachment using 2G 
might take hours.

You may have heard today that AT&T have just bought T-Mobile (USA) in a 
bid to increase their mobile broadband capacity (and also make their 
transition to 4G more rapid).
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 21 13:45:22 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:45:22 +1200
Subject: [governance] IBA - 22st Annual Communication and Competition Law
 Conference: EARLY BIRD RATE!
In-Reply-To: <8043348.1300727826000.JavaMail.SYSTEM@mmpserver>
References: <8043348.1300727826000.JavaMail.SYSTEM@mmpserver>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikBC1EM1zfwu8eWZ95WWwQKBqM=o+B_LhkBfduP@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies for cross posting:





*A conference presented by the IBA Law Committee and the IBA Antitrust
Committee, and supported the IBA European Regional Forum.*

Dear Colleague,

We are delighted to invite you to attend the IBA's *22st Annual
Communication and Competition Law Conference* which will take place in *Vienna,
Austria on 16-17 May 2011*.

REGISTER BEFORE 1 APRIL 2010 TO RECEIVE THE EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT
RATE!<http://iba.int-bar.org/tools/request.cfm?&u=70CB5CA4F7AB808DB9B90DD0ED13A321&m=503&ur=1816126>

This highly successful annual event is a must in the diaries of in-house and
private practitioners as well as regulators, bankers and professionals in
the relevant industries.

*Topics Include:*

• Future challenges to the regulation of electronic communications
• Scope and limits of judicial review in the regulatory process
• 3G licence renewal, 4G licensing and the digital dividend
• Fixed network net neutrality and NGA regulation
• Competition Policy and the Digital Agenda
• Recent developments in competition enforcement in the communication
sectors

Speakers from various jurisdictions in both communication law and
competition law will be addressing current topics, including keynote
addresses from *Chris Fonteijn *Chairperson of BEREC 2011, Chairman of Dutch
Authority (OPTA), The Hague and Commissioner *Neelie Kroes *Commissioner for
the Digital Economy, European Commission, Brussels (invited).

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL
PROGRAMME<http://iba.int-bar.org/tools/request.cfm?&u=087F716573B23BEB3016A6227682EC98&m=503&ur=1816126>

In addition to this highly substantive programme delegates can attend the
reception and conference dinner to be held at the Palais
Daun-Kinsky<http://iba.int-bar.org/tools/request.cfm?&u=E892121AB0EE25997CF109C062EBD60B&m=503&ur=1816126>an
elegant baroque palace located in the centre of Vienna.

BOOK ONLINE NOW AND SAVE A FURTHER 10% ON THE EARLY BIRD
RATE<http://iba.int-bar.org/tools/request.cfm?&u=6B13C4DA2A964EE038CA6842F3530A8C&m=503&ur=1816126>

Alternatively please complete the registration form and return it with
payment to the IBA office. For further information please contact conference
department at the International Bar Association by Tel; +44 (0) 20 7691 6868;
Fax; +44 (0) 20 7691 6545 or by email confs at int-bar.org

A highlight of the programme is the announcement of the winner of the *IBA
Communications Law Committee’s Award for Outstanding Achievement by an
In-House Counsel<http://iba.int-bar.org/tools/request.cfm?&u=E12DA64B487A9A3092EEED3FDF47B9A6&m=503&ur=1816126>
*over the previous 12 months. Nominations will be sought early in 2011 for
this prestigious award. The prize includes €800 towards travel and
accommodation costs and free registration for the conference.

*9th Communications Law Committee Young Lawyers’ Writing
Competition<http://iba.int-bar.org/tools/request.cfm?&u=E4B52422549102E8ED8FCB02C5F12900&m=503&ur=1816126>
*The competition is open to lawyers up to and including the age of 35,
whether or not they are members of the IBA. Winners of previous IBA Young
Lawyers’ Writing Competitions are not entitled to participate. Prize
includes free registration for the IBA Communications and Competition Law
Conference to be held on 16-17 May 2011 in Vienna, Austria (including lunch
and dinner); up to €800 toward travel expenses and hotel fees; and the
opportunity to present a summary of the paper during the conference.
Deadline for submission of papers – 1 April 2011

For more information about the Annual in-house counsel outstanding
achievement award and the 9th Communication Law Committee young lawyers’
writing competition please download the form on the website or email
charlotte.evans at int-bar.org

SPONSORSHIP DETAILS FOR THIS CONFERENCE CAN BE OBTAINED BY EMAILING:
specialist.conferences at int-bar.org

We look forward to seeing you in Vienna


*Conference Co-Chairs*

*Michael J Reynolds* Allen & Overy LLP, Brussels; IBA Vice-President

*Alexandre Verheyden* Jones Day, Brussels; Co-Chair, IBA Communications Law
Committee

*Chris Watson* CMS Cameron McKenna LLP, London; Co-Chair IBA Communications
Law Committee










You can unsubscribe to avoid receiving any more E-Mails. Click
here<http://iba.int-bar.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?ur=1816126>to
unsubscribe.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110322/ec5478cd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Mar 21 10:43:36 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:43:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] Rebuilding Egypt's Governance System
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=SAqo=FWguP9e519Bfuf6LbMopyzO=i=Mwsnm=@mail.gmail.c
 om>
References: <AANLkTi=SAqo=FWguP9e519Bfuf6LbMopyzO=i=Mwsnm=@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110321124728.052e74c8@jefsey.com>

Dear Salanieta,

the point you raise is extremely important for us all. The recent 
political unrest and changes in Arabic countries show that the 
digital network, practices and availability belonged to the blood and 
flesh of every country. This is the same as justice, liberty, human rights.

This is why we need a 33rd articles in HR to deal with this aspect. 
This article will probably forged in the coming national 
constitutions. It should probabl (basy deal with the right to 
digitally exists (a person centric information society), to own 
digital goods (author's rights [different from business copyroghts], 
sites, address, domain name, privacy protection, referents, etc.), 
the right to send (the right to encrypt), the right to freely receive 
only what we want (netneutrality, spam, advertizing, intox), and the 
right to associate, supported by short-term agreement and contracts 
(operance and netiquette), mid-terms rules and laws (governance and 
cultures), and long-term architectural constitution (adminance and 
civilizations) at person's intelligent digital use level.

Also, the way these things developped show that democracy is out. 
Democracy is based upon one man one vote. When the President wants, 
the way Banks permit. The network has introduced a new society and a 
new kind of state based upon dedication, competence, direct influence 
of everyone, shared responsibility, consensus, etc. where people ca 
directly relate tpgether and with the rest of the world; This is a 
new form of societal government one can call polycracy. Based upon 
soubsidiarity and suppleance, national diversity and unity. The 
Internet State is underway, which will progressively the Guttemberg 
State, with everyone's access to the law. A different brand new world 
even if the  increase in the price of the crude and other motivations 
made m the FED empire to help. This goes much further than that.

Also, an independant grassroot communication network technology, 
independent from the ISP infrastructure (based on wifi, optical local 
meshed network, telephone vacation, high compression techniques, FEC 
for one shot forwarding, etc.) could be a citizen, lilitary, survival task.

Best
jfc



At 19:03 20/03/2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>Dear List,
>
>I woke up this morning through the TV (forgot to switch it off last 
>night) to a debate in Egypt on Aljazeera where a Panel of 3 were 
>arguing about:-
>
>1) where they should have immediate elections;
>2)whether they should wait for a year or two before elections;
>3)Who should re-write the constitution;
>4)Within the referendum whether s.2 of the old constitution would be 
>revised (ie. Muslim country or not)?
>
>As they were debating the issues, one of the panelists described 
>that the numerous laws and constitution format and contents were not 
>developed by the Egyptian people but by a select few. How does one 
>develop a Political System (Machinery) in a country that has never 
>experienced one before.
>
>What are the implications for Internet Governance? In light of the 
>Decree which disempowered the Telcos in Egypt against judically 
>reviewing administrative decisions when they were ordered to stop 
>transmitting the Internet, it will be interesting to see 
>developments within their constitution as it will have a direct 
>correlation on issues of internet governance in Egypt.
>
>Regulatory contexts directly impact on behaviour of operators in any 
>jurisdiction. Whilst countries may have different political 
>structures and systems, at the end of the day, the international 
>norms and standards countries ratify or accede will determine 
>national internet governance contexts.
>
>
>
>Warm Regards,
>Sala
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 21 16:02:08 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:02:08 +1200
Subject: [governance] Rebuilding Egypt's Governance System
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110321124728.052e74c8@jefsey.com>
References: <AANLkTi=SAqo=FWguP9e519Bfuf6LbMopyzO=i=Mwsnm=@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20110321124728.052e74c8@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinbNTac21WSAKv4aVPOG+tzRFotU1pcE0zN62De@mail.gmail.com>

Dear JFC,

I agree that there should be dialogue.

In countries where governance mechanisms are tested at its seams (political
challenges) and where there is no clear separation of powers, these sorts of
development in law can be detrimental to governance in general.

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue during this period passed a fiscal reform
and this was challenged in *Koroi v Commissioner of Inland Revenue* [2001]
FJHC 138; HBC0179.2001 (24 August 2001). Justice Gates ruled that
substantive legislative reform was for Parliaments and not for caretaker
governments.

Exactly 7 years later this perspective was reversed, following the 2006
Military Coup D’ Etat, the Judges (learned Justice Gates, Byrne and Pathik
ruled in *Qarase v Bainimarama* [2008] FJHC 241; HBC 60.2007S; HBC 398.2007S
(9 October 2008) ruled that Justice Gates’s approach was narrow. This
provided the necessary authorization and licence for an Interim
Administration to pass substantive legislative reform.


There are numerous laws affecting Internet Governance and ICT development
that cannot be questioned in court (this is encoded within the
promulgations) and there is a greater threat to lack of transparency and
consultations. Fortunately, in Fiji, there is strong committment expressed
by the Interim Administration to exercise collaboration and consultations in
the development of policies and laws.

Warm Regards,
 Sala

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:43 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> Dear Salanieta,
>
> the point you raise is extremely important for us all. The recent political
> unrest and changes in Arabic countries show that the digital network,
> practices and availability belonged to the blood and flesh of every country.
> This is the same as justice, liberty, human rights.
>
> This is why we need a 33rd articles in HR to deal with this aspect. This
> article will probably forged in the coming national constitutions. It should
> probabl (basy deal with the right to digitally exists (a person centric
> information society), to own digital goods (author's rights [different from
> business copyroghts], sites, address, domain name, privacy protection,
> referents, etc.), the right to send (the right to encrypt), the right to
> freely receive only what we want (netneutrality, spam, advertizing, intox),
> and the right to associate, supported by short-term agreement and contracts
> (operance and netiquette), mid-terms rules and laws (governance and
> cultures), and long-term architectural constitution (adminance and
> civilizations) at person's intelligent digital use level.
>
> Also, the way these things developped show that democracy is out. Democracy
> is based upon one man one vote. When the President wants, the way Banks
> permit. The network has introduced a new society and a new kind of state
> based upon dedication, competence, direct influence of everyone, shared
> responsibility, consensus, etc. where people ca directly relate tpgether and
> with the rest of the world; This is a new form of societal government one
> can call polycracy. Based upon soubsidiarity and suppleance, national
> diversity and unity. The Internet State is underway, which will
> progressively the Guttemberg State, with everyone's access to the law. A
> different brand new world even if the  increase in the price of the crude
> and other motivations made m the FED empire to help. This goes much further
> than that.
>
> Also, an independant grassroot communication network technology,
> independent from the ISP infrastructure (based on wifi, optical local meshed
> network, telephone vacation, high compression techniques, FEC for one shot
> forwarding, etc.) could be a citizen, lilitary, survival task.
>
> Best
> jfc
>
>
>
>
> At 19:03 20/03/2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>>  Dear List,
>>
>> I woke up this morning through the TV (forgot to switch it off last night)
>> to a debate in Egypt on Aljazeera where a Panel of 3 were arguing about:-
>>
>> 1) where they should have immediate elections;
>> 2)whether they should wait for a year or two before elections;
>> 3)Who should re-write the constitution;
>> 4)Within the referendum whether s.2 of the old constitution would be
>> revised (ie. Muslim country or not)?
>>
>> As they were debating the issues, one of the panelists described that the
>> numerous laws and constitution format and contents were not developed by the
>> Egyptian people but by a select few. How does one develop a Political System
>> (Machinery) in a country that has never experienced one before.
>>
>> What are the implications for Internet Governance? In light of the Decree
>> which disempowered the Telcos in Egypt against judically reviewing
>> administrative decisions when they were ordered to stop transmitting the
>> Internet, it will be interesting to see developments within their
>> constitution as it will have a direct correlation on issues of internet
>> governance in Egypt.
>>
>> Regulatory contexts directly impact on behaviour of operators in any
>> jurisdiction. Whilst countries may have different political structures and
>> systems, at the end of the day, the international norms and standards
>> countries ratify or accede will determine national internet governance
>> contexts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Warm Regards,
>> Sala
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110322/cc83688d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From pouzin at well.com  Mon Mar 21 20:52:51 2011
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:52:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
	<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
	<7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
	<Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
	<AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
	<pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
	<o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
	<aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>
	<7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinKVLqPDrfn0ZHehYNwQaXEtASQivF3t4dcCCeq@mail.gmail.com>

What's New @ IEEE-USA - Eye On Washington
Vol. 2011, No. 4 (18 March 2011)
http://ieeeusa.org/policy/eyeonwashington/2011/04eow2011.asp

FCC bill stalled.

Disapproval Resolution for 'Net Neutrality' Rules Advances Out of House
Energy & Commerce Committee
. . .
"the Committee approved a resolution of disapproval (H J Res
37<http://www.cq.com/bill/112/HJRES37>)
that turns back rules adopted by the FCC in December
2010<http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Telecom/030911/MarkupMemo.pdf>barring
fixed broadband service providers from blocking content and
unnecessarily discriminating in transmitting network traffic."
. . .
The resolution gives broadband service providers a "green light to block
from consumers any applications, content and services they choose to block,"
said Edward J. Markey ( D-Mass.). "I am not saying that all providers will
do this, but some certainly will."


WHAT NEXT ?
- - -

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 18:30:30 on Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> writes
>
>  These are very interesting email exchanges by the list. The questions I
>> have are to what extent then should content be controlled and what are
>> the rules for the prioritisation of traffic and who decides? Is it the
>> ISP that decides or is the regulator that decides and the ISPs enforce.
>>
>
> In the current UK case, the ISPs have identified some traffic (P2P and
> NNTP) which they say is causing most of the congestion. The regulator is
> asking them to be transparent about the measures introduced to rate-limit
> those two kinds of traffic.
>
> It's not as sophisticated as it could be (I don't like to see text-only
> NNTP restricted because that's collateral damage). But I can now see who is
> going to be introducing measures.
>
>
>  What are the Traffic rules?
>>
>> Should the person or persons downloading videos (whether they are
>> pirate or not) be profiled and given the option to purchase a different
>> product line so that they do not crowd up the Network?
>>
>
> In most cases they already have that option. In most cases they simply
> choose not to pay the extra.
>
>
>  Or would the Network be crowded anyway?
>>
>
> The network will still be crowded, but the ISP can prioritise the traffic
> of its higher-paying customers over that part of the network which matters.
> It can also use the higher revenue to buy higher bandwidth infrastructure
> (for everyone to benefit from).
>
>
>  Does this mean that policy writers who will think about the dynamics
>> behind what would be rules to guide open networks, would they have to
>> have some kind of economic model to govern the supply and demand of the
>> various types of traffic within a country's national network?
>>
>
> I'm sure the ISPs have very sophisticated models of the traffic flow inside
> their networks.
>
>
>  I don't know these answers and am not certain I am asking the right
>> questions but I would really love to understand the dynamics of
>> Internet Governance surrounding these issues.
>>
>
> It's a consumer protection issue mainly. Although there's quite a lot of
> Internet Governance which is there to protect the rights of consumers (eg
> many of the rules regarding the behaviour of domain name registries towards
> their customers).
>
> Roland.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110322/6bc2eadc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 21 21:11:28 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:11:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in
 different shapes and forms?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinKVLqPDrfn0ZHehYNwQaXEtASQivF3t4dcCCeq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
	<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
	<7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>	<Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
	<AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
	<pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
	<o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>	<4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
	<aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com>	<4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>
	<7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com>,<AANLkTinKVLqPDrfn0ZHehYNwQaXEtASQivF3t4dcCCeq@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99531@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Louis,

Not to worry, the stage has shifted yet again: 

AT&T + T-Mobile merger anyone?

(Is that then AT&T&T-Mobile? AT-3rd mobile? Anyway ; )

Seriously, conditions set on merger could well include...open Internet access or as some mislabel it, network neutrality.

Including for mobile services.

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 8:52 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in different shapes and forms?

What's New @ IEEE-USA - Eye On Washington
Vol. 2011, No. 4 (18 March 2011)
http://ieeeusa.org/policy/eyeonwashington/2011/04eow2011.asp

FCC bill stalled.

Disapproval Resolution for 'Net Neutrality' Rules Advances Out of House Energy & Commerce Committee
. . .
"the Committee approved a resolution of disapproval (H J Res 37<http://www.cq.com/bill/112/HJRES37>) that turns back rules adopted by the FCC in December 2010<http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Telecom/030911/MarkupMemo.pdf> barring fixed broadband service providers from blocking content and unnecessarily discriminating in transmitting network traffic."
. . .
The resolution gives broadband service providers a "green light to block from consumers any applications, content and services they choose to block," said Edward J. Markey ( D-Mass.). "I am not saying that all providers will do this, but some certainly will."


WHAT NEXT ?
- - -

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com<mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
In message <AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW at mail.gmail.com<mailto:AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW at mail.gmail.com>>, at 18:30:30 on Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> writes

These are very interesting email exchanges by the list. The questions I
have are to what extent then should content be controlled and what are
the rules for the prioritisation of traffic and who decides? Is it the
ISP that decides or is the regulator that decides and the ISPs enforce.

In the current UK case, the ISPs have identified some traffic (P2P and NNTP) which they say is causing most of the congestion. The regulator is asking them to be transparent about the measures introduced to rate-limit those two kinds of traffic.

It's not as sophisticated as it could be (I don't like to see text-only NNTP restricted because that's collateral damage). But I can now see who is going to be introducing measures.


What are the Traffic rules?

Should the person or persons downloading videos (whether they are
pirate or not) be profiled and given the option to purchase a different
product line so that they do not crowd up the Network?

In most cases they already have that option. In most cases they simply choose not to pay the extra.


Or would the Network be crowded anyway?

The network will still be crowded, but the ISP can prioritise the traffic of its higher-paying customers over that part of the network which matters. It can also use the higher revenue to buy higher bandwidth infrastructure (for everyone to benefit from).


Does this mean that policy writers who will think about the dynamics
behind what would be rules to guide open networks, would they have to
have some kind of economic model to govern the supply and demand of the
various types of traffic within a country's national network?

I'm sure the ISPs have very sophisticated models of the traffic flow inside their networks.


I don't know these answers and am not certain I am asking the right
questions but I would really love to understand the dynamics of
Internet Governance surrounding these issues.

It's a consumer protection issue mainly. Although there's quite a lot of Internet Governance which is there to protect the rights of consumers (eg many of the rules regarding the behaviour of domain name registries towards their customers).

Roland.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Mar 22 09:40:02 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:40:02 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] grassroot network (was Re: Rebuilding...)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110321124728.052e74c8@jefsey.com> (message from JFC
	Morfin on Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:43:36 +0100)
References: <AANLkTi=SAqo=FWguP9e519Bfuf6LbMopyzO=i=Mwsnm=@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20110321124728.052e74c8@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <20110322134002.3EB5115C289@quill.bollow.ch>

JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> Also, an independant grassroot communication network technology, 
> independent from the ISP infrastructure (based on wifi, optical local 
> meshed network, telephone vacation, high compression techniques, FEC 
> for one shot forwarding, etc.) could be a citizen, lilitary, survival task.

I'm strongly agreed on the importance of this.

But how will this work be funded / financed?

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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Mar 22 10:19:33 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:19:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] China and IGF
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
 <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>
 <7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <AANLkTinKVLqPDrfn0ZHehYNwQaXEtASQivF3t4dcCCeq@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99531@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC73@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Ddar all
 
attached is the Chinese statement to the forthcoming CSTD IGF Improvement Working Group FYI.
 
Wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: China.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 24576 bytes
Desc: China.doc
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110322/78b040be/attachment.doc>

From carloswatson at gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 11:33:35 2011
From: carloswatson at gmail.com (carlos watson)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:33:35 -0600
Subject: [governance] China and IGF
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC73@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
	<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
	<7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
	<Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
	<AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
	<pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
	<o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
	<aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>
	<7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<AANLkTinKVLqPDrfn0ZHehYNwQaXEtASQivF3t4dcCCeq@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99531@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC73@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimDXdXyyGp8K6jEc+zizxCHM4ZvRuaPgi+woJzR@mail.gmail.com>

Thank a lot Wolfgang



cw

2011/3/22 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

>
> Ddar all
>
> attached is the Chinese statement to the forthcoming CSTD IGF Improvement
> Working Group FYI.
>
> Wolfgang
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110322/e06f3627/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 22 11:38:56 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:38:56 +0900
Subject: [governance] China and IGF
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimDXdXyyGp8K6jEc+zizxCHM4ZvRuaPgi+woJzR@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
 <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk> <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com> <AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>
 <7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com> <AANLkTinKVLqPDrfn0ZHehYNwQaXEtASQivF3t4dcCCeq@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99531@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC73@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTimDXdXyyGp8K6jEc+zizxCHM4ZvRuaPgi+woJzR@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=oS4cMEC4d3XqbS3eAxFbHixp9S02=hgKthCCj@mail.gmail.com>

It's so concise, I can pate the whole text below for your convenience.

I agree with the second point for the review to some extent, not
entirely though.
The First point, I do not agree with. IGF is forum for dialogue, not
for solving the substantive issues, under Tunis Agenda, it's very
clear.

izumi


Review:
First of all, the current IGF cannot solve in substance the issue of
unilateral control of the critical internet resources.

Secondly, the developing countries are lack of resources for
participating in IGF meetings, and the priority of development agenda
has been downplayed, which made IGF lacking of broad representation.

Thirdly, the issues discussed in IGF have duplicated a lot with the
work being explored and covered by other UN agencies and international
organizations.

Reforms：
First, the future IGF should, in accordance with the provision of
Tunis Agenda, focus on how to solve the issue of unilateral control of
the critical Internet resources.
Secondly, the representation and voices of the developing countries
should be increased in the IGF, and the development issue should be
placed as the first priority.
Thirdly, we should seriously consider the possibility of incorporating
IGF financing into the regular UN budget, and provide assistance to
developing countries for their participation in the IGF meetings.
Fourthly, we should follow rigidly the Tunis Agenda so that the
reformed IGF should not duplicate the work and mandate of the other
organizations.
Fifthly, a Bureau should be set up with a balanced membership of
various parties and geographical regions, and its term of reference
and rules of procedures should be formulated by the UN.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Mar 22 12:09:24 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:09:24 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] China and IGF
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=oS4cMEC4d3XqbS3eAxFbHixp9S02=hgKthCCj@mail.gmail.com>
	(message from Izumi AIZU on Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:38:56 +0900)
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
 <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk> <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com> <AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>
 <7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com> <AANLkTinKVLqPDrfn0ZHehYNwQaXEtASQivF3t4dcCCeq@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99531@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC73@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTimDXdXyyGp8K6jEc+zizxCHM4ZvRuaPgi+woJzR@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=oS4cMEC4d3XqbS3eAxFbHixp9S02=hgKthCCj@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110322160924.C43E515C289@quill.bollow.ch>

Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> The First point, I do not agree with. IGF is forum for dialogue, not
> for solving the substantive issues, under Tunis Agenda, it's very
> clear.

I totally agree with Izumi on this point of course... however, I would
agree with the Chinese position to some extent also, in that overall
there is not enough progress towards solving the substantive issues,
and the IGF needs to become more focused of generating dialogue in
such a way that the dialogue significantly contributes towards solving
the substantive issues.

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 iza at anr.org  Tue Mar 22 12:29:53 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:29:53 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim1vV+Mvme8huiFDMT=wdNqZ_N500HnS8pHbWHh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC07@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <OFFAD27F1B.B11364E8-ONC1257854.003B6886-C1257854.003B77C5@unog.un.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC1E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTim1vV+Mvme8huiFDMT=wdNqZ_N500HnS8pHbWHh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimDynR67APhuQbUA__7wzf23uQ1cNpN-GFz6WsH@mail.gmail.com>

Wolfgang, we miss you indeed.

Bu the way, as CSTD WG is supposed to finish the work at the end
of March, we don't know what exactly will be produced as our reports.
It will highly likely be a mix of consensus and diverging points.

We may not be able to push too much of what we think the right
direction as the consensus, but maybe better not, as if we do that,
we might lose much. If we could keep the diverse views or
plural options within the report, these points will still remain.

Any comments from the list?

izumi



2011/3/17 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> I am sorry to hear you wont be able to be there. You will be missed.
> By the way, all the contributions received are being made available online
> here: http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/WGIGF_Contributions/
> Best,
> Marília
>
> 2011/3/16 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>
>> Dear List
>>
>> I fully support the IGC CS paper which was coordinated by Jeremy for the
>> forthcoming IGF Improvement working group end of March 2011 in Geneva. I
>> just wanted to let you know that I personally will be unable to participate.
>> Since more than one year those dates are blocked for an expert meeting on
>> "Governance of the Internet of Things" which I have to organize.
>> Unfortunately the CSTD did not consult in advance before they fixed the
>> days.
>>
>> However, based on my full support of the IGC CS statement, I have
>> smmarized various interventions from the past and did put them into the
>> attached paper which I have also forwarded to the UNCSTD secretariat.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Wolfgang
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Tue Mar 22 13:13:30 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:13:30 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimDynR67APhuQbUA__7wzf23uQ1cNpN-GFz6WsH@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC07@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <OFFAD27F1B.B11364E8-ONC1257854.003B6886-C1257854.003B77C5@unog.un.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC1E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTim1vV+Mvme8huiFDMT=wdNqZ_N500HnS8pHbWHh@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimDynR67APhuQbUA__7wzf23uQ1cNpN-GFz6WsH@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <oinT6Qb6iNiNFA4a@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTimDynR67APhuQbUA__7wzf23uQ1cNpN-GFz6WsH at mail.gmail.com>, at 
01:29:53 on Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes
>Bu the way, as CSTD WG is supposed to finish the work at the end
>of March, we don't know what exactly will be produced as our reports.
>It will highly likely be a mix of consensus and diverging points.

I suspect you'll be working late on the second day, line by line 
negotiating the report (which is an output *from* the WG meeting, not a 
narrative *about* the WG meeting).
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From aizu at anr.org  Tue Mar 22 13:55:35 2011
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:55:35 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <oinT6Qb6iNiNFA4a@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC07@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <OFFAD27F1B.B11364E8-ONC1257854.003B6886-C1257854.003B77C5@unog.un.org>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC1E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTim1vV+Mvme8huiFDMT=wdNqZ_N500HnS8pHbWHh@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimDynR67APhuQbUA__7wzf23uQ1cNpN-GFz6WsH@mail.gmail.com> <oinT6Qb6iNiNFA4a@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin3e=Q75zj75h=inV5mJBWSEp94LtgtryQ3_onA@mail.gmail.com>

perhaps, as the idea of small drafting group did not reach consensus
in principle, it is the entire plenary of the WG to write the report.
So, like a marathon, all line up at the starting point, run and run
for many hours till one drops after another, and the longest
remaining one will be the winner ;-)
hope not...

izumi

2011/3/23 Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>:
> In message <AANLkTimDynR67APhuQbUA__7wzf23uQ1cNpN-GFz6WsH at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 01:29:53 on Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes
>>
>> Bu the way, as CSTD WG is supposed to finish the work at the end
>> of March, we don't know what exactly will be produced as our reports.
>> It will highly likely be a mix of consensus and diverging points.
>
> I suspect you'll be working late on the second day, line by line negotiating
> the report (which is an output *from* the WG meeting, not a narrative
> *about* the WG meeting).
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From kichango at gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 15:29:50 2011
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:29:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] China and IGF
In-Reply-To: <20110322160924.C43E515C289@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
	<16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
	<7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net>
	<Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
	<AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
	<pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
	<o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
	<aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>
	<7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<AANLkTinKVLqPDrfn0ZHehYNwQaXEtASQivF3t4dcCCeq@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99531@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC73@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTimDXdXyyGp8K6jEc+zizxCHM4ZvRuaPgi+woJzR@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=oS4cMEC4d3XqbS3eAxFbHixp9S02=hgKthCCj@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110322160924.C43E515C289@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=o-CRt4seqUygvrvJ4Hr9bFVfUiwcmwwG+VHCP@mail.gmail.com>

I cannot agree more with Norbert. Otherwise, it's like we're saying: Yeah,
we identified serious problems during WSIS, but let's set up this forum to
talk about something else... Furthermore, I don't remember this being a
quiet consensus that IGF has never been about helping advance solutions for
those substantive issues (but then again, I've been out of this loop for
quiet a while.)

Mawaki

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>
> > The First point, I do not agree with. IGF is forum for dialogue, not
> > for solving the substantive issues, under Tunis Agenda, it's very
> > clear.
>
> I totally agree with Izumi on this point of course... however, I would
> agree with the Chinese position to some extent also, in that overall
> there is not enough progress towards solving the substantive issues,
> and the IGF needs to become more focused of generating dialogue in
> such a way that the dialogue significantly contributes towards solving
> the substantive issues.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110322/2af8451c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Mar 23 14:22:49 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:22:49 -0300
Subject: [governance] Main recommendations CSTD questionnaire (questions 1
 to 4)
Message-ID: <AANLkTin6kjA4SLaUDgXqNYmUFDZcMUSs7KLC4M1ch3G7@mail.gmail.com>

Because of the format and length of the summary of contributions sent to the
CSTD questionnaire, I was having a lot of trouble trying to map the
positions of the stakeholders. In the face of this, I have decided to make
my own summary with the main recommendations from each contributor in a
chart and then compiled (only questions 1-4 so far).

I made it for myself, so please disregard anything that might be missing. It
is also my interpretation of the contributions (except for question 4, where
I have kept the original words used), so apologize for any discrepancies.
But, in general, I believe that you may find it is useful to give an
overview of positions.

Marilia

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110323/52f1531b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of postions CSTD questionnaire (1-4).doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 138240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110323/52f1531b/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Mar 23 17:23:07 2011
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:23:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] China and IGF
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC73@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk> <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com> <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net> <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu> <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com> <AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com> <7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com> <AANLkTinKVLqPDrfn0ZHehYNwQaXEtASQivF3t4dcCCeq@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99531@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC73@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <59CC6951-AE4D-4BB8-9BA4-5FF0FCB681EC@graduateinstitute.ch>

It's good to know that the advocates of a bureau still have a champion.

Cheers,

Bill

On Mar 22, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> 
> Ddar all
> 
> attached is the Chinese statement to the forthcoming CSTD IGF Improvement Working Group FYI.
> 
> 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
> 
> <China.doc>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 24 04:55:12 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:55:12 +0000
Subject: [governance] China and IGF
In-Reply-To: <59CC6951-AE4D-4BB8-9BA4-5FF0FCB681EC@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <4D7FDEA3.3050401@gmail.com>
 <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>
 <7vZHZj8KNJgNFALm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D80B666.4070403@itforchange.net> <Jtzr5tki8NgNFAsf@perry.co.uk>
 <AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF@mail.gmail.com>
 <pSxTW5vopQgNFAbm@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4D81631B.6030808@itforchange.net>
 <o$iDtJblkggNFA5x@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D83708D.9030803@wzb.eu>
 <aSGfm0z2Z3gNFAsF@internetpolicyagency.com> <4D837F6C.6070305@wzb.eu>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC994F9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <eSBeW9Eqv6gNFA87@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <AANLkTimNELUwNo7pJCjoCNJD0x77t9bnfjavpDxm3eWW@mail.gmail.com>
 <7HWHjgYwNIhNFARo@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <AANLkTinKVLqPDrfn0ZHehYNwQaXEtASQivF3t4dcCCeq@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99531@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BC73@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <59CC6951-AE4D-4BB8-9BA4-5FF0FCB681EC@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <EzlIeEqwbwiNFAMh@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <59CC6951-AE4D-4BB8-9BA4-5FF0FCB681EC at graduateinstitute.ch>, 
at 22:23:07 on Wed, 23 Mar 2011, William Drake 
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> writes
>It's good to know that the advocates of a bureau still have a champion.

Today's working group is pretty much indistinguishable from the bureau 
they desire (although they might not have chosen to have the non-gov 
stakeholders).

Has anyone yet suggested replacing the MAG with a continuance of the WG? 
(I haven't read the meeting papers).
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Mar 23 22:48:29 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 03:48:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] grassroot network (was Re: Rebuilding...)
In-Reply-To: <20110322134002.3EB5115C289@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <AANLkTi=SAqo=FWguP9e519Bfuf6LbMopyzO=i=Mwsnm=@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20110321124728.052e74c8@jefsey.com>
 <20110322134002.3EB5115C289@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110324033826.06193468@jefsey.com>

At 14:40 22/03/2011, Norbert Bollow wrote:

>JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, an independant grassroots communication network technology,
> > independent from the ISP infrastructure (based on wifi, optical local
> > meshed network, telephone vacation, high compression techniques, FEC
> > for one shot forwarding, etc.) could be a citizen, lilitary, survival task.
>
>I'm strongly agreed on the importance of this.
>
>But how will this work be funded / financed?

RFC 3869 says it. It says that as long as Internet R&D is financed by 
merchants there is no hope. Their solution is to call on the Govs. 
Specially on the US one. The response was given in Tunis: Google.

The real thing of a grassroots technology is that is to be grassroots 
and therefore to cost nothing, as soon as able engineers grab the 
problem and accept that this is a citizen duty (that may also mean 
personal fame). The problem is that open software applications and 
networking call for very different types of developpers and societal 
motivations because the structure of the work and of kind of the 
achievement is very different. The glory too.

This is why I put together an emerging framework for such a 
technically supporting community. But some personnal problems kept me 
out for a few months.



>Greetings,
>Norbert
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Thu Mar 24 06:53:52 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:53:52 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
Message-ID: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>

The CSTD WG meeting started this morning.
I made a short presentation on the disaster and the role of ICT/Internet
before we started the discussion on the Report. It may not directly
touch the IGF per se, but I feel compelled to report, first, and also
I think it is very much a governance issue, and the role of Internet
be also questioned.

After a few round of comments, we have entered into discussion
of Point 2,4, and 5 since they are inter-related, following suggestion
from India.
(though my concentration is not good enough, so I may missed some
key points)...

izumi


-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Mar 24 07:17:02 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:17:02 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240825c9b0d49b6560@[192.168.1.160]>

Thanks Izumi.

I think we've heard quite a lot of comments about the lack of 
participation from developing countries (China's submission for 
example.)  Participation's clearly dependent on location of the 
meeting, Vilnius strongly favored West and Eastern Europe sure, 
Hyderabad saw a high percentage from the host country.

Vilnius attendance information 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2010/Stats.2010.pdf>

Sharm attendance information 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics>

Hyderabad 
<http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/42-igf-meetings/414-attendance-breakdown-of-the-hyderabad-meeting>

Rio <http://igf.wgig.org/cms/rio_stats.htm>

Can't find for Athens, must be somewhere.

Participation from developing countries needs to be encouraged and 
supported, but stats we have seem to suggest there is participation 
from most regions (Latin American low).  But the information's 
lacking, unless someone wished to go through the list of attendees 
country by country.

And I hope government of Canada's support for developing country 
participation will be acknowledged and Canada thanked.

Adam




>The CSTD WG meeting started this morning.
>I made a short presentation on the disaster and the role of ICT/Internet
>before we started the discussion on the Report. It may not directly
>touch the IGF per se, but I feel compelled to report, first, and also
>I think it is very much a governance issue, and the role of Internet
>be also questioned.
>
>After a few round of comments, we have entered into discussion
>of Point 2,4, and 5 since they are inter-related, following suggestion
>from India.
>(though my concentration is not good enough, so I may missed some
>key points)...
>
>izumi
>
>
>--
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 24 07:30:26 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:30:26 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <p06240825c9b0d49b6560@192.168.1.160>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com> <p06240825c9b0d49b6560@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=RiqDSoYNh6RvqSPFnjW=sZ7RYEsrSPcYva5rO@mail.gmail.com>

Adam, thanks and it is true that we have not YET discussed the
participation from developing countries. And the stats are no well
captured.

Having said that, number of participants is one indicator, but not all - I mean
number of Key players, speakers, etc. and discussions around, could be
different -
I mean there still seem to be less "active" players from developing
parts of the world, but it is difficult to "prove".

izumi

2011/3/24 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> Thanks Izumi.
>
> I think we've heard quite a lot of comments about the lack of participation
> from developing countries (China's submission for example.)  Participation's
> clearly dependent on location of the meeting, Vilnius strongly favored West
> and Eastern Europe sure, Hyderabad saw a high percentage from the host
> country.
>
> Vilnius attendance information
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2010/Stats.2010.pdf>
>
> Sharm attendance information
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics>
>
> Hyderabad
> <http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/42-igf-meetings/414-attendance-breakdown-of-the-hyderabad-meeting>
>
> Rio <http://igf.wgig.org/cms/rio_stats.htm>
>
> Can't find for Athens, must be somewhere.
>
> Participation from developing countries needs to be encouraged and
> supported, but stats we have seem to suggest there is participation from
> most regions (Latin American low).  But the information's lacking, unless
> someone wished to go through the list of attendees country by country.
>
> And I hope government of Canada's support for developing country
> participation will be acknowledged and Canada thanked.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>> The CSTD WG meeting started this morning.
>> I made a short presentation on the disaster and the role of ICT/Internet
>> before we started the discussion on the Report. It may not directly
>> touch the IGF per se, but I feel compelled to report, first, and also
>> I think it is very much a governance issue, and the role of Internet
>> be also questioned.
>>
>> After a few round of comments, we have entered into discussion
>> of Point 2,4, and 5 since they are inter-related, following suggestion
>> from India.
>> (though my concentration is not good enough, so I may missed some
>> key points)...
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>> --
>>                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
>>
>>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>
>>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>                                  Japan
>>                                 * * * * *
>>           << Writing the Future of the History >>
>>                                www.anr.org
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de  Thu Mar 24 09:18:56 2011
From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:18:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] Please join remotely NOW - The The governance
 dimension of the Internet of Things
Message-ID: <004d01cbea26$0892b400$19b81c00$@hoferichter@freenet.de>

The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things

EURO-NF & GOVPIMINT Workshop (Leipzig II) in cooperation with the 
annual meeting of the IGF Dynamic coalition of the Internet of Things (IGF-DyCIoT) 

Leipzig, Germany, March 24-25, 2011

Please find the programme here the times refers to CET (UTC+1h)
http://www.medienstadt-leipzig.org/euronf/programme.html 


As we are testing new equipment, we hope the audio will be sufficient- if not please apologise.
------------------------------------------------------- 
Meeting information 
------------------------------------------------------- 
Topic: The governance dimension of the Internet of Things 
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011 
Time: 1:30 pm, Europe Time (Berlin, GMT+01:00) 
Meeting Number: 849 078 343 
Meeting Password: leipzig 

------------------------------------------------------- 
To start or join the online meeting 
------------------------------------------------------- 
Go to  <https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=165209352&UID=491076482&PW=NYjhlYWJjMGJh&RT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D> https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=165209352&UID=491076482&PW=NYjhlYWJjMGJh&RT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D 


------------------------------------------------------- 
For assistance 
------------------------------------------------------- 
1. Go to  <https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc> https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc 
2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". 
To update this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: 
https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=165209352 <https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=165209352&UID=491076482&ICS=MIU&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=R2gTJPZDAEqq0gJWtnnAYapm3qJqeRal0SvHZKJG8xo=> &UID=491076482&ICS=MIU&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=R2gTJPZDAEqq0gJWtnnAYapm3qJqeRal0SvHZKJG8xo= 

To check whether you have the appropriate players installed for UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files, go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/systemdiagnosis.php 

http://www.webex.com 



IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. You should inform all meeting attendees prior to recording if you intend to record the meeting. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110324/7ff33872/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 24 09:52:48 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:52:48 +1200
Subject: [governance] Please join remotely NOW - The The governance
 dimension of the Internet of Things
In-Reply-To: <-2066257170933522399@unknownmsgid>
References: <-2066257170933522399@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikQ6ZY79+forUc9Qnw4nuh4B=WDtbKaDamGRAEs@mail.gmail.com>

I am accessing the meeting, speech is a bit muffled.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:18 AM, sandra hoferichter <
sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de> wrote:

>  *The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things*
>
> EURO-NF & GOVPIMINT Workshop (Leipzig II) in cooperation with the
> annual meeting of the IGF Dynamic coalition of the Internet of Things
> (IGF-DyCIoT)
>
> *Leipzig, Germany, March 24-25, 2011*
>
> *Please find the programme here the times refers to CET (UTC+1h)
> http://www.medienstadt-leipzig.org/euronf/programme.html *
>
>
> *As we are testing new equipment, we hope the audio will be sufficient- if
> not please apologise.*
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Meeting information
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Topic: The governance dimension of the Internet of Things
> Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011
> Time: 1:30 pm, Europe Time (Berlin, GMT+01:00)
> Meeting Number: 849 078 343
> Meeting Password: leipzig
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> To start or join the online meeting
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Go to
> https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=165209352&UID=491076482&PW=NYjhlYWJjMGJh&RT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> For assistance
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc
> 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support".
> To update this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft
> Outlook), click this link:
>
> https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=165209352&UID=491076482&ICS=MIU&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=R2gTJPZDAEqq0gJWtnnAYapm3qJqeRal0SvHZKJG8xo=
>
> To check whether you have the appropriate players installed for UCF
> (Universal Communications Format) rich media files, go to
> https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/systemdiagnosis.php
>
> http://www.webex.com
>
>
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio
> and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session
> to be recorded. You should inform all meeting attendees prior to recording
> if you intend to record the meeting. Please note that any such recordings
> may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/c827da98/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 24 10:10:01 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:10:01 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin_nM-q9S4Wm+4oEDh-VVF=HKddVUD2P+R9e6hf@mail.gmail.com>

Meeting now resumed after lunch break.

We have so far discussed about 1st category, Point 2, 4, and 5.
The Chair told us we will receive:

1) Summary of the compilation of contribution, made by Marilia and
Nandhini (India).
2) Short Document prepared by India, capturing the summary of morning
discussion.
3) Bullet points of the morning discussion

to proceed.

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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Mar 24 10:13:49 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 02:13:49 +1200
Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin_nM-q9S4Wm+4oEDh-VVF=HKddVUD2P+R9e6hf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin_nM-q9S4Wm+4oEDh-VVF=HKddVUD2P+R9e6hf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikVTbTANP4LMAW_gthAxvqwPn-bYhGra5+N=a-R@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Izumi.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Meeting now resumed after lunch break.
>
> We have so far discussed about 1st category, Point 2, 4, and 5.
> The Chair told us we will receive:
>
> 1) Summary of the compilation of contribution, made by Marilia and
> Nandhini (India).
> 2) Short Document prepared by India, capturing the summary of morning
> discussion.
> 3) Bullet points of the morning discussion
>
> to proceed.
>
> izumi
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/51fcdf50/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Mar 24 10:23:55 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:23:55 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin_nM-q9S4Wm+4oEDh-VVF=HKddVUD2P+R9e6hf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin_nM-q9S4Wm+4oEDh-VVF=HKddVUD2P+R9e6hf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimTBNUuBwTv2bL5PKL3vCutG23aW5=LEtQoDz7P@mail.gmail.com>

Just a small correction :)
It was Nermine El Saadany from Egypt and me who prepared a compilation of
recommendations advanced in the contributions.


On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Meeting now resumed after lunch break.
>
> We have so far discussed about 1st category, Point 2, 4, and 5.
> The Chair told us we will receive:
>
> 1) Summary of the compilation of contribution, made by Marilia and
> Nandhini (India).
> 2) Short Document prepared by India, capturing the summary of morning
> discussion.
> 3) Bullet points of the morning discussion
>
> to proceed.
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110324/87039f95/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 24 10:26:06 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:26:06 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimTBNUuBwTv2bL5PKL3vCutG23aW5=LEtQoDz7P@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTin_nM-q9S4Wm+4oEDh-VVF=HKddVUD2P+R9e6hf@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimTBNUuBwTv2bL5PKL3vCutG23aW5=LEtQoDz7P@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikJ5UhqT=euKrRadHE_4VhDxZxP2RtGGb280i6f@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Marilia, I could not hear the words well and asked my neighbor
who also thought it was from Nandhini but sorry, I
should have checked with you ;-)

izumi

2011/3/24 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> Just a small correction :)
> It was Nermine El Saadany from Egypt and me who prepared a compilation of
> recommendations advanced in the contributions.
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 24 10:54:25 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:54:25 +0900
Subject: [governance] My presentation this morning - on Earthquake/Tsunami
 in Japan and the role of Internet
Message-ID: <AANLkTim1N49HnvV6Uzbhhkwo+0vpUV_gPTPvfD9sAWG6@mail.gmail.com>

Though it is very premature, I like to share my presentation this morning:
"waves and walls - 311 and Information Society
What can ICT/Internet do for them? It’s a governance issue"

I didn't want to distract the discussion of IGF, I tried to make it as short
as possible, skipped a few slides. There are much more I like to put,
but will do later.

Many thanks,

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: waves+walls0324.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 82954 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110324/b254f4a2/attachment.pdf>

From iza at anr.org  Thu Mar 24 11:08:06 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:08:06 +0900
Subject: [governance] Brazil supports IGC proposals
Message-ID: <AANLkTinc0sqSUFt-z3azKFijDBDk1w4g-QO75d_dLYc6@mail.gmail.com>

Brazil submitted Contribution paper today. Amongst its 3-pager, there are
two mentions that supports IGC explicitly:

"4.2 Brazil fully agrees and supports the detailed suggestions provided by
India (("annexure") and Internet Governance Caucus on this topic (4.
Shaping the Outcome")

"6.2 Brazil also supports the main three strategies proposed by
Internet Governance Caucus
regarding capacity building, outreach and remote participation. In
relation to capacity building
in developing countries, it should be considered too the item "h" of
Paragraph 72 that stresses
that such initiatives shall draw fully on local sources of knowledge
and expertise."

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Thu Mar 24 11:31:57 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:31:57 +0900
Subject: [governance] Coffee Brake
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=OKSgiDBsa29S7WYOWT2TVPfQxNrBJC6-pHn67@mail.gmail.com>

After lunch, a round of comments went around the issue of participation
from developing countries. Almost consensus on need for more funding,
Speakers Fund, proposed by Anriette seemed to have good support.
Canada was mentioned by Mariyn Cad as putting indirect, non-binding fund
of $100,000 each year, and I followed that.
US stayed cautious not make direct UN funding, but be voluntary funding
from stakeholders.

Three papers distributed:
Marilia introduced the “Summary of the compilation of contributions”
prepared by Marilia and Nermine El-Saadany.
It7s a 24 page document, well-done!
I put the PDF file here. Sorry for the volume, but worth to share.

They didn’t change words on “outcome” section as each word may have
its own political weight.
Marilia did first for her own "homework", and now it is a good base
for the report.

India introduced “chapeau” para as the preamble.

Chair also introduced one-page bullet points of morning discussion

20 min Coffee brake till 16:40.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of postions questionnaire 2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 204204 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/6fb5a744/attachment.pdf>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Mar 24 12:26:06 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:26:06 -0300
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>

Could someone tell us how many members are there in the MAG per stakeholder
group and the division between developing and developed countries?

That would be much appreciated

Marilia
-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110324/eb6ba78a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Mar 24 12:32:11 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:32:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu>



Am 24.03.2011 17:26, schrieb Marilia Maciel:
>
> Could someone tell us how many members are there in the MAG per
> stakeholder group


It doesn't work like that. Roughly 50% of the members wear a government 
hat. Some of the remaining members wear several hats. And some members 
don't belong to a specific group of stakeholders.

The member list is here:

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010

jeanette


  and the division between developing and developed
> countries?
>
> That would be much appreciated
>
> Marilia
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Mar 24 12:36:13 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:36:13 -0300
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=izfVnM6PyFZNZ3wQxHYZR1DRssxotthO9yNUt@mail.gmail.com>

" some members don't belong to a specific group of stakeholders"

What is the source of their legitimacy? Who they represent?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

>
>
> Am 24.03.2011 17:26, schrieb Marilia Maciel:
>
>
>> Could someone tell us how many members are there in the MAG per
>> stakeholder group
>>
>
>
> It doesn't work like that. Roughly 50% of the members wear a government
> hat. Some of the remaining members wear several hats. And some members don't
> belong to a specific group of stakeholders.
>
> The member list is here:
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
>  and the division between developing and developed
>
>> countries?
>>
>> That would be much appreciated
>>
>> Marilia
>> --
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110324/f529df74/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 24 12:39:43 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:09:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com> <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 24 March 2011 10:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
> Am 24.03.2011 17:26, schrieb Marilia Maciel:
>>
>> Could someone tell us how many members are there in the MAG per
>> stakeholder group
>
>
> It doesn't work like that. Roughly 50% of the members wear a 
> government hat. Some of the remaining members wear several hats. And 
> some members don't belong to a specific group of stakeholders.

this is not really true.... selections are clearly stakehollder group 
based... this just repesenting oneself is a fantasy that is neither true 
not logical
>
> The member list is here:
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010
>
> jeanette
>
>
>  and the division between developing and developed
>> countries?
>>
>> That would be much appreciated
>>
>> Marilia
>> -- 
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110324/92d8a6b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Mar 24 12:40:29 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:40:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=izfVnM6PyFZNZ3wQxHYZR1DRssxotthO9yNUt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>	<4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <AANLkTi=izfVnM6PyFZNZ3wQxHYZR1DRssxotthO9yNUt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D8B73FD.2060005@wzb.eu>



Am 24.03.2011 17:36, schrieb Marilia Maciel:
> " some members don't belong to a specific group of stakeholders"
>
> What is the source of their legitimacy? Who they represent?


There is no formal representation in the MAG (except for the 
governmental members.) Since everybody could suggest people for 
membership, we cannot possibly know for all members who supported them.

jeanette
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu
> <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Am 24.03.2011 17 <tel:24.03.2011%2017>:26, schrieb Marilia Maciel:
>
>
>         Could someone tell us how many members are there in the MAG per
>         stakeholder group
>
>
>
>     It doesn't work like that. Roughly 50% of the members wear a
>     government hat. Some of the remaining members wear several hats. And
>     some members don't belong to a specific group of stakeholders.
>
>     The member list is here:
>
>     http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010
>
>     jeanette
>
>
>
>       and the division between developing and developed
>
>         countries?
>
>         That would be much appreciated
>
>         Marilia
>         --
>         Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>         FGV Direito Rio
>
>         Center for Technology and Society
>         Getulio Vargas Foundation
>         Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From aizu at anr.org  Thu Mar 24 12:44:36 2011
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:44:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=izfVnM6PyFZNZ3wQxHYZR1DRssxotthO9yNUt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <AANLkTi=izfVnM6PyFZNZ3wQxHYZR1DRssxotthO9yNUt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimU_k=NBi5SvvPskchptbc0_La55MWkTHGH1=xF@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Jeanette for prompt reply.
I was trying to "count" number by sector, but as you wrote, several
non-governmental members were dual or plural hats and it may
not be appropriate to label this or that. BUT, there are criteria
used behind the "black box" to roughly balance different stakeholders
interests to give similar, if not equal, amount of frustration to all.
To me out of 54 or so MAG members, 22 seem to be from Gov,
15 from Business, 13 from Tech/academic, and 7 from Civil Society,
but these are not the exact number as it totals to 57, not 54 :-)

As for legitimacy, I guess it is the UN Secretary General who
appoints these members, period. No one dare to ask how UN SG
selects.

izumi



2011/3/25 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> " some members don't belong to a specific group of stakeholders"
>
> What is the source of their legitimacy? Who they represent?
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 24.03.2011 17:26, schrieb Marilia Maciel:
>>>
>>> Could someone tell us how many members are there in the MAG per
>>> stakeholder group
>>
>>
>> It doesn't work like that. Roughly 50% of the members wear a government
>> hat. Some of the remaining members wear several hats. And some members don't
>> belong to a specific group of stakeholders.
>>
>> The member list is here:
>>
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>  and the division between developing and developed
>>>
>>> countries?
>>>
>>> That would be much appreciated
>>>
>>> Marilia
>>> --
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>> FGV Direito Rio
>>>
>>> Center for Technology and Society
>>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Mar 24 14:17:08 2011
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:17:08 -0300
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimU_k=NBi5SvvPskchptbc0_La55MWkTHGH1=xF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com> <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <AANLkTi=izfVnM6PyFZNZ3wQxHYZR1DRssxotthO9yNUt@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimU_k=NBi5SvvPskchptbc0_La55MWkTHGH1=xF@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D8B8AA4.8070802@cafonso.ca>

Perfect summary of how things work in that realm, Izumi!

--c.a.

On 03/24/2011 01:44 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Thanks Jeanette for prompt reply.
> I was trying to "count" number by sector, but as you wrote, several
> non-governmental members were dual or plural hats and it may
> not be appropriate to label this or that. BUT, there are criteria
> used behind the "black box" to roughly balance different stakeholders
> interests to give similar, if not equal, amount of frustration to all.
> To me out of 54 or so MAG members, 22 seem to be from Gov,
> 15 from Business, 13 from Tech/academic, and 7 from Civil Society,
> but these are not the exact number as it totals to 57, not 54 :-)
> 
> As for legitimacy, I guess it is the UN Secretary General who
> appoints these members, period. No one dare to ask how UN SG
> selects.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> 
> 2011/3/25 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
>> " some members don't belong to a specific group of stakeholders"
>>
>> What is the source of their legitimacy? Who they represent?
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 24.03.2011 17:26, schrieb Marilia Maciel:
>>>>
>>>> Could someone tell us how many members are there in the MAG per
>>>> stakeholder group
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't work like that. Roughly 50% of the members wear a government
>>> hat. Some of the remaining members wear several hats. And some members don't
>>> belong to a specific group of stakeholders.
>>>
>>> The member list is here:
>>>
>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>  and the division between developing and developed
>>>>
>>>> countries?
>>>>
>>>> That would be much appreciated
>>>>
>>>> Marilia
>>>> --
>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>>> FGV Direito Rio
>>>>
>>>> Center for Technology and Society
>>>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Mar 24 14:42:18 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:42:18 +1200
Subject: [governance] Coffee Brake
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=OKSgiDBsa29S7WYOWT2TVPfQxNrBJC6-pHn67@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=OKSgiDBsa29S7WYOWT2TVPfQxNrBJC6-pHn67@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=DcOH9NHXZpXHOHAMH_a0xiJO2tzx1wcqrrFkw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Izumi. I noticed that representation from Oceania was only 2% in
Vilnius.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> After lunch, a round of comments went around the issue of participation
> from developing countries. Almost consensus on need for more funding,
> Speakers Fund, proposed by Anriette seemed to have good support.
> Canada was mentioned by Mariyn Cad as putting indirect, non-binding fund
> of $100,000 each year, and I followed that.
> US stayed cautious not make direct UN funding, but be voluntary funding
> from stakeholders.
>
> Three papers distributed:
> Marilia introduced the “Summary of the compilation of contributions”
> prepared by Marilia and Nermine El-Saadany.
> It7s a 24 page document, well-done!
> I put the PDF file here. Sorry for the volume, but worth to share.
>
> They didn’t change words on “outcome” section as each word may have
> its own political weight.
> Marilia did first for her own "homework", and now it is a good base
> for the report.
>
> India introduced “chapeau” para as the preamble.
>
> Chair also introduced one-page bullet points of morning discussion
>
> 20 min Coffee brake till 16:40.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/9f41543e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Mar 24 15:22:54 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:22:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com> <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4D8B9A0E.6030601@wzb.eu>




>> It doesn't work like that. Roughly 50% of the members wear a
>> government hat. Some of the remaining members wear several hats. And
>> some members don't belong to a specific group of stakeholders.
>
> this is not really true.... selections are clearly stakehollder group
> based... this just repesenting oneself is a fantasy that is neither true
> not logical

Hi Parminder, it is easy to imagine how you would respond if somebody 
referred to your reply as a fantasy. Particularly if you hadn't even 
said what, in the reader's view, constitutes a fantasy. I know it is 
completely pointless to say this, and I hope I won't be punished with a 
two page response. Still, sometimes I don't feel like backing off.

jeanette
>>
>> The member list is here:
>>
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>> and the division between developing and developed
>>> countries?
>>>
>>> That would be much appreciated
>>>
>>> Marilia
>>> --
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>> FGV Direito Rio
>>>
>>> Center for Technology and Society
>>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar 24 17:56:45 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 03:26:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <4D8B9A0E.6030601@wzb.eu>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com> <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net> <4D8B9A0E.6030601@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4D8BBE1D.3090401@itforchange.net>



On Friday 25 March 2011 12:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
>
>>> It doesn't work like that. Roughly 50% of the members wear a
>>> government hat. Some of the remaining members wear several hats. And
>>> some members don't belong to a specific group of stakeholders.
>>
>> this is not really true.... selections are clearly stakehollder group
>> based... this just repesenting oneself is a fantasy that is neither true
>> not logical
>
> Hi Parminder, it is easy to imagine how you would respond if somebody 
> referred to your reply as a fantasy. Particularly if you hadn't even 
> said what, in the reader's view, constitutes a fantasy. I know it is 
> completely pointless to say this, and I hope I won't be punished with 
> a two page response. Still, sometimes I don't feel like backing off.

Jeanette

It is an officially stated position, especially in varoius MAG reforms 
discussions, that selection is stakeholder group based. The current 
discussion here in the WG on IGF improvements is on increasing 
'representation' of under represented groups, including developing 
countries. In this context, contesting stakeholder group or constituency 
basis of membership of the MAG makes a discussion on improving 
representation of marginalized group quite meaningless. That is my 
problem, coming from being situated in the middle of such a discussion 
here in the WG, which triggered my response. I am sorry that the term 
offended you. It was used in the sense of a 'good imagined thing that 
doesnt happen in reality' and not meant specifically for what you said 
but for the general 'just representing oneself' proposition often made 
in this kind of a discussion.

Parminder


> jeanette
>>>
>>> The member list is here:
>>>
>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>> and the division between developing and developed
>>>> countries?
>>>>
>>>> That would be much appreciated
>>>>
>>>> Marilia
>>>> -- 
>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>>> FGV Direito Rio
>>>>
>>>> Center for Technology and Society
>>>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/08935ff6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp  Thu Mar 24 23:31:33 2011
From: rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp (Rajendra Poudel)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:31:33 +0900
Subject: [governance] My presentation this morning - on
 Earthquake/Tsunami in Japan and the role of Internet
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim1N49HnvV6Uzbhhkwo+0vpUV_gPTPvfD9sAWG6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim1N49HnvV6Uzbhhkwo+0vpUV_gPTPvfD9sAWG6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimr3P5M=53a0jD64EzF94qB22oAJR_1KLmt=sAy@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi San,

Thanks for your informative presentation.
I am going to India on April 6 and probably will visit in Nepal this time.
I will like to share this information to our government.
Nepal is also in very risk area for earth quack.
I my self have seen here in Japan how Japan and Japanese people have been
facing such big crisis.
It is an important lesson learn for world.

with best regards
Rajendra




On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Though it is very premature, I like to share my presentation this morning:
> "waves and walls - 311 and Information Society
> What can ICT/Internet do for them? It’s a governance issue"
>
> I didn't want to distract the discussion of IGF, I tried to make it as
> short
> as possible, skipped a few slides. There are much more I like to put,
> but will do later.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
E-Networking Research and Development
Nepal Wireless Networking Project (NWP)
Shiva Bhakta Marga-304, Lazimpat
Kathmandu, Nepal
Po.Box: 12651
Ph: +977-1-4428090
E-mail: enrd at wlink.com.np
http://www.enrd.org
http://www.nepalwireless.net
http://www.himanchal.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/59cfbb7c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From anriette at apc.org  Fri Mar 25 04:13:12 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:13:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D8C4E98.6040209@apc.org>

Morning all

My apologies for being so silent in the last few weeks. It has been a
very intense period for APC with a series of meetings in the
Philippines.. including Privacy Asia, APC member and board and staff
meetings, and the APC Networking and Learning Forum - http://nlf.apc.org/.

A bit of a marathon... but now I am here in Geneva with Izumi and
Marilia and Parminder... hoping and trying for the best.

Anriette



On 24/03/11 12:53, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> The CSTD WG meeting started this morning.
> I made a short presentation on the disaster and the role of ICT/Internet
> before we started the discussion on the Report. It may not directly
> touch the IGF per se, but I feel compelled to report, first, and also
> I think it is very much a governance issue, and the role of Internet
> be also questioned.
> 
> After a few round of comments, we have entered into discussion
> of Point 2,4, and 5 since they are inter-related, following suggestion
> from India.
> (though my concentration is not good enough, so I may missed some
> key points)...
> 
> izumi
> 
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de  Fri Mar 25 04:49:35 2011
From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:49:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] Please join NOW remotely (25.03.2011) : The Governance
 Dimension of the Internet of Things
Message-ID: <003301cbeac9$96838980$c38a9c80$@hoferichter@freenet.de>

The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things

EURO-NF & GOVPIMINT Workshop (Leipzig II) in cooperation with the 
annual meeting of the IGF Dynamic coalition of the Internet of Things
(IGF-DyCIoT) 

Leipzig, Germany, March 24-25, 2011

Please find the programme here the times refers to CET (UTC+1h)
http://www.medienstadt-leipzig.org/euronf/programme.html 


As we are testing new equipment, we hope the audio will be sufficient- if
not please apologise.
        
Topic: The Governance Dimension of the Internet of Things       
Date: Friday, March 25, 2011    
Time: 9:43 am, Europe Time (Berlin, GMT+01:00)  
Meeting Number: 844 296 311     
Meeting Password: leipzig       
        
        
------------------------------------------------------- 
To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!)   
------------------------------------------------------- 
1. Go to
<https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/e.php?AT=WMI&EventID=165241307&PW
=8cb857013401151e02&RT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D>
https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/e.php?AT=WMI&EventID=165241307&PW=
8cb857013401151e02&RT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D 

2. If requested, enter your name and email address.     
3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: leipzig       
4. Click "Join".        
5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen.  
        
To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link:        
 
<https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/e.php?AT=WMI&EventID=165241307&PW
=8cb857013401151e02&ORT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D>
https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/e.php?AT=WMI&EventID=165241307&PW=
8cb857013401151e02&ORT=MiMyNQ%3D%3D 
        
------------------------------------------------------- 
To join the audio conference only       
------------------------------------------------------- 
Call-in toll number (UK): (0)20 700 51000       
        
Access code:844 296 311 
        
------------------------------------------------------- 
For assistance  
------------------------------------------------------- 
1. Go to  <https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc>
https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc   
2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". 
        
You can contact me at:  
info at hoferichter.eu     
        
        
Sign up for a free trial of WebEx       
 <http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial>
http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial   
        
 <http://www.webex.com> http://www.webex.com    
        
CCP:+02070051000x844296311#     
        
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio
and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session
to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such
recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns
with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the
session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in
the event of litigation.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/dadfed31/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From avri at psg.com  Fri Mar 25 04:59:50 2011
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:59:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com> <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E9383D70-011A-4426-BEDE-543D202C76FF@psg.com>

hi,

all of the non governmental representatives represent only themselves, they are appointed in their own capacity no matter who has suggested them.

and though they are suggested by some group, but that does not necessarily mean that they belong to that group.  

and except for future selections they have no accountability to that group.  and since they do not have to be renewed each year, they can continue for 3 years without any reconfirmation.

the IGC can scream all it wants to about someone it nominated who does not do what the IGC wishes, and there is nothing they can do about it.

the link of a MAG member to their stakeholder group is purely voluntary on the part of the member.  some have may be faithful to their groups and some may do exactly as they pleased without any concern for who nominated them - it is up to the individual.

a.

On 24 Mar 2011, at 17:39, parminder wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thursday 24 March 2011 10:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Am 24.03.2011 17:26, schrieb Marilia Maciel: 
>>> 
>>> Could someone tell us how many members are there in the MAG per 
>>> stakeholder group 
>> 
>> 
>> It doesn't work like that. Roughly 50% of the members wear a government hat. Some of the remaining members wear several hats. And some members don't belong to a specific group of stakeholders. 
> 
> this is not really true.... selections are clearly stakehollder group based... this just repesenting oneself is a fantasy that is neither true not logical
>> 
>> The member list is here: 
>> 
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010 
>> 
>> jeanette 
>> 
>> 
>>  and the division between developing and developed 
>>> countries? 
>>> 
>>> That would be much appreciated 
>>> 
>>> Marilia 
>>> -- 
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade 
>>> FGV Direito Rio 
>>> 
>>> Center for Technology and Society 
>>> Getulio Vargas Foundation 
>>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil 
>> ____________________________________________________________ 
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>> To be removed from the list, visit: 
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing 
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see: 
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: 
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ 
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 
>> 
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Mar 25 05:25:29 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:25:29 +0900
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <E9383D70-011A-4426-BEDE-543D202C76FF@psg.com>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
 <E9383D70-011A-4426-BEDE-543D202C76FF@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06240810c9b20f179737@[192.168.1.160]>

Avri's description is exactly as I understand the arrangement.

I think a point to emphasize in the WG is that 
governments are the dominant stakeholder in the 
MAG and that this is designed in (it's described 
in report of the MAG meeting of a few years ago 
where rotation etc was first discussed.)  Plus 
that civil society, however people are counted, 
are in a minority.

Adam




>hi,
>
>all of the non governmental representatives 
>represent only themselves, they are appointed in 
>their own capacity no matter who has suggested 
>them.
>
>and though they are suggested by some group, but 
>that does not necessarily mean that they belong 
>to that group. 
>
>and except for future selections they have no 
>accountability to that group.  and since they do 
>not have to be renewed each year, they can 
>continue for 3 years without any reconfirmation.
>
>the IGC can scream all it wants to about someone 
>it nominated who does not do what the IGC 
>wishes, and there is nothing they can do about 
>it.
>
>the link of a MAG member to their stakeholder 
>group is purely voluntary on the part of the 
>member.  some have may be faithful to their 
>groups and some may do exactly as they pleased 
>without any concern for who nominated them - it 
>is up to the individual.
>
>a.
>
>On 24 Mar 2011, at 17:39, parminder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  On Thursday 24 March 2011 10:02 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Am 24.03.2011 17:26, schrieb Marilia Maciel:
>>>>
>>>>  Could someone tell us how many members are there in the MAG per
>>>>  stakeholder group
>>>
>>>
>>>  It doesn't work like that. Roughly 50% of the 
>>>members wear a government hat. Some of the 
>>>remaining members wear several hats. And some 
>>>members don't belong to a specific group of 
>>>stakeholders.
>>
>>  this is not really true.... selections are 
>>clearly stakehollder group based... this just 
>>repesenting oneself is a fantasy that is 
>>neither true not logical
>>>
>>>  The member list is here:
>>>
>>>  http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010
>>>
>>>  jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>   and the division between developing and developed
>>>>  countries?
>>>>
>>>>  That would be much appreciated
>>>>
>>>>  Marilia
>>>>  --
>>>>  Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>>>>  FGV Direito Rio
>>>>
>>>>  Center for Technology and Society
>>>>  Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>>>  Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From aizu at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 05:29:53 2011
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:29:53 +0900
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <p06240810c9b20f179737@192.168.1.160>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
 <E9383D70-011A-4426-BEDE-543D202C76FF@psg.com> <p06240810c9b20f179737@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=r7zy5yrC68qA76v=83ovfvkJHanHtniANPZ=R@mail.gmail.com>

Yes Adam, I notice this and will bring this point to the table.
Government is half, tech and biz combined is more than double
of CS in my count.

izumi


2011/3/25 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> Avri's description is exactly as I understand the arrangement.
>
> I think a point to emphasize in the WG is that governments are the dominant
> stakeholder in the MAG and that this is designed in (it's described in
> report of the MAG meeting of a few years ago where rotation etc was first
> discussed.)  Plus that civil society, however people are counted, are in a
> minority.
>
> Adam
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 05:38:50 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:38:50 +0900
Subject: [governance] Day 2 of CSTD WG just started
Message-ID: <AANLkTikxAu91Xf2k=jSHZnkbvf1YCsL44WPdimOFGJhC@mail.gmail.com>

Mar 25
10:25

In the morning, an early Draft paper prepared by the secretariat last night
and this morning was sent to the WG members via email and also distributed
the printed version. See attached.

The chair proceeded to explain this briefly and now discussion is starting
around IGF Secretariat.

Chengetai explained the status of Secretary
Roberto from UNDESA also explains the mechanism around Secretary

quiet start, people now feel we can reach the goal by the end of the
day, at least for non-contentious parts.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20110325 CSTD WGIGF draft text report.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 137573 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/c70df3e2/attachment.pdf>

From iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 05:56:45 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:56:45 +0900
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>

I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
help propose to add something like the following words:

What do you guys think?

---
In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent earthquake
and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working Group
recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
governance
against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues, taking
account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on disaster
reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
Agenda .
---

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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri Mar 25 05:59:44 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:59:44 +1200
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikkS7QEd6WQEEe9pr=wTYJfbkHkZ7cd4CG2tkLk@mail.gmail.com>

AGREED, in Fiji and the Pacific we are also prone and vulnerable to numerous
natural disasters such as cyclones and hurricanes and they have been known
to affect ICT. Fortunately, one of the most resilient technology in Fiji, at
least has been Satellite.

Warm Regards,

Sala

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
> help propose to add something like the following words:
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> ---
> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
> earthquake
> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working Group
> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
> governance
> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
> taking
> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on disaster
> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
> Agenda .
> ---
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/9967e2d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From anriette at apc.org  Fri Mar 25 06:04:10 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:04:10 +0200
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>

What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
specific recent disasters as examples.

Anriette



On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
> help propose to add something like the following words:
> 
> What do you guys think?
> 
> ---
> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent earthquake
> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working Group
> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
> governance
> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues, taking
> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on disaster
> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
> Agenda .
> ---
> 
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri Mar 25 06:12:48 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:12:48 +1200
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin41n4s13nAygF1Xn70t2f1CrSe33bs7rD==eDd@mail.gmail.com>

Examples of Disasters that have hit the Pacific recently that affected ICT:

1) Earthquake in Christchurch;
2) Tsunami in American Samoa;
3)Cyclones and Hurricanes in PICs.

It would also be good to see how the IG can get involved in the Tempura
Convention.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
> specific recent disasters as examples.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> > I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
> > help propose to add something like the following words:
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > ---
> > In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
> earthquake
> > and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working
> Group
> > recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
> > governance
> > against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
> taking
> > account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
> disaster
> > reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
> > Agenda .
> > ---
> >
> > izumi
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/d1e6db75/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 25 06:15:51 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:15:51 +1200
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin41n4s13nAygF1Xn70t2f1CrSe33bs7rD==eDd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
	<AANLkTin41n4s13nAygF1Xn70t2f1CrSe33bs7rD==eDd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim-tS5CWoT4esXiv4xbXgZh0xqi2iNaxgyE3ujn@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies, I forgot the name of the instrument dealing with responses to
Natural Disasters. Trying to remember. Don't know why I came up with
Tempura....will check.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Examples of Disasters that have hit the Pacific recently that affected ICT:
>
> 1) Earthquake in Christchurch;
> 2) Tsunami in American Samoa;
> 3)Cyclones and Hurricanes in PICs.
>
> It would also be good to see how the IG can get involved in the Tempura
> Convention.
>
>   On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
> > wrote:
>
>> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
>> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
>> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
>> specific recent disasters as examples.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> > I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
>> > help propose to add something like the following words:
>> >
>> > What do you guys think?
>> >
>> > ---
>> > In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
>> earthquake
>> > and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working
>> Group
>> > recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
>> > governance
>> > against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
>> taking
>> > account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
>> disaster
>> > reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
>> > Agenda .
>> > ---
>> >
>> > izumi
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director
>> association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/264fe05f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 25 06:22:49 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:22:49 +1200
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim-tS5CWoT4esXiv4xbXgZh0xqi2iNaxgyE3ujn@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
	<AANLkTin41n4s13nAygF1Xn70t2f1CrSe33bs7rD==eDd@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim-tS5CWoT4esXiv4xbXgZh0xqi2iNaxgyE3ujn@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinqPD8xqWkLwmjJnE1eASKGZt3fipmQqM6yt3fM@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Correction to my earlier email,  it is called the Tampere Convention:
http://www.reliefweb.int/telecoms/tampere/icet98-e.htm

Here are some interesting links:


   1.
   http://www.mic.gov.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1529:itu-keynote-address
    ;
   2. http://globalcrisis.info/emergencytelecommunications.htm

Kind Regards,

Sala

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Apologies, I forgot the name of the instrument dealing with responses to
> Natural Disasters. Trying to remember. Don't know why I came up with
> Tempura....will check.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Examples of Disasters that have hit the Pacific recently that affected
>> ICT:
>>
>> 1) Earthquake in Christchurch;
>> 2) Tsunami in American Samoa;
>> 3)Cyclones and Hurricanes in PICs.
>>
>> It would also be good to see how the IG can get involved in the Tempura
>> Convention.
>>
>>   On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <
>> anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
>>> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
>>> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
>>> specific recent disasters as examples.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>> > I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
>>> > help propose to add something like the following words:
>>> >
>>> > What do you guys think?
>>> >
>>> > ---
>>> > In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
>>> earthquake
>>> > and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working
>>> Group
>>> > recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
>>> > governance
>>> > against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
>>> taking
>>> > account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
>>> disaster
>>> > reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the
>>> Tunis
>>> > Agenda .
>>> > ---
>>> >
>>> > izumi
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director
>>> association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/6d0292e0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From pouzin at well.com  Fri Mar 25 06:23:28 2011
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:23:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=RiqDSoYNh6RvqSPFnjW=sZ7RYEsrSPcYva5rO@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
	<p06240825c9b0d49b6560@192.168.1.160>
	<AANLkTi=RiqDSoYNh6RvqSPFnjW=sZ7RYEsrSPcYva5rO@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimPg4wHz10HOk_6brH1KjQF_ZwYnktPXnaHah+p@mail.gmail.com>

Hello valiant WG negotiators,

The EUROLINC contribution to the CSTD WG on IGF improvements contains two
documents. Only one appeared in the list (which used to be avaiilable at
www.unctad.org/cstdwg, but no longer).

Since the discussion on LDC financing has not started yet, it might be
appropriate to examine the proposal contained in the missing document,
attached here.

Best
- - -

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Adam, thanks and it is true that we have not YET discussed the
> participation from developing countries. And the stats are no well
> captured.
>
> Having said that, number of participants is one indicator, but not all - I
> mean number of Key players, speakers, etc. and discussions around, could be
> different - I mean there still seem to be less "active" players from
> developing parts of the world, but it is difficult to "prove".
>
> izumi
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/e99c6d15/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1102_Financing_ldc.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 126444 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/e99c6d15/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Mar 25 06:39:37 2011
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:39:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com> <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=GTkBrjS02+soEr+3e-yi6EkBTkSdnQKQ=PQj=@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Izumi but like Anriette's suggestion. This is a frightful
generalisation but it seems to me that disasters have something in
common with the developing world - if you are not in it then you
watch, express sympathy with the difficulties, and get on with your
life. Somehow disasters and the developing world need to be brought
"inside" the issues being discussed.
Sorry - only just woke up
Deirdre

On 25 March 2011 06:04, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
> specific recent disasters as examples.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
>> help propose to add something like the following words:
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>>
>> ---
>> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent earthquake
>> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working Group
>> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
>> governance
>> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues, taking
>> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on disaster
>> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
>> Agenda .
>> ---
>>
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 06:42:06 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:42:06 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimPg4wHz10HOk_6brH1KjQF_ZwYnktPXnaHah+p@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
 <p06240825c9b0d49b6560@192.168.1.160> <AANLkTi=RiqDSoYNh6RvqSPFnjW=sZ7RYEsrSPcYva5rO@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimPg4wHz10HOk_6brH1KjQF_ZwYnktPXnaHah+p@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinjCXF9fkmG6k-rwnAfgHbu+Qn181otRD5_7skc@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Louis for sharing this, and in fact we are in the middle of
financing issue,
UN fund vs. (only) Voluntary funding by private sector and developed countries,
but not from other stakeholders, etc.

Let's see.

izumi

2011/3/25 Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>:
> Hello valiant WG negotiators,
>
> The EUROLINC contribution to the CSTD WG on IGF improvements contains two
> documents. Only one appeared in the list (which used to be avaiilable at
> www.unctad.org/cstdwg, but no longer).
>
> Since the discussion on LDC financing has not started yet, it might be
> appropriate to examine the proposal contained in the missing document,
> attached here.
>
> Best
> - - -
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>
>> Adam, thanks and it is true that we have not YET discussed the
>> participation from developing countries. And the stats are no well
>> captured.
>>
>> Having said that, number of participants is one indicator, but not all - I
>> mean number of Key players, speakers, etc. and discussions around, could be
>> different - I mean there still seem to be less "active" players from
>> developing parts of the world, but it is difficult to "prove".
>>
>> izumi
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Mar 25 06:51:51 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:51:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com> <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
Message-ID: <4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu>

Just as a reminder, the main session on critical internet resources in 
Vilnius did address this issue. We talked about Haiti and its 
repercussions for infrastructure recovery. Some civil society people - I 
won't mention names - regarded this issue on the agenda as an attempt to 
water down or sidestep the actual political issues.

jeanette

On 25.03.2011 11:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
> specific recent disasters as examples.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
>> help propose to add something like the following words:
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>>
>> ---
>> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent earthquake
>> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working Group
>> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
>> governance
>> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues, taking
>> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on disaster
>> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
>> Agenda .
>> ---
>>
>> 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  Fri Mar 25 06:54:02 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:54:02 +1200
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
	<4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Jeanette.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Just as a reminder, the main session on critical internet resources in
> Vilnius did address this issue. We talked about Haiti and its repercussions
> for infrastructure recovery. Some civil society people - I won't mention
> names - regarded this issue on the agenda as an attempt to water down or
> sidestep the actual political issues.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> On 25.03.2011 11:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
>> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
>> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
>> specific recent disasters as examples.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>>> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
>>> help propose to add something like the following words:
>>>
>>> What do you guys think?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
>>> earthquake
>>> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working
>>> Group
>>> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
>>> governance
>>> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
>>> taking
>>> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
>>> disaster
>>> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
>>> Agenda .
>>> ---
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/5cd0227a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 25 06:59:36 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:59:36 +0000
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <E9383D70-011A-4426-BEDE-543D202C76FF@psg.com>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
 <E9383D70-011A-4426-BEDE-543D202C76FF@psg.com>
Message-ID: <EJuogyeYWHjNFAXi@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <E9383D70-011A-4426-BEDE-543D202C76FF at psg.com>, at 09:59:50
on Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> writes
>all of the non governmental representatives represent only themselves, they are appointed in their own capacity no matter who has suggested
>them.
>
>and though they are suggested by some group, but that does not necessarily mean that they belong to that group.
>
>and except for future selections they have no accountability to that group.  and since they do not have to be renewed each year, they can
>continue for 3 years without any reconfirmation.
>
>the IGC can scream all it wants to about someone it nominated who does not do what the IGC wishes, and there is nothing they can do about it.
>
>the link of a MAG member to their stakeholder group is purely voluntary on the part of the member.  some have may be faithful to their groups
>and some may do exactly as they pleased without any concern for who nominated them - it is up to the individual.

And I wondered if the same thing was true of the people at the CSTD WG,
so I had an email exchange with Jeremy about it, a couple of weeks ago.

He endorsed my perception that they are:

        people speaking "in their personal capacity", who got their
        place at the table via the Caucus's nomination process.

and he added:

        they are not expected to all speak with the same voice.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 07:17:04 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:17:04 +0900
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <EJuogyeYWHjNFAXi@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
 <E9383D70-011A-4426-BEDE-543D202C76FF@psg.com> <EJuogyeYWHjNFAXi@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik_2VFjms+HdbpDmx7HL_BhW3JNV16GvGmJyToZ@mail.gmail.com>

Roland and Jeremy,

I am on the CSTD WG, and what your wrote is largely true, but,
one of the motivations for me to get selected is the have somewhat
more coordination amongst the CS based members of the WG
so that if not united, we keep coherent voices from CS more effectively.

We are not doing too good, I admit, say compared with Business
and technical community,as they have regular meetings in the
morning and evening, mostly, but we are doing our best,
thanks to your [positive] pressures ;-)

Of course on certain areas five of us (Wolfgang, Anriette, Marilia, Parminder
and myself) do not share one view or positions, since often
civil society members have very diverse views, backgrounds and
expertise that is our strength, not weakness.

izumi

2011/3/25 Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>:
> In message <E9383D70-011A-4426-BEDE-543D202C76FF at psg.com>, at 09:59:50
> on Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> writes
>>all of the non governmental representatives represent only themselves, they are appointed in their own capacity no matter who has suggested
>>them.
>>
>>and though they are suggested by some group, but that does not necessarily mean that they belong to that group.
>>
>>and except for future selections they have no accountability to that group.  and since they do not have to be renewed each year, they can
>>continue for 3 years without any reconfirmation.
>>
>>the IGC can scream all it wants to about someone it nominated who does not do what the IGC wishes, and there is nothing they can do about it.
>>
>>the link of a MAG member to their stakeholder group is purely voluntary on the part of the member.  some have may be faithful to their groups
>>and some may do exactly as they pleased without any concern for who nominated them - it is up to the individual.
>
> And I wondered if the same thing was true of the people at the CSTD WG,
> so I had an email exchange with Jeremy about it, a couple of weeks ago.
>
> He endorsed my perception that they are:
>
>        people speaking "in their personal capacity", who got their
>        place at the table via the Caucus's nomination process.
>
> and he added:
>
>        they are not expected to all speak with the same voice.
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From aizu at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 07:36:09 2011
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:36:09 +0900
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org> <4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu> <AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=JEWg5KyEsQQm7NBJsnK+r97rbKgO8_WZz2V77@mail.gmail.com>

I am having trouble in putting the words in order, need your help.
Only a), or a) plus b) which is incomplete, be combined?

a)
The members of the Working Group recommend that IGF should address the
question of how the public policy could respond to the challenges
generated by natural and man-made disasters, to reduce the risks,
mitigate the damages and contribute to the relief and recovery works
should that happen in the global context. The disasters have deep
negative impact especially for the developing parts of the globe and
the people therein.

b)
In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
earthquake and Tsunami occurred recently in Japan, inter alia, taking
account the paragraphs 72 g (emerging issues) and 91 (disaster
reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the
Tunis Agenda.

thanks,

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 aizu at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 07:11:59 2011
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:11:59 +0900
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org> <4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu> <AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com>

yes, thanks for the reminder, Jeanette, I remember that session including
the successful support of ccTLD from outside.

And thanks for other comments, I will try to modify the words to
reflect them.

izumi

2011/3/25 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> Thanks Jeanette.
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Just as a reminder, the main session on critical internet resources in
>> Vilnius did address this issue. We talked about Haiti and its repercussions
>> for infrastructure recovery. Some civil society people - I won't mention
>> names - regarded this issue on the agenda as an attempt to water down or
>> sidestep the actual political issues.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> On 25.03.2011 11:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>
>>> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
>>> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
>>> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
>>> specific recent disasters as examples.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
>>>> help propose to add something like the following words:
>>>>
>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
>>>> earthquake
>>>> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working
>>>> Group
>>>> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
>>>> governance
>>>> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
>>>> taking
>>>> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
>>>> disaster
>>>> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
>>>> Agenda .
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Mar 25 07:48:40 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:48:40 +0000
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik_2VFjms+HdbpDmx7HL_BhW3JNV16GvGmJyToZ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
 <E9383D70-011A-4426-BEDE-543D202C76FF@psg.com>
 <EJuogyeYWHjNFAXi@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <AANLkTik_2VFjms+HdbpDmx7HL_BhW3JNV16GvGmJyToZ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <GJOogyjYEIjNFAmS@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTik_2VFjms+HdbpDmx7HL_BhW3JNV16GvGmJyToZ at mail.gmail.com>, at 
20:17:04 on Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes

>Of course on certain areas five of us (Wolfgang, Anriette, Marilia, Parminder
>and myself) do not share one view or positions, since often
>civil society members have very diverse views, backgrounds and
>expertise that is our strength, not weakness.

And the same is true of the Government people. I don't think any of us 
expect them all to agree (these meetings would be far shorter if they 
did agree). Although once they've all signed up to a Treaty, we expect 
them all to follow it, even if later on they don't agree with it so 
much.

The problem with expecting full diversity in a multi-stakeholder 
environment such as this is that you'll never fully achieve it with so 
few people.

I don't see any middle-aged male North Americans[1] in your team, for 
example, so who is going to speak up for their civil society related 
hopes and aspirations, if not someone who is trying to represent a 
pre-researched *range* of civil society opinions rather than just their 
own?

[1] I pick this combination in the hope of offending no-one. And I'm 
sure nothing you'd say would be to deliberately disadvantage any group.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 07:58:21 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:58:21 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Day 2 of CSTD WG just started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikxAu91Xf2k=jSHZnkbvf1YCsL44WPdimOFGJhC@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikxAu91Xf2k=jSHZnkbvf1YCsL44WPdimOFGJhC@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=eVo6RB=BhDciTnTr5ypVmwmRGKMThqLHSFKEH@mail.gmail.com>

Lunch brake, now.
We spent good time on Secretariat and Funding in the morning, no
possible agreement achieved. At the end, people started to ask how
exactly we come to the conculsion of the meeting/report and asked
to stick with the draft documents distributed.

The Chair replied that we will only make points of agreements.

Resume at 14:30, not 15:00.

izumi


2011/3/25 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>:
> Mar 25
> 10:25
>
> In the morning, an early Draft paper prepared by the secretariat last night
> and this morning was sent to the WG members via email and also distributed
> the printed version. See attached.
>
> The chair proceeded to explain this briefly and now discussion is starting
> around IGF Secretariat.
>
> Chengetai explained the status of Secretary
> Roberto from UNDESA also explains the mechanism around Secretary
>
> quiet start, people now feel we can reach the goal by the end of the
> day, at least for non-contentious parts.
>
> izumi
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Mar 25 08:47:53 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:47:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org> <4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu>
 <AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>,<AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99584@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Izumi, if you think it might help to point to a specific civil society project as an example..and I am not affiliated just suggesting - maybe point to 'crisis commons.'

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 7:11 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para

yes, thanks for the reminder, Jeanette, I remember that session including
the successful support of ccTLD from outside.

And thanks for other comments, I will try to modify the words to
reflect them.

izumi

2011/3/25 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> Thanks Jeanette.
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Just as a reminder, the main session on critical internet resources in
>> Vilnius did address this issue. We talked about Haiti and its repercussions
>> for infrastructure recovery. Some civil society people - I won't mention
>> names - regarded this issue on the agenda as an attempt to water down or
>> sidestep the actual political issues.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> On 25.03.2011 11:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>
>>> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
>>> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
>>> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
>>> specific recent disasters as examples.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
>>>> help propose to add something like the following words:
>>>>
>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
>>>> earthquake
>>>> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working
>>>> Group
>>>> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
>>>> governance
>>>> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
>>>> taking
>>>> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
>>>> disaster
>>>> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
>>>> Agenda .
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



--
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Mar 25 09:01:01 2011
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:01:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=JEWg5KyEsQQm7NBJsnK+r97rbKgO8_WZz2V77@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org> <4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu> <AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=JEWg5KyEsQQm7NBJsnK+r97rbKgO8_WZz2V77@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimZXXPNTR088LktYcX_kap9GztMDOY+q-sBaApz@mail.gmail.com>

Can you use b) to introduce a), with perhaps a reference to Lee's
suggestion? I would omit the words "should that happen in a global
context".
Deirdre

On 25 March 2011 07:36, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:
> I am having trouble in putting the words in order, need your help.
> Only a), or a) plus b) which is incomplete, be combined?
>
> a)
> The members of the Working Group recommend that IGF should address the
> question of how the public policy could respond to the challenges
> generated by natural and man-made disasters, to reduce the risks,
> mitigate the damages and contribute to the relief and recovery works
> should that happen in the global context. The disasters have deep
> negative impact especially for the developing parts of the globe and
> the people therein.
>
> b)
> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
> earthquake and Tsunami occurred recently in Japan, inter alia, taking
> account the paragraphs 72 g (emerging issues) and 91 (disaster
> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the
> Tunis Agenda.
>
> thanks,
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From aizu at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 10:32:57 2011
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 23:32:57 +0900
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99584@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org> <4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu> <AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99584@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikWprVHLEt2TUs+JB9X6cz+PVOxb7M683u2QEUe@mail.gmail.com>

I am having difficulty in putting this into the context of the draft proposal.
Most languages are rather general, not quite specific, ie to "disaster",
and thus putting examples such as "critical commons" though I am tempted
to suggest, may also look inappropriate.

Let me see how the current discussion, finally starting to discuss para by para
of the draft with less than 3 hours left.

izumi

2011/3/25 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
> Izumi, if you think it might help to point to a specific civil society project as an example..and I am not affiliated just suggesting - maybe point to 'crisis commons.'
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 7:11 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Anriette Esterhuysen
> Subject: Re: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
>
> yes, thanks for the reminder, Jeanette, I remember that session including
> the successful support of ccTLD from outside.
>
> And thanks for other comments, I will try to modify the words to
> reflect them.
>
> izumi
>
> 2011/3/25 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>> Thanks Jeanette.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just as a reminder, the main session on critical internet resources in
>>> Vilnius did address this issue. We talked about Haiti and its repercussions
>>> for infrastructure recovery. Some civil society people - I won't mention
>>> names - regarded this issue on the agenda as an attempt to water down or
>>> sidestep the actual political issues.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> On 25.03.2011 11:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
>>>> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
>>>> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
>>>> specific recent disasters as examples.
>>>>
>>>> Anriette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
>>>>> help propose to add something like the following words:
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
>>>>> earthquake
>>>>> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working
>>>>> Group
>>>>> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
>>>>> governance
>>>>> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
>>>>> taking
>>>>> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
>>>>> disaster
>>>>> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
>>>>> Agenda .
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                  Japan
>                                 * * * * *
>           << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Mar 25 10:42:20 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:42:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikWprVHLEt2TUs+JB9X6cz+PVOxb7M683u2QEUe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org> <4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu>
 <AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99584@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<AANLkTikWprVHLEt2TUs+JB9X6cz+PVOxb7M683u2QEUe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99588@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hey you're there, we're remote kibbitzers, so up to you how to play.

But you are talking about a specific category of issues...ie Internet governance in- crises? Natural disasters? Which is distinct from - day to day Internet governance.  

And major aspect in those contexts is - coordination, or lack thereof, across civil society, business and government, albeit tech community and civil society are doing things...like the crisis commons example.


________________________________________
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 10:32 AM
To: Lee W McKnight
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; Jeanette Hofmann; Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para

I am having difficulty in putting this into the context of the draft proposal.
Most languages are rather general, not quite specific, ie to "disaster",
and thus putting examples such as "critical commons" though I am tempted
to suggest, may also look inappropriate.

Let me see how the current discussion, finally starting to discuss para by para
of the draft with less than 3 hours left.

izumi

2011/3/25 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
> Izumi, if you think it might help to point to a specific civil society project as an example..and I am not affiliated just suggesting - maybe point to 'crisis commons.'
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 7:11 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Anriette Esterhuysen
> Subject: Re: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
>
> yes, thanks for the reminder, Jeanette, I remember that session including
> the successful support of ccTLD from outside.
>
> And thanks for other comments, I will try to modify the words to
> reflect them.
>
> izumi
>
> 2011/3/25 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>> Thanks Jeanette.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just as a reminder, the main session on critical internet resources in
>>> Vilnius did address this issue. We talked about Haiti and its repercussions
>>> for infrastructure recovery. Some civil society people - I won't mention
>>> names - regarded this issue on the agenda as an attempt to water down or
>>> sidestep the actual political issues.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> On 25.03.2011 11:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
>>>> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
>>>> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
>>>> specific recent disasters as examples.
>>>>
>>>> Anriette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
>>>>> help propose to add something like the following words:
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
>>>>> earthquake
>>>>> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working
>>>>> Group
>>>>> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
>>>>> governance
>>>>> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
>>>>> taking
>>>>> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
>>>>> disaster
>>>>> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
>>>>> Agenda .
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                  Japan
>                                 * * * * *
>           << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



--
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Mar 25 10:52:22 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:52:22 -0300
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99588@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
	<4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu>
	<AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99584@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTikWprVHLEt2TUs+JB9X6cz+PVOxb7M683u2QEUe@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99588@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimSMFa=KMxp2Zd7BgbcfKixbTEoQi4earoVq_xC@mail.gmail.com>

One observation that I'ld to make, based on the earlier discussions re:
Japan with Izumi and all is that if/when a disaster occurs in a Developed
Country it will have significantly different impacts and also require
significantly different responses (particularly in ICT areas) from those
that have (now) been developed for LDC's.  I'm going into this in some more
detail in the blogpost I'll be trying to get out later today but I think
this distinction should be noted and will likely have ripple effects into
the role/response of Internet Governance as well.

M

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> Hey you're there, we're remote kibbitzers, so up to you how to play.
>
> But you are talking about a specific category of issues...ie Internet
> governance in- crises? Natural disasters? Which is distinct from - day to
> day Internet governance.
>
> And major aspect in those contexts is - coordination, or lack thereof,
> across civil society, business and government, albeit tech community and
> civil society are doing things...like the crisis commons example.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [
> aizu at anr.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 10:32 AM
> To: Lee W McKnight
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; Jeanette
> Hofmann; Anriette Esterhuysen
>  Subject: Re: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
>
> I am having difficulty in putting this into the context of the draft
> proposal.
> Most languages are rather general, not quite specific, ie to "disaster",
> and thus putting examples such as "critical commons" though I am tempted
> to suggest, may also look inappropriate.
>
> Let me see how the current discussion, finally starting to discuss para by
> para
> of the draft with less than 3 hours left.
>
> izumi
>
> 2011/3/25 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
> > Izumi, if you think it might help to point to a specific civil society
> project as an example..and I am not affiliated just suggesting - maybe point
> to 'crisis commons.'
> >
> > Lee
> > ________________________________________
> > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of
> Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org]
> > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 7:11 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Anriette Esterhuysen
> > Subject: Re: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
> >
> > yes, thanks for the reminder, Jeanette, I remember that session including
> > the successful support of ccTLD from outside.
> >
> > And thanks for other comments, I will try to modify the words to
> > reflect them.
> >
> > izumi
> >
> > 2011/3/25 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> >> Thanks Jeanette.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Just as a reminder, the main session on critical internet resources in
> >>> Vilnius did address this issue. We talked about Haiti and its
> repercussions
> >>> for infrastructure recovery. Some civil society people - I won't
> mention
> >>> names - regarded this issue on the agenda as an attempt to water down
> or
> >>> sidestep the actual political issues.
> >>>
> >>> jeanette
> >>>
> >>> On 25.03.2011 11:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond to
> >>>> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
> >>>> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention the
> >>>> specific recent disasters as examples.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anriette
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
> >>>>> help propose to add something like the following words:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you guys think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
> >>>>> earthquake
> >>>>> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working
> >>>>> Group
> >>>>> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
> >>>>> governance
> >>>>> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
> >>>>> taking
> >>>>> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
> >>>>> disaster
> >>>>> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the
> Tunis
> >>>>> Agenda .
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
> >
> >          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> >
> >           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> >                                  Japan
> >                                 * * * * *
> >           << Writing the Future of the History >>
> >                                www.anr.org
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                  Japan
>                                 * * * * *
>           << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/0ae22f0f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Fri Mar 25 11:03:14 2011
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:03:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=RiqDSoYNh6RvqSPFnjW=sZ7RYEsrSPcYva5rO@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
 <p06240825c9b0d49b6560@192.168.1.160> <AANLkTi=RiqDSoYNh6RvqSPFnjW=sZ7RYEsrSPcYva5rO@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimUMRwiE5uB15W0+pg2daKFopguSiJ9j4SiSeBN@mail.gmail.com>

In my opinion, for developing countries, particularly Africa, should
consider first the people, organizations and institutions that have
remained constant
over these processes since 2003.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN





2011/3/24 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

> Adam, thanks and it is true that we have not YET discussed the
> participation from developing countries. And the stats are no well
> captured.
>
> Having said that, number of participants is one indicator, but not all - I
> mean
> number of Key players, speakers, etc. and discussions around, could be
> different -
> I mean there still seem to be less "active" players from developing
> parts of the world, but it is difficult to "prove".
>
> izumi
>
> 2011/3/24 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
>  > Thanks Izumi.
> >
> > I think we've heard quite a lot of comments about the lack of
> participation
> > from developing countries (China's submission for example.)
>  Participation's
> > clearly dependent on location of the meeting, Vilnius strongly favored
> West
> > and Eastern Europe sure, Hyderabad saw a high percentage from the host
> > country.
> >
> > Vilnius attendance information
> > <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2010/Stats.2010.pdf>
> >
> > Sharm attendance information
> > <
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/87-programme/484-igf-sharm-el-sheikh-attendance-statistics
> >
> >
> > Hyderabad
> > <
> http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/42-igf-meetings/414-attendance-breakdown-of-the-hyderabad-meeting
> >
> >
> > Rio <http://igf.wgig.org/cms/rio_stats.htm>
> >
> > Can't find for Athens, must be somewhere.
> >
> > Participation from developing countries needs to be encouraged and
> > supported, but stats we have seem to suggest there is participation from
> > most regions (Latin American low).  But the information's lacking, unless
> > someone wished to go through the list of attendees country by country.
> >
> > And I hope government of Canada's support for developing country
> > participation will be acknowledged and Canada thanked.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> The CSTD WG meeting started this morning.
> >> I made a short presentation on the disaster and the role of ICT/Internet
> >> before we started the discussion on the Report. It may not directly
> >> touch the IGF per se, but I feel compelled to report, first, and also
> >> I think it is very much a governance issue, and the role of Internet
> >> be also questioned.
> >>
> >> After a few round of comments, we have entered into discussion
> >> of Point 2,4, and 5 since they are inter-related, following suggestion
> >> from India.
> >> (though my concentration is not good enough, so I may missed some
> >> key points)...
> >>
> >> izumi
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
> >>
> >>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> >>
> >>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> >>                                  Japan
> >>                                 * * * * *
> >>           << Writing the Future of the History >>
> >>                                www.anr.org
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                          >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/1e0d9866/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 11:11:47 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:11:47 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimUMRwiE5uB15W0+pg2daKFopguSiJ9j4SiSeBN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
 <p06240825c9b0d49b6560@192.168.1.160> <AANLkTi=RiqDSoYNh6RvqSPFnjW=sZ7RYEsrSPcYva5rO@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimUMRwiE5uB15W0+pg2daKFopguSiJ9j4SiSeBN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim8v28S4QmhNCet4xUaTP2M5UBE0QhvxekEZpUW@mail.gmail.com>

After lunch, we are finally starting to discuss with the draft para by para,
though there are strong concerns if we could conclude the 6 page+
document by 6 pm.

The tension came back when India made a proposal to add the following
para, opposed by a few delegations, the Chair proposed to delete as there
seem to be no consensus, but then the other side joined to emphasis
its importance, then it is left in bracket.

India proposed 7bis:
[As recognized by the Tunis Agenda and UN GA resolution of 22 November
2010, the IGF and enhanced cooperation are two distinct processes. The
IGF as a unique, multi-stakeholder forum should provide its valuable
inputs to the ongoing dialogue on global Internet governance, and feed
its insight into any mechanism setup to operationalise enhanced
cooperation in the future.]

The Chair is now checking if there are problems, if so, it is put into
brackets and
ask us to resolve during coffee brake.

----
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From aizu at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 11:21:32 2011
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:21:32 +0900
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimSMFa=KMxp2Zd7BgbcfKixbTEoQi4earoVq_xC@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org> <4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu> <AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99584@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTikWprVHLEt2TUs+JB9X6cz+PVOxb7M683u2QEUe@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99588@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimSMFa=KMxp2Zd7BgbcfKixbTEoQi4earoVq_xC@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin4QDcpZY9vbLrNit+aR4MKMV-umyNfZZMsNFTe@mail.gmail.com>

At this point, I am sort of backing off, I mean the level of discussion now
ongoing is not conducive to bring in new points without having good amount
of time left.

We could a) propose to form a workshop around this subject, and also
b) make comments after the CSTD WG report is published, with May
open consultation in mind.

I also see there are different aspects between developing and developed
countries, BUT, in Japan, some of the areas most severely damaged
are far less developed parts of the country, something in common
with developing countries, at least to some degree.
That's why I put
"the developing parts of the globe and the people" instead of
"developing countries".

But in any case thanks a lot for your support and considerations.

izumi


2011/3/25 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>:
> One observation that I'ld to make, based on the earlier discussions re:
> Japan with Izumi and all is that if/when a disaster occurs in a Developed
> Country it will have significantly different impacts and also require
> significantly different responses (particularly in ICT areas) from those
> that have (now) been developed for LDC's.  I'm going into this in some more
> detail in the blogpost I'll be trying to get out later today but I think
> this distinction should be noted and will likely have ripple effects into
> the role/response of Internet Governance as well.
>
> M
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hey you're there, we're remote kibbitzers, so up to you how to play.
>>
>> But you are talking about a specific category of issues...ie Internet
>> governance in- crises? Natural disasters? Which is distinct from - day to
>> day Internet governance.
>>
>> And major aspect in those contexts is - coordination, or lack thereof,
>> across civil society, business and government, albeit tech community and
>> civil society are doing things...like the crisis commons example.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
>> [aizu at anr.org]
>> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 10:32 AM
>> To: Lee W McKnight
>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; Jeanette
>> Hofmann; Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Subject: Re: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
>>
>> I am having difficulty in putting this into the context of the draft
>> proposal.
>> Most languages are rather general, not quite specific, ie to "disaster",
>> and thus putting examples such as "critical commons" though I am tempted
>> to suggest, may also look inappropriate.
>>
>> Let me see how the current discussion, finally starting to discuss para by
>> para
>> of the draft with less than 3 hours left.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> 2011/3/25 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
>> > Izumi, if you think it might help to point to a specific civil society
>> > project as an example..and I am not affiliated just suggesting - maybe point
>> > to 'crisis commons.'
>> >
>> > Lee
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of
>> > Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org]
>> > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 7:11 AM
>> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> > Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Anriette Esterhuysen
>> > Subject: Re: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
>> >
>> > yes, thanks for the reminder, Jeanette, I remember that session
>> > including
>> > the successful support of ccTLD from outside.
>> >
>> > And thanks for other comments, I will try to modify the words to
>> > reflect them.
>> >
>> > izumi
>> >
>> > 2011/3/25 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> > <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
>> >> Thanks Jeanette.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Just as a reminder, the main session on critical internet resources in
>> >>> Vilnius did address this issue. We talked about Haiti and its
>> >>> repercussions
>> >>> for infrastructure recovery. Some civil society people - I won't
>> >>> mention
>> >>> names - regarded this issue on the agenda as an attempt to water down
>> >>> or
>> >>> sidestep the actual political issues.
>> >>>
>> >>> jeanette
>> >>>
>> >>> On 25.03.2011 11:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed at
>> >>>> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> specific recent disasters as examples.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anriette
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I
>> >>>>> cannot
>> >>>>> help propose to add something like the following words:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What do you guys think?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ---
>> >>>>> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
>> >>>>> earthquake
>> >>>>> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the
>> >>>>> Working
>> >>>>> Group
>> >>>>> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and
>> >>>>> its
>> >>>>> governance
>> >>>>> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging
>> >>>>> issues,
>> >>>>> taking
>> >>>>> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
>> >>>>> disaster
>> >>>>> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the
>> >>>>> Tunis
>> >>>>> Agenda .
>> >>>>> ---
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>
>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>
>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
>> >
>> >          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>> >
>> >           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>> >                                  Japan
>> >                                 * * * * *
>> >           << Writing the Future of the History >>
>> >                                www.anr.org
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
>>
>>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>
>>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>                                  Japan
>>                                 * * * * *
>>           << Writing the Future of the History >>
>>                                www.anr.org
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Mar 25 11:52:17 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:52:17 -0300
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin4QDcpZY9vbLrNit+aR4MKMV-umyNfZZMsNFTe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8C689A.5030505@apc.org>
	<4D8C73C7.3020508@wzb.eu>
	<AANLkTim-gFkOMCSnU4-HsBhA3hcPwJfRfOt+cX2+s1H3@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinbJ83c7tRfHXcdXU6cm1SbPNZnmwAa08xckcBS@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99584@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTikWprVHLEt2TUs+JB9X6cz+PVOxb7M683u2QEUe@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99588@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimSMFa=KMxp2Zd7BgbcfKixbTEoQi4earoVq_xC@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin4QDcpZY9vbLrNit+aR4MKMV-umyNfZZMsNFTe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimMkv7QRoBXjsxZSGkmAsSaWbyYVVEhB+ai-L9f@mail.gmail.com>

Izumi,

I'm hoping that my note didn't discourage you.  I think what you are
proposing is very important... One of the things that I realized in our
earlier discussions was how completely unprepared we are in Vancouver in
these areas and anything that could stimulate some work/thinking/planning on
ICT prep now would I'm quite sure save multiple lives if/when we have a
major occurrence in Vancouver, which as you perhaps know sits adjacent to
some quite active volcanic fault lines.

M

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:

> At this point, I am sort of backing off, I mean the level of discussion now
> ongoing is not conducive to bring in new points without having good amount
> of time left.
>
> We could a) propose to form a workshop around this subject, and also
> b) make comments after the CSTD WG report is published, with May
> open consultation in mind.
>
> I also see there are different aspects between developing and developed
> countries, BUT, in Japan, some of the areas most severely damaged
> are far less developed parts of the country, something in common
> with developing countries, at least to some degree.
> That's why I put
> "the developing parts of the globe and the people" instead of
> "developing countries".
>
> But in any case thanks a lot for your support and considerations.
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2011/3/25 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>:
>  > One observation that I'ld to make, based on the earlier discussions re:
> > Japan with Izumi and all is that if/when a disaster occurs in a Developed
> > Country it will have significantly different impacts and also require
> > significantly different responses (particularly in ICT areas) from those
> > that have (now) been developed for LDC's.  I'm going into this in some
> more
> > detail in the blogpost I'll be trying to get out later today but I think
> > this distinction should be noted and will likely have ripple effects into
> > the role/response of Internet Governance as well.
> >
> > M
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey you're there, we're remote kibbitzers, so up to you how to play.
> >>
> >> But you are talking about a specific category of issues...ie Internet
> >> governance in- crises? Natural disasters? Which is distinct from - day
> to
> >> day Internet governance.
> >>
> >> And major aspect in those contexts is - coordination, or lack thereof,
> >> across civil society, business and government, albeit tech community and
> >> civil society are doing things...like the crisis commons example.
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
> >> [aizu at anr.org]
> >> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 10:32 AM
> >> To: Lee W McKnight
> >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; Jeanette
> >> Hofmann; Anriette Esterhuysen
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
> >>
> >> I am having difficulty in putting this into the context of the draft
> >> proposal.
> >> Most languages are rather general, not quite specific, ie to "disaster",
> >> and thus putting examples such as "critical commons" though I am tempted
> >> to suggest, may also look inappropriate.
> >>
> >> Let me see how the current discussion, finally starting to discuss para
> by
> >> para
> >> of the draft with less than 3 hours left.
> >>
> >> izumi
> >>
> >> 2011/3/25 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
> >> > Izumi, if you think it might help to point to a specific civil society
> >> > project as an example..and I am not affiliated just suggesting - maybe
> point
> >> > to 'crisis commons.'
> >> >
> >> > Lee
> >> > ________________________________________
> >> > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
> Of
> >> > Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org]
> >> > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 7:11 AM
> >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> > Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Anriette Esterhuysen
> >> > Subject: Re: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
> >> >
> >> > yes, thanks for the reminder, Jeanette, I remember that session
> >> > including
> >> > the successful support of ccTLD from outside.
> >> >
> >> > And thanks for other comments, I will try to modify the words to
> >> > reflect them.
> >> >
> >> > izumi
> >> >
> >> > 2011/3/25 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> > <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> >> >> Thanks Jeanette.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Just as a reminder, the main session on critical internet resources
> in
> >> >>> Vilnius did address this issue. We talked about Haiti and its
> >> >>> repercussions
> >> >>> for infrastructure recovery. Some civil society people - I won't
> >> >>> mention
> >> >>> names - regarded this issue on the agenda as an attempt to water
> down
> >> >>> or
> >> >>> sidestep the actual political issues.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> jeanette
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 25.03.2011 11:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> What about using disasters, and how policy processes should respond
> >> >>>> to
> >> >>>> this, as one of the examples of 'policy questions' to be discussed
> at
> >> >>>> the IGF in the proposals on clearer outcomes? Then you can mention
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> specific recent disasters as examples.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Anriette
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On 25/03/11 11:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I
> >> >>>>> cannot
> >> >>>>> help propose to add something like the following words:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> What do you guys think?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ---
> >> >>>>> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
> >> >>>>> earthquake
> >> >>>>> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the
> >> >>>>> Working
> >> >>>>> Group
> >> >>>>> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and
> >> >>>>> its
> >> >>>>> governance
> >> >>>>> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging
> >> >>>>> issues,
> >> >>>>> taking
> >> >>>>> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on
> >> >>>>> disaster
> >> >>>>> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the
> >> >>>>> Tunis
> >> >>>>> Agenda .
> >> >>>>> ---
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 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
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >> >>
> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >> >>
> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
> >> >
> >> >          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> >> >
> >> >           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> >> >                                  Japan
> >> >                                 * * * * *
> >> >           << Writing the Future of the History >>
> >> >                                www.anr.org
> >> > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >> >
> >> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >> >
> >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>                        >> Izumi Aizu <<
> >>
> >>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> >>
> >>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> >>                                  Japan
> >>                                 * * * * *
> >>           << Writing the Future of the History >>
> >>                                www.anr.org
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/719c50ce/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Fri Mar 25 11:55:30 2011
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:55:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] my humble proposal to add one para
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=vPCR5RGnEEcBJj7J-cmGw8SXcf1e1-rRy0aSd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=QaO5wTTNzhe=f4VZ273K0Vd+y3gdF+sdM_oRm@mail.gmail.com>

5/5 Izumi.
very good idea.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN)
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net



2011/3/25 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

> I am not sure if this falls within the scope of CSTD WG, but I cannot
> help propose to add something like the following words:
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> ---
> In view of the tragedic earthquake in Haiti in 2010 and the recent
> earthquake
> and Tsunami occurred in Japan, inter alia, the members of the Working Group
> recommend that future IGF should address the role of Internet and its
> governance
> against natural and man-made disasters as one of the emerging issues,
> taking
> account the paragraph 72 (g) emerging issues and paragraph 91 (on disaster
> reduction, sustainable development and poverty eradication) of the Tunis
> Agenda .
> ---
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110325/60d47879/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 12:11:12 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 01:11:12 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim8v28S4QmhNCet4xUaTP2M5UBE0QhvxekEZpUW@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
 <p06240825c9b0d49b6560@192.168.1.160> <AANLkTi=RiqDSoYNh6RvqSPFnjW=sZ7RYEsrSPcYva5rO@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimUMRwiE5uB15W0+pg2daKFopguSiJ9j4SiSeBN@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim8v28S4QmhNCet4xUaTP2M5UBE0QhvxekEZpUW@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=yv3vWEksd42OH7h+i5PdSUmR9d4Q2xDo5zNwR@mail.gmail.com>

The discussion on draft report didn't go well at all. The chair
did not allow much substantive discussion, kept saying
we have only two hours, and the moment there came different views
and not easy to gain consensus, he started to put them into brackets,
asked us to resolve during the coffee brake, but at the coffee brake now,
most of the members feel not compelled to work together to resolve
the differences, knowing the gap is too wide for us to fill within
a couple of hours.

We are starting to talk about "Plan B".

We speculate that the game will continue to the May CSTD Open
consultation. Lots of material, but not combined well.

Many are quite frustrated no matter which side they are.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Fri Mar 25 13:10:14 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 02:10:14 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF meeting started
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=yv3vWEksd42OH7h+i5PdSUmR9d4Q2xDo5zNwR@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinq5-KMz-C9rxM9uUTtfqGdPnqoahVfj-KdN-_z@mail.gmail.com>
 <p06240825c9b0d49b6560@192.168.1.160> <AANLkTi=RiqDSoYNh6RvqSPFnjW=sZ7RYEsrSPcYva5rO@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimUMRwiE5uB15W0+pg2daKFopguSiJ9j4SiSeBN@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTim8v28S4QmhNCet4xUaTP2M5UBE0QhvxekEZpUW@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=yv3vWEksd42OH7h+i5PdSUmR9d4Q2xDo5zNwR@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=akXKaoDTSbi_bXqNWfgJKBDu9y_gJitgFkCT5@mail.gmail.com>

Last session - not having any concrete proposal/draft report, Chair
said he can report the situation, as his report, without substantive
proposals as we did not reach consensus and now asking
each comments.

Some argue for extension, one more meeting, combined with online
others argue for just sending the Chair's report - with annex

Finland made a proposal to list bullet points to see the consensus

Chair -

Chair, last word for me
Despite we cannot have recommendation,
as written in resolution, compile, but if possible make recommendation
– CSTD had dobut – and it came out
a lot people here made a lot of work, spirit, contribute,
secretariat, Swiss delegation – worked, but we don’t succeed,
but if we don’t succeed now, we will not succeed in by next CSTD
even we don’t have consensus on how to proceed –
so what now we have to be very realistic,
I will make my report as Chair of this meeting, as neutral and
balanced, ideas of
We have a compilation –
in CSTD, we will discuss with the Chairman of CSTD
only 3 hours, there people can make proposal

if you have ideas as Finland, you can send it to colleagues
then make it as room document, at CSTD

That I can provide as solution. Sorry for that, but no other solution is found.
Final word for the development of IGF.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Sat Mar 26 02:45:36 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:45:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF improvement
Message-ID: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>

As I reported yesterday to this list, the Chair did not try to produce
the report of the WG, and will only transmit his own "neutral" summary,
with compilation as annex or data.

Several members stayed for a while and chatted what to do next.
Some will try to extend the mandate, ask CSTD Chair for that and
keep on, some gave up. There is possibility for us, IGC, to make
our own version, bit similar to the CS Declaration at WSIS if
we agree.

Many people said 4 days are not enough to discuss and conclude such
politically complex issue. Some pointed out that waiting till UN GA
resolution passage made everything delayed. We also did not have
online collaboration/communication tool in the course of work.
We were late to propose that. etc etc.

So now, I would like to hear your comments - what to do? What is best?
Let's think together.

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  Sat Mar 26 03:42:02 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:12:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>

It was an unfortunate ending to the process. Why it happened is complex 
but important to analyse and understand, for the future of IG. Will 
share a detailed report within a week. parminder

On Saturday 26 March 2011 12:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> As I reported yesterday to this list, the Chair did not try to produce
> the report of the WG, and will only transmit his own "neutral" summary,
> with compilation as annex or data.
>
> Several members stayed for a while and chatted what to do next.
> Some will try to extend the mandate, ask CSTD Chair for that and
> keep on, some gave up. There is possibility for us, IGC, to make
> our own version, bit similar to the CS Declaration at WSIS if
> we agree.
>
> Many people said 4 days are not enough to discuss and conclude such
> politically complex issue. Some pointed out that waiting till UN GA
> resolution passage made everything delayed. We also did not have
> online collaboration/communication tool in the course of work.
> We were late to propose that. etc etc.
>
> So now, I would like to hear your comments - what to do? What is best?
> Let's think together.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110326/c3e9c94f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat Mar 26 04:21:44 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:21:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear all
 
I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question. 
 
I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." 
 
A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes  an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction. 
 
What are the options now for civil society?
 
Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
 
Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011.  
 
Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration".
 
Best wishes
 
wolfgang 
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Mar 26 06:08:06 2011
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:08:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <B25ZfPRGsbjNFAUE@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, 
at 09:21:44 on Sat, 26 Mar 2011, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> writes
>Dear all
>
>I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the 
>Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable 
>result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of 
>the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.

It didn't get off to a very good start - the first meeting was at 
lunchtime in Vilnius, during a week where (like Nairobi) lunchtime 
meetings were supposed to be banned. You may recall that the outcome 
(WGIG-only participants, no room for Technical Community) was 
immediately controversial.

>I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable 
>environment which does not allow the production of anything which is 
>meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is 
>happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to 
>change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of 
>multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which 
>were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism 
>does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other 
>working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our 
>(national) agendas into an international dialogue."

I think that a report could have been produced, if there was a critical 
mass of government subject-experts in the room, rather than 
Geneva-mission representatives. My observation, at several venues, is 
that the subject-experts are much more willing to work into the evening 
and get a report finalised. That's what happened at last year's main 
CSTD meeting, despite there also being more mission-folk in the room 
than at a typical ITU meeting.

>A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill 
>Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as 
>a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon 
>the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable 
>proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF 
>Working Group and if Nairobi becomes  an "outstanding success", this 
>will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in 
>the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction.

This WG's output was never going to affect the way the Nairobi meeting 
was conducted; therefore despite the lack of replacements for Nitin and 
Marcus, and the MAG un-rotated, everyone should do their utmost to make 
the Nairobi meeting a success. And that includes getting all the 
workshop proposals in on time (20th April - only four weeks away) and 
having a reasonably amicable final planning meeting in May.

>What are the options now for civil society?
>
>Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about 
>the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
>
>Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice 
>in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the 
>existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious 
>analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the 
>draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd 
>Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011.

I don't think the 2nd Committee will accept any input other than from 
ECOSOC, who in turn expect most of the work to be done at CSTD. So you 
have to arrange for special meetings of both. And the chair yesterday 
was already making noises about there only being 3 hours in the schedule 
at the CSTD for further discussions, so I'm not optimistic that we can 
do much more than live with whatever the chair produces out of 
yesterday's meeting.

>Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for 
>an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and 
>friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented 
>via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva.

But there's a deadline for such submissions.

>On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day 
>open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: 
>How to improve multistakeholder collaboration".
>

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sat Mar 26 09:00:03 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:00:03 -0300
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com>

i agree. We are in a very important moment. I am in transit but will
also share my impressions early this week as well.

On 3/26/11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> It was an unfortunate ending to the process. Why it happened is complex
> but important to analyse and understand, for the future of IG. Will
> share a detailed report within a week. parminder
>
> On Saturday 26 March 2011 12:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> As I reported yesterday to this list, the Chair did not try to produce
>> the report of the WG, and will only transmit his own "neutral" summary,
>> with compilation as annex or data.
>>
>> Several members stayed for a while and chatted what to do next.
>> Some will try to extend the mandate, ask CSTD Chair for that and
>> keep on, some gave up. There is possibility for us, IGC, to make
>> our own version, bit similar to the CS Declaration at WSIS if
>> we agree.
>>
>> Many people said 4 days are not enough to discuss and conclude such
>> politically complex issue. Some pointed out that waiting till UN GA
>> resolution passage made everything delayed. We also did not have
>> online collaboration/communication tool in the course of work.
>> We were late to propose that. etc etc.
>>
>> So now, I would like to hear your comments - what to do? What is best?
>> Let's think together.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sat Mar 26 09:26:33 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:26:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>,<AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

At least to me CSTD is looking...not so competent at the moment. 

So Wolfgang's worry about the multistakeholder process being discredited by this bumbling interregnum I'm not sure is main thing.

So main thing is probably ensuring next IGF is substantive and well-run, even in absence of Nitin and Markus; IGC's part is submitting - solid workshop proposals, which we haven't been talking about much while trying to get the cstd thing to amount to something.

Anyway, real choice to me (from cheap seats far from Geneva)  is: 1) continue to push back on CSTD/submit alternate report; 2) move on, let CSTD chair's report close this sorry chapter - we can say we told them it was not set up properly, but so what - and spend our time pulling together good workshop proposals for Nairobi. 

Right now I am thinking 2) is more important for IGF in long run than 1).  

But I look forward to hearing from others that were there what they think priorities should be now.

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 9:00 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF improvement

i agree. We are in a very important moment. I am in transit but will
also share my impressions early this week as well.

On 3/26/11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> It was an unfortunate ending to the process. Why it happened is complex
> but important to analyse and understand, for the future of IG. Will
> share a detailed report within a week. parminder
>
> On Saturday 26 March 2011 12:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> As I reported yesterday to this list, the Chair did not try to produce
>> the report of the WG, and will only transmit his own "neutral" summary,
>> with compilation as annex or data.
>>
>> Several members stayed for a while and chatted what to do next.
>> Some will try to extend the mandate, ask CSTD Chair for that and
>> keep on, some gave up. There is possibility for us, IGC, to make
>> our own version, bit similar to the CS Declaration at WSIS if
>> we agree.
>>
>> Many people said 4 days are not enough to discuss and conclude such
>> politically complex issue. Some pointed out that waiting till UN GA
>> resolution passage made everything delayed. We also did not have
>> online collaboration/communication tool in the course of work.
>> We were late to propose that. etc etc.
>>
>> So now, I would like to hear your comments - what to do? What is best?
>> Let's think together.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>


--
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Mar 26 10:34:10 2011
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:34:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <4D8BBE1D.3090401@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu> <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
 <4D8B9A0E.6030601@wzb.eu> <4D8BBE1D.3090401@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409180CD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Parminder:
When did you become such an adherent of the ideology of "stakeholderism"? I thought you were healthily critical of it. One of the key problems with MSism is that there are no clear boundaries between stakeholder groups, esp in civil society, and the process of selecting "representatives" of such groups is fraught with opportunities for manipulation. The claim, for example, that marginalized people in developing countries are represented by their governments, whose policies are often the cause of their lack of resources and marginalization, needs to be questioned.
--MM


It is an officially stated position, especially in varoius MAG reforms discussions, that selection is stakeholder group based. The current discussion here in the WG on IGF improvements is on increasing 'representation' of under represented groups, including developing countries. In this context, contesting stakeholder group or constituency basis of membership of the MAG makes a discussion on improving representation of marginalized group quite meaningless. That is my problem, coming from being situated in the middle of such a discussion here in the WG, which triggered my response. I am sorry that the term offended you. It was used in the sense of a 'good imagined thing that doesnt happen in reality' and not meant specifically for what you said but for the general 'just representing oneself' proposition often made in this kind of a discussion.

Parminder



jeanette


The member list is here:

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010

jeanette


and the division between developing and developed

countries?

That would be much appreciated

Marilia
--
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110326/92f01c6c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 26 10:49:36 2011
From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:49:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409180CD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu>
	<4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
	<4D8B9A0E.6030601@wzb.eu>
	<4D8BBE1D.3090401@itforchange.net>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409180CD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinU1ejp3yLA1_u1gj=cRWXhqQnk67=th5ZoOVd+@mail.gmail.com>

On 3/26/11, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>  One of the key problems with
> MSism is that there are no clear boundaries between stakeholder groups, esp
> in civil society, and the process of selecting "representatives" of such
> groups is fraught with opportunities for manipulation. The claim, for
> example, that marginalized people in developing countries are represented by
> their governments, whose policies are often the cause of their lack of
> resources and marginalization, needs to be questioned.

It is universally recognized (and evidenced for example in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that the only legitimate
representatives or governments are those governments based on the
consent of the governed.  A free people may consent to bad policies
that actually or arguably hurt them, but then they (if they are free)
are also free to change those policies or that government.

A government may, or may not, legitimately represent its people.  With
civil society NGOs, while some of them under some circumstances will
clearly be MORE representative than say an autocratic dictatorship,
they still are not based on the consent of the governed and thus are
not legitimate to represent, and vote for, anyone other than their
members (who may often have to pay money just to be a member).

In short, governments may sometimes be illegitimate representatives of
the people, but civil society NGOs always are, even when their ideas
are right on point and fantastic, as many are.

With these 'questionable' governments, the question is not one of bad
policy or hurting one's own people, but of freedom and democracy.  A
free people must be free to "hurt themselves" as it were, otherwise
they are not free, they are managed like children to keep them from
hurting themselves.

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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar 26 11:30:32 2011
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:30:32 -0300
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409180CD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <85BC721C013B433BA3F4B46D737E42C9@userPC>

If there were clearer structures of accountability within CS then it would
be a lot easier to find/advocate ways for broadening the basis for
participation to include under-represented groups... So long as CS is an
amorphous group without clear external linkages for accountability purposes
that makes linking into various grassroots groups for example, rather more
difficult since who is to link with who and on what basis.
 
Certain governments will represent certain interests at certain times, and
agreeing with Milton that there is no reason to assume that governments are
anymore reptesentative of their marginalized groups than anyone else except
that in democratic systems the marginalized do have a voice which on
occasion translates itself into policy including in relatively more esoteric
areas such as IG. A CS which is serious about ensuring voice for
marginalized groups would be actively seeking out allies among sympathetic
governments and equally using their linkages with these groups in particular
countries to lobby for appropriate policy positions on the part of those
governments in IG circles.
 
The case of Brazil (where I happen to be at the moment and in whose issues
around the Internet I am currently immersed) would seem to be the ideal
exemplar of the value of CS being more clear in its accountability
structures and having stronger links into local CS.
 
Mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 11:34 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Subject: RE: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues



Parminder:

When did you become such an adherent of the ideology of "stakeholderism"? I
thought you were healthily critical of it. One of the key problems with
MSism is that there are no clear boundaries between stakeholder groups, esp
in civil society, and the process of selecting "representatives" of such
groups is fraught with opportunities for manipulation. The claim, for
example, that marginalized people in developing countries are represented by
their governments, whose policies are often the cause of their lack of
resources and marginalization, needs to be questioned. 

--MM

 

 

It is an officially stated position, especially in varoius MAG reforms
discussions, that selection is stakeholder group based. The current
discussion here in the WG on IGF improvements is on increasing
'representation' of under represented groups, including developing
countries. In this context, contesting stakeholder group or constituency
basis of membership of the MAG makes a discussion on improving
representation of marginalized group quite meaningless. That is my problem,
coming from being situated in the middle of such a discussion here in the
WG, which triggered my response. I am sorry that the term offended you. It
was used in the sense of a 'good imagined thing that doesnt happen in
reality' and not meant specifically for what you said but for the general
'just representing oneself' proposition often made in this kind of a
discussion.

Parminder 





jeanette 




The member list is here: 

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010 

jeanette 


and the division between developing and developed 



countries? 

That would be much appreciated 

Marilia 
-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade 
FGV Direito Rio 

Center for Technology and Society 
Getulio Vargas Foundation 
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil 

____________________________________________________________ 
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, visit: 
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing 

For all other list information and functions, see: 
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: 
http://www.igcaucus.org/ 

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 



____________________________________________________________ 
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
    governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, visit: 
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing 

For all other list information and functions, see: 
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: 
    http://www.igcaucus.org/ 

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110326/cfb57941/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Sat Mar 26 12:18:45 2011
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 01:18:45 +0900
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <85BC721C013B433BA3F4B46D737E42C9@userPC>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409180CD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <85BC721C013B433BA3F4B46D737E42C9@userPC>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBadwT0XPyUd0FztbPffbtry4ErUF+YGWqY29M@mail.gmail.com>

This might be slightly different in focus - but during the "unproductive"
CSTD WG 2-day meeting in Geneva, Civil society members participated
very much on equal basis with governments and other stakeholders,
continued from Montreaux meeting, but I like to take not on that.

Marilia made a great pitch at the very end of the meeting, set the
tone. This is not to say that current framework is perfect nor governments
are giving us great opportunity per se, when it comes to decision making,
say at CSTD, but sharing the process and working hard sometimes could
result more positive ways.

Just a footnote.

izumi


2011/3/27 Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>:
> If there were clearer structures of accountability within CS then it would
> be a lot easier to find/advocate ways for broadening the basis for
> participation to include under-represented groups... So long as CS is an
> amorphous group without clear external linkages for accountability purposes
> that makes linking into various grassroots groups for example, rather more
> difficult since who is to link with who and on what basis.
>
> Certain governments will represent certain interests at certain times, and
> agreeing with Milton that there is no reason to assume that governments are
> anymore reptesentative of their marginalized groups than anyone else except
> that in democratic systems the marginalized do have a voice which on
> occasion translates itself into policy including in relatively more esoteric
> areas such as IG. A CS which is serious about ensuring voice for
> marginalized groups would be actively seeking out allies among sympathetic
> governments and equally using their linkages with these groups in particular
> countries to lobby for appropriate policy positions on the part of those
> governments in IG circles.
>
> The case of Brazil (where I happen to be at the moment and in whose issues
> around the Internet I am currently immersed) would seem to be the ideal
> exemplar of the value of CS being more clear in its accountability
> structures and having stronger links into local CS.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
> Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 11:34 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Subject: RE: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
>
> Parminder:
>
> When did you become such an adherent of the ideology of “stakeholderism”? I
> thought you were healthily critical of it. One of the key problems with
> MSism is that there are no clear boundaries between stakeholder groups, esp
> in civil society, and the process of selecting “representatives” of such
> groups is fraught with opportunities for manipulation. The claim, for
> example, that marginalized people in developing countries are represented by
> their governments, whose policies are often the cause of their lack of
> resources and marginalization, needs to be questioned.
>
> --MM
>
>
>
>
>
> It is an officially stated position, especially in varoius MAG reforms
> discussions, that selection is stakeholder group based. The current
> discussion here in the WG on IGF improvements is on increasing
> 'representation' of under represented groups, including developing
> countries. In this context, contesting stakeholder group or constituency
> basis of membership of the MAG makes a discussion on improving
> representation of marginalized group quite meaningless. That is my problem,
> coming from being situated in the middle of such a discussion here in the
> WG, which triggered my response. I am sorry that the term offended you. It
> was used in the sense of a 'good imagined thing that doesnt happen in
> reality' and not meant specifically for what you said but for the general
> 'just representing oneself' proposition often made in this kind of a
> discussion.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
> jeanette
>
>
> The member list is here:
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010
>
> jeanette
>
>
> and the division between developing and developed
>
> countries?
>
> That would be much appreciated
>
> Marilia
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sun Mar 27 12:35:54 2011
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:35:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinU1ejp3yLA1_u1gj=cRWXhqQnk67=th5ZoOVd+@mail.gmail.c
 om>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu>
 <4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
 <4D8B9A0E.6030601@wzb.eu>
 <4D8BBE1D.3090401@itforchange.net>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409180CD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTinU1ejp3yLA1_u1gj=cRWXhqQnk67=th5ZoOVd+@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110327141931.0bf371b8@jefsey.com>

At 16:49 26/03/2011, Paul Lehto wrote:
>With these 'questionable' governments, the question is not one of bad
>policy or hurting one's own people, but of freedom and democracy.

Incorrect. Democracy (happily) is not a human right.

What is a human right (art 29) is to live in a legal environment 
matching the standards of a "democratic society". Since a democratic 
society is not defined...

The closest practical definition that we are interested in is found 
in art 21 (3): "The will of the people shall be the basis of the 
authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and 
genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and 
shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

Now, we are certainly very far from art 21 (3) in the Internet 
Governance (which actually is an international test-bed for the next 
step after democracy, which will be a polycracy, and we are actually 
trying to multiconsensually define -. - a (rough) consensus as we 
experiment on it in the IETF (probably the currently most achieved 
and efficient implementation in the internet world) is not adapted to 
the principle of subsidiarity that is now included in the Internet 
architecture. Each freely defined subsidiary space is entitled to its 
own consensus, if this does not violate subsidiarity and, therefore, 
if this consensus is able to consensually interoperate, intergovern, 
and interadmin with other consensuses.

An interesting remark that would probably change our no more 
democratic world, would be the respect of art 1 and art 2 ("All human 
beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are 
endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another 
in a spirit of brotherhood", "Everyone is entitled to all the rights 
and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of 
any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or 
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other 
status."). While we still discriminate everywhere on the basis of 
age. We are born equal, but not before reaching the age of majority. 
Young people should vote through their parents. May be we would have 
fewer problems without this "not-yet-citizens" human right violation 
that is found the world over.

We have that kind of problem in the internet governance. When 
Bertrand de la Chapelle told the ICANN President that France also 
considered the will of not-yet-connected people, the President 
answered that his duties were carried out only for those paying him.

We are actually free to accept such a democracy or to build a more 
adequate polycracy.
jfc

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From anriette at apc.org  Sun Mar 27 14:53:46 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 20:53:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>	<4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>,<AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org>

Hi all

If we had a very strong chair, more time, and good process, we might
have achieved a result.  But we might also not have.

The background issues are very powerful and it was remarkable to see the
cycle at first glance. At the beginning of the Montreux meeting they
dominated.. then a kind of semblance of real work started and continued,
if not very efficiently, until the final afternoon of the second meeting
in Geneva. Then they took over again.

What are the background issues?

- enhanced cooperation
(whether you think it is already happening or not)

- long term institutional set up for internet policy
(whether you believe there should be something at UN level or not.. how
intergovernmental it should be, and fear that business will become
subject to more regulation)

- multi-stakeholder participation in policy-making
(here there is a huge range... from a minority of governments who are
really not comfortable with it, but who were fairly silent during the
meeting, to quite a few who believe in it but who want it to be more
structured, e.g. only private sector associations as opposed to
individual companies and more 'representative' CS participation, to
those who are happy with it as it is now.. and lots of variety in-between)

- greater focus on developing country issues/concerns
(One divider here is that some countries want a platform to talk about
financing, which of course others want to avoid. The developed countries
did not really make much effort in this direction. Non-governmental
entities did.. developing countries, with the exception of South Africa,
mentioned this, but approached it in terms of UN resolutions rather than
practical suggestions.)

- policy focus of the IGF
(this appeared to be a foreground issue... e.g. some of us proposed that
the IGF should focus on key policy questions every year, at least as one
of its agenda setting mechanisms. Others disagreed.. but I think the
reason they did was not because the thought it was a bad idea for the
event, but that it could in some way lead to more international
policy-making, if not at the IGF, somewhere else at global level.)


In other words, other than for the non-governmental stakeholders this
process was not really about IGF improvements, but about the IGF being a
stage for other plays.

It would have taken a very strong and committed chair, and much more
time, to make the common ground that was in the room produce results.

There was a lot of common ground. E.g. on the last day business
presented a proposal for MAG composition and selection which was not
that different from the one that India proposed on the previous day.

But the key would have been for the chair to contain the background
political issues.

Anriette




On 26/03/11 15:26, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> At least to me CSTD is looking...not so competent at the moment. 
> 
> So Wolfgang's worry about the multistakeholder process being discredited by this bumbling interregnum I'm not sure is main thing.
> 
> So main thing is probably ensuring next IGF is substantive and well-run, even in absence of Nitin and Markus; IGC's part is submitting - solid workshop proposals, which we haven't been talking about much while trying to get the cstd thing to amount to something.
> 
> Anyway, real choice to me (from cheap seats far from Geneva)  is: 1) continue to push back on CSTD/submit alternate report; 2) move on, let CSTD chair's report close this sorry chapter - we can say we told them it was not set up properly, but so what - and spend our time pulling together good workshop proposals for Nairobi. 
> 
> Right now I am thinking 2) is more important for IGF in long run than 1).  
> 
> But I look forward to hearing from others that were there what they think priorities should be now.
> 
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 9:00 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF improvement
> 
> i agree. We are in a very important moment. I am in transit but will
> also share my impressions early this week as well.
> 
> On 3/26/11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> It was an unfortunate ending to the process. Why it happened is complex
>> but important to analyse and understand, for the future of IG. Will
>> share a detailed report within a week. parminder
>>
>> On Saturday 26 March 2011 12:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>> As I reported yesterday to this list, the Chair did not try to produce
>>> the report of the WG, and will only transmit his own "neutral" summary,
>>> with compilation as annex or data.
>>>
>>> Several members stayed for a while and chatted what to do next.
>>> Some will try to extend the mandate, ask CSTD Chair for that and
>>> keep on, some gave up. There is possibility for us, IGC, to make
>>> our own version, bit similar to the CS Declaration at WSIS if
>>> we agree.
>>>
>>> Many people said 4 days are not enough to discuss and conclude such
>>> politically complex issue. Some pointed out that waiting till UN GA
>>> resolution passage made everything delayed. We also did not have
>>> online collaboration/communication tool in the course of work.
>>> We were late to propose that. etc etc.
>>>
>>> So now, I would like to hear your comments - what to do? What is best?
>>> Let's think together.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lehto.paul at gmail.com  Sun Mar 27 21:31:13 2011
From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:31:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Help from MAG colleagues
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110327141931.0bf371b8@jefsey.com>
References: <AANLkTi=ei+17yLO=wqKVPrH3NPqL3598rODBGaptNL10@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8B720B.3010105@wzb.eu>
	<4D8B73CF.8010900@itforchange.net>
	<4D8B9A0E.6030601@wzb.eu>
	<4D8BBE1D.3090401@itforchange.net>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D714409180CD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTinU1ejp3yLA1_u1gj=cRWXhqQnk67=th5ZoOVd+@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20110327141931.0bf371b8@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=wDeE0QsaAFwcaGriqDJAMTRP4PX7pRv5ZZ68=@mail.gmail.com>

Section 21(3) -- which you quote below -- is an adequate definition of
democracy.  Every valuable right is (nearly) everywhere violated to
some varying extent, for the very reason that it has value.  Just like
every form of money is apt to be stolen, the right to democracy or
rule by the people (which is power itself) is apt to be stolen because
power is attractive like money is.

Shortfalls in democracy on the internet or around the world are simply
violations of 21(3) and similar provisions, and such violations say
absolutely nothing to prove the non-existence of a right to democracy.

Put another way, if the only way to prove a right were to show that it
was universally accepted and enforced, the entire concept of rights
would be rendered useless because only things that governments had no
desire to take from their people in the first place would be "rights"
that were safe and free from interference.

Paul R Lehto, J.D.

On 3/27/11, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> At 16:49 26/03/2011, Paul Lehto wrote:
>>With these 'questionable' governments, the question is not one of bad
>>policy or hurting one's own people, but of freedom and democracy.
>
> Incorrect. Democracy (happily) is not a human right.
>
> What is a human right (art 29) is to live in a legal environment
> matching the standards of a "democratic society". Since a democratic
> society is not defined...
>
> The closest practical definition that we are interested in is found
> in art 21 (3): "The will of the people shall be the basis of the
> authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and
> genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and
> shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
>
> Now, we are certainly very far from art 21 (3) in the Internet
> Governance (which actually is an international test-bed for the next
> step after democracy, which will be a polycracy, and we are actually
> trying to multiconsensually define -. - a (rough) consensus as we
> experiment on it in the IETF (probably the currently most achieved
> and efficient implementation in the internet world) is not adapted to
> the principle of subsidiarity that is now included in the Internet
> architecture. Each freely defined subsidiary space is entitled to its
> own consensus, if this does not violate subsidiarity and, therefore,
> if this consensus is able to consensually interoperate, intergovern,
> and interadmin with other consensuses.
>
> An interesting remark that would probably change our no more
> democratic world, would be the respect of art 1 and art 2 ("All human
> beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
> endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another
> in a spirit of brotherhood", "Everyone is entitled to all the rights
> and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of
> any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
> other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
> status."). While we still discriminate everywhere on the basis of
> age. We are born equal, but not before reaching the age of majority.
> Young people should vote through their parents. May be we would have
> fewer problems without this "not-yet-citizens" human right violation
> that is found the world over.
>
> We have that kind of problem in the internet governance. When
> Bertrand de la Chapelle told the ICANN President that France also
> considered the will of not-yet-connected people, the President
> answered that his duties were carried out only for those paying him.
>
> We are actually free to accept such a democracy or to build a more
> adequate polycracy.
> jfc
>
>


-- 
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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Mon Mar 28 06:10:40 2011
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:10:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikHkcVkcbH7OD3pAxaZxoQMGeUp-ckm7yDE_47m@mail.gmail.com>

Anriette,

you wrote :

T*here was a lot of common ground. E.g. on the last day business
presented a proposal for MAG composition and selection which was not
that different from the one that India proposed on the previous day.*
*presented a proposal for MAG composition and selection which was not*
*that different from the one that India proposed on the previous day.*


Can you elaborate a bit on the different elements ?

Best

Bertrand


On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> Hi all
>
> If we had a very strong chair, more time, and good process, we might
> have achieved a result.  But we might also not have.
>
> The background issues are very powerful and it was remarkable to see the
> cycle at first glance. At the beginning of the Montreux meeting they
> dominated.. then a kind of semblance of real work started and continued,
> if not very efficiently, until the final afternoon of the second meeting
> in Geneva. Then they took over again.
>
> What are the background issues?
>
> - enhanced cooperation
> (whether you think it is already happening or not)
>
> - long term institutional set up for internet policy
> (whether you believe there should be something at UN level or not.. how
> intergovernmental it should be, and fear that business will become
> subject to more regulation)
>
> - multi-stakeholder participation in policy-making
> (here there is a huge range... from a minority of governments who are
> really not comfortable with it, but who were fairly silent during the
> meeting, to quite a few who believe in it but who want it to be more
> structured, e.g. only private sector associations as opposed to
> individual companies and more 'representative' CS participation, to
> those who are happy with it as it is now.. and lots of variety in-between)
>
> - greater focus on developing country issues/concerns
> (One divider here is that some countries want a platform to talk about
> financing, which of course others want to avoid. The developed countries
> did not really make much effort in this direction. Non-governmental
> entities did.. developing countries, with the exception of South Africa,
> mentioned this, but approached it in terms of UN resolutions rather than
> practical suggestions.)
>
> - policy focus of the IGF
> (this appeared to be a foreground issue... e.g. some of us proposed that
> the IGF should focus on key policy questions every year, at least as one
> of its agenda setting mechanisms. Others disagreed.. but I think the
> reason they did was not because the thought it was a bad idea for the
> event, but that it could in some way lead to more international
> policy-making, if not at the IGF, somewhere else at global level.)
>
>
> In other words, other than for the non-governmental stakeholders this
> process was not really about IGF improvements, but about the IGF being a
> stage for other plays.
>
> It would have taken a very strong and committed chair, and much more
> time, to make the common ground that was in the room produce results.
>
> There was a lot of common ground. E.g. on the last day business
> presented a proposal for MAG composition and selection which was not
> that different from the one that India proposed on the previous day.
>
> But the key would have been for the chair to contain the background
> political issues.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
> On 26/03/11 15:26, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> > At least to me CSTD is looking...not so competent at the moment.
> >
> > So Wolfgang's worry about the multistakeholder process being discredited
> by this bumbling interregnum I'm not sure is main thing.
> >
> > So main thing is probably ensuring next IGF is substantive and well-run,
> even in absence of Nitin and Markus; IGC's part is submitting - solid
> workshop proposals, which we haven't been talking about much while trying to
> get the cstd thing to amount to something.
> >
> > Anyway, real choice to me (from cheap seats far from Geneva)  is: 1)
> continue to push back on CSTD/submit alternate report; 2) move on, let CSTD
> chair's report close this sorry chapter - we can say we told them it was not
> set up properly, but so what - and spend our time pulling together good
> workshop proposals for Nairobi.
> >
> > Right now I am thinking 2) is more important for IGF in long run than 1).
> >
> > But I look forward to hearing from others that were there what they think
> priorities should be now.
> >
> > Lee
> > ________________________________________
> > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of
> Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 9:00 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> > Subject: Re: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
> improvement
> >
> > i agree. We are in a very important moment. I am in transit but will
> > also share my impressions early this week as well.
> >
> > On 3/26/11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >> It was an unfortunate ending to the process. Why it happened is complex
> >> but important to analyse and understand, for the future of IG. Will
> >> share a detailed report within a week. parminder
> >>
> >> On Saturday 26 March 2011 12:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >>> As I reported yesterday to this list, the Chair did not try to produce
> >>> the report of the WG, and will only transmit his own "neutral" summary,
> >>> with compilation as annex or data.
> >>>
> >>> Several members stayed for a while and chatted what to do next.
> >>> Some will try to extend the mandate, ask CSTD Chair for that and
> >>> keep on, some gave up. There is possibility for us, IGC, to make
> >>> our own version, bit similar to the CS Declaration at WSIS if
> >>> we agree.
> >>>
> >>> Many people said 4 days are not enough to discuss and conclude such
> >>> politically complex issue. Some pointed out that waiting till UN GA
> >>> resolution passage made everything delayed. We also did not have
> >>> online collaboration/communication tool in the course of work.
> >>> We were late to propose that. etc etc.
> >>>
> >>> So now, I would like to hear your comments - what to do? What is best?
> >>> Let's think together.
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> > FGV Direito Rio
> >
> > Center for Technology and Society
> > Getulio Vargas Foundation
> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110328/2e085ca6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Mar 28 08:14:22 2011
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:14:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>	<4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>,<AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org>
Message-ID: <55F08BE1-0870-443A-A82C-B5959C634812@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

Thanks for the assessment Anriette.

On Mar 27, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> In other words, other than for the non-governmental stakeholders this
> process was not really about IGF improvements, but about the IGF being a
> stage for other plays.

Alas, this seems to say it all.  Is there any reason to think this will change?  If not, what alternatives should we begin to think about?

Best

Bill____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Mar 28 11:18:26 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:18:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <55F08BE1-0870-443A-A82C-B5959C634812@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>	<4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>,<AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org> <55F08BE1-0870-443A-A82C-B5959C634812@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4D90A6C2.2010505@wzb.eu>

I think the only powerful means we have is campaigning, campaigning in a 
big way. The way we did in the early stages of WSIS.


jeanette

Am 28.03.2011 14:14, schrieb William Drake:
> Hi
>
> Thanks for the assessment Anriette.
>
> On Mar 27, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>> In other words, other than for the non-governmental stakeholders
>> this process was not really about IGF improvements, but about the
>> IGF being a stage for other plays.
>
> Alas, this seems to say it all.  Is there any reason to think this
> will change?  If not, what alternatives should we begin to think
> about?
>
> Best
>
> Bill____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and
> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 28 12:08:56 2011
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:08:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <4D90A6C2.2010505@wzb.eu>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>,<AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org>
 <55F08BE1-0870-443A-A82C-B5959C634812@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4D90A6C2.2010505@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC995A9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>


I am shocked! there is politics at UN. 

Ok, not so much.

2 part strategy imho: 

1) propose good workshops + plenary thingies asap /make IGF V a substantive success

2) make noise as Jeanette suggests while, like good UN player, working system. Our good friends at CSTD, all governments, and other stakeholders are of course pursuing the planet's best interests. Except when... we make noise that they're not.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 11:18 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF improvement

I think the only powerful means we have is campaigning, campaigning in a
big way. The way we did in the early stages of WSIS.


jeanette

Am 28.03.2011 14:14, schrieb William Drake:
> Hi
>
> Thanks for the assessment Anriette.
>
> On Mar 27, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>> In other words, other than for the non-governmental stakeholders
>> this process was not really about IGF improvements, but about the
>> IGF being a stage for other plays.
>
> Alas, this seems to say it all.  Is there any reason to think this
> will change?  If not, what alternatives should we begin to think
> about?
>
> Best
>
> Bill____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and
> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 28 12:35:19 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:35:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC995A9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>	<4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>,<AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org> <55F08BE1-0870-443A-A82C-B5959C634812@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4D90A6C2.2010505@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC995A9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4D90B8C7.4070200@apc.org>

One thing we must do is give the Kenyan organisers as much support as we
can to make this a really good IGF. It is important to note that no one
in the CSTD meeting did not question the value of the IGF as space for
dialogue and capacity building.  They affirmed it.

And for those of us who care about development issues... lots of good
workshop proposals, with developing country partners, and particularly
people working in policy and regulation in developing countries,
including governments, focusing on relevant policy issues and questions,
e.g. digital migration, net neutrality, public access, access to
information.

Anriette



On 28/03/11 18:08, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> 
> I am shocked! there is politics at UN. 
> 
> Ok, not so much.
> 
> 2 part strategy imho: 
> 
> 1) propose good workshops + plenary thingies asap /make IGF V a substantive success
> 
> 2) make noise as Jeanette suggests while, like good UN player, working system. Our good friends at CSTD, all governments, and other stakeholders are of course pursuing the planet's best interests. Except when... we make noise that they're not.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 11:18 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen
> Subject: Re: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF improvement
> 
> I think the only powerful means we have is campaigning, campaigning in a
> big way. The way we did in the early stages of WSIS.
> 
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Am 28.03.2011 14:14, schrieb William Drake:
>> Hi
>>
>> Thanks for the assessment Anriette.
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, other than for the non-governmental stakeholders
>>> this process was not really about IGF improvements, but about the
>>> IGF being a stage for other plays.
>>
>> Alas, this seems to say it all.  Is there any reason to think this
>> will change?  If not, what alternatives should we begin to think
>> about?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon Mar 28 17:15:07 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:15:07 -0300
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <4D90B8C7.4070200@apc.org>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org>
	<55F08BE1-0870-443A-A82C-B5959C634812@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<4D90A6C2.2010505@wzb.eu>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC995A9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4D90B8C7.4070200@apc.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikoBwGYMgLH7SF8PMporcvgn466Qdoew8abdWeh@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please find below my personal political assessment of the meeting.
If you prefer to read it online, here is the link:
http://observatoriodainternet.br/second-meeting-of-the-working-group-on-improvements-to-the-internet-governance-forum-ends-with-no-final-report

*Second meeting of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet
Governance Forum ends with no final report*


Marilia Maciel, Center for Technology and Society of FGV, Brazil


*Warning: This text reflects the author's personal opinions and does not
reflect the position of civil society on the issue.*



*Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful, creative and positive force. But
it never achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it is something that
is constantly under construction by collective effort, with unclenching
fists ands the true desire to build trust*


After two meetings, the working group <http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/> of
the UN Commission of Science and Technology for Development
(CSTD<http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839>)
on the enhancement of IGF failed to prepare its final report. The WG was
successful in "collecting, compiling and reviewing the contributions"
received, but it was not able to make "recommendations” for change, as
envisaged by the mandate. The chair, Frédéric Riehl, will send to the next
meeting of the CSTD his personal report and a compilation of all
contributions. Probably he will ask for an extension of the mandate of the
WG, so the group can complete its assignment.

Now that the meeting is over, it is important that the largest possible
number of participants in the WG makes a *frank and critical analysis* of
what happened, so the obstacles to build consensus can be identified and
dealt with. This is fundamental to achieve better results in the future, if
the mandate is renewed by CSTD.


Three major issues have prevented this small and committed group to reach
the expected goals:


• The *reduced number of meetings* and the mismanagement of the little time
that we had. More meetings and a more efficient methodology could have made
much difference;



• The *existence of conflicting and politically sensitive themes* on the
Internet governance agenda this year, as Enhanced Cooperation (Tunis
Agenda<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html>,
paragraph 69) and divergences between the GAC and the ICANN Board, served as
a complicating background. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of WG
members recognized the importance of IGF and genuinely made efforts to
propose constructive improvements, however, the political context made
convergences more difficult to achieve. Most governmental and
nongovernmental actors acted within in the WG according to their broader
political strategies;


• The *high degree of mistrust and poor quality of dialogue between
stakeholder groups*, which occurred during most of the time, being
interspersed by brief genuine attempts at rapprochement that only palely
reminded us of the high level of dialogue we have built over the past five
years with the IGF.


 *I - The lack of dialogue deadly injured the working group*


Perhaps it would be strategically interesting for the non-governmental
actors to put the responsibility for the lack of dialogue entirely on
governments <http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/03/25/cstdwg-collapse>. After all,
collectively we could repeat the mantra that the non-governmental share of
"multistakeholderism” is always constructively in agreement, thus trying to
strengthen our own participation in the Internet governance regime.

However, I believe this view is biased and counterproductive, as it does not
portray the *divisions that existed in the working group* and would not,
therefore, contribute to the overcoming of obstacles.



There were honest divergences based on different views on the IGF and the
current system of Internet governance, both among states and among
non-governmental actors, regarding the main themes on the table, such as the
discussion on results (outcomes) of the IGF, on the composition of the MAG
and on funding.


*Most of these differences were not irreconcilable, if there had been a
frank dialogue and attempt to reach a middle ground*. But that's not what
happened, nor in plenary sessions, or in corridors. In the corridors,
business sector representatives complained of governments, governments
complained about the technical community and we, civil society, complained
of everyone else. After each long day of discussion, each stakeholder group
would split into strategic meetings. The lack of dialogue between the
stakeholder groups rendered the task at hand much more difficult.



*II - India, an actor in the spotlight*


Among all participants, India was the only one to submit a detailed proposal
on how to extract more objective and concrete outcomes from the discussions
at the IGF, *as early as the February meeting* in Montreux. This proposal
was available online<http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/India.pdf>in
March 16. The
text contributed much to the debate (whether or not one agrees with its
substance), because it proposed a chorological and rational approach to the
issue.


There was no other proposal as comprehensive as that one the table in the
beginning of the second meeting, but Indian proposal was never discussed.
Throughout the process, India as an actor (and never their proposals) was
placed on trial. *The country is being criticized on the grounds of being
proactive, presenting their views, and asking for their effective
discussion.*
We, non-governmental actors, always complained about the lack of government
involvement, but we were unable to be open to hear when such true
involvement was present in the WG.


India is a leading advocate of Enhanced Cooperation, and had the
transparency and coherence to re-affirm it at the meeting, even though I
consider that this move was unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive.
But *Indian position in favor of enhanced cooperation does not mean we
should isolate it. *That would be a strategic mistake. We should not push a
government that represents one of the largest democracies in the world, and
has come to defend multi-stakeholder participation in the IGF arena, to
entrench.



Non-governmental actors need to strengthen dialogue and negotiations with
India and some of the other countries that advocate for enhanced
cooperation, if not on the name of understanding, then on our own strategic
benefit.


*III - Submit your proposal and I will submit mine!*


Throughout the second day other proposals popped up. First, on the
composition of the MAG, presented by India, the Technical Community and
Egypt. Then Egypt has made proposals on working methods of the IGF and the
format of the IGF meetings. Civil society also had a procedural proposal on
how to conduct the discussion. However, none of these proposals came to be
analyzed. We lost precious hours on the last day of our meeting, under the
baton of the chair, aimless discussing question after question listed in the
questionnaire, without any conclusions or sense of “closure”.


Basically, *presenting proposals-and-counter-proposals became the main game
between the parties*, to the point where people could not know for sure
who-proposed-what or who-was-against-what. That was a pity, because in fact
there were excellent proposals on the table and some of them showed
considerable degree of convergence between them, which was never identified
during the meeting.


*IV - The "consensus document" that would not fly*


The chair tried to grasp the consensus among the parties on a document which
was handed to us on the second day. Despite the commendable pro-activity, in
my view, also expressed during the meeting, the document could not be
endorsed as the result of the discussions within the working group, mainly
because:


• It expressed principles and practices that are generally accepted and are
commonplace in the IGF. It was shallow and had contradictory parts. Submit
that document to the CSTD would not be fair to the efforts of the members of
the working group because it was *not consistent with the depth and quality
of contributions;*

* *

• The document presented by the chair was extremely conservative regarding
the improvements in the IGF. It had no structural changes but
basically *maintained
the status quo*;


• Therefore, the document *did not seriously represent a proposal for a
consensus among the diverging views*, but translated much more accurately
the aspirations of groups that, for their own legitimate considerations,
want to keep IGF without major changes. This rendered consensus on the text
very difficult.


Each time a change was suggested, the paragraph was placed in brackets. Of
course, *the decision to use brackets can be interpreted in different
manners.* In my view, it was a last attempt to try to work with the text in
hand, which turned out to be unsuccessful, eventually. After every comment,
the chair reminded us that time was running out and pressed us to accept the
text as it was. It was a very counterproductive afternoon in an oppressive
climate.


Acknowledging the fact that there was no final report was very disappointing
for most of us. Once the meeting ended, some people, from all stakeholder
groups approached the chair and the Secretary and asked them to seek the
renewal of the mandate. *That was the last move of the actors of the WG, all
united around a common goal*. Could this translate into greater future
cooperation?


*V - Some take-aways and an invitation*


On the night of our last day in Geneva, something unprecedented (at least
during the process of the WG) happened: members of civil society and the
technical community had dinner together. The conversation was not about
amenities, but remained focused on the WG. Without strategic considerations
or fear, we exchanged views.


Some differences are more difficult to reconcile. Others just seem to be,
because of the efforts it takes to put oneself in others´ shoes. What fear
lies behind the resistance to more concrete results arising from the IGF? What
is the sentiment toward the current composition and functioning of MAG? Do
we "recognize ourselves" in it? What are the reasons and fears of
governments that advocate for enhanced cooperation? Do they all have the
same agenda? None of these issues was discussed openly in recent months by
WG members, and may not have been sufficiently articulated even in the IGF.

*The multistakeholder nature of IGF made us achieve something truly amazing
over the past years*. Stakeholder groups can actually talk to each other and
engage in an open debate on difficult issues, such as critical resources,
access, security and privacy. We left our trenches. During these years, I
witnessed players being genuinely convinced after a fierce debate, and also
amicably "agreeing to disagree" and to continue debating constructively in
the future. Unfortunately, we are stumbling to do the same when we discuss
the infrastructure of our own regime, outside the "friendly" environment of
the IGF. How to deal with that?



Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful, creative and positive force. But
it never achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it is something that
is constantly under construction by collective effort, with unclenching
fists and the true desire to build trust.


After our dinner, I probably understand better the opinions of colleagues in
the technical community. While we do not share some views, I feel more
comfortable and more able to seek converging positions.


*Perhaps we should establish this open and frank dialogue on major political
issues that will be in the agenda of Internet governance this year.* A
workshop? A collective dinner with good wine? Here is an invitation... If
the bill is shared, of course!


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110328/82bc853b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Mar 29 06:15:38 2011
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:15:38 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <55F08BE1-0870-443A-A82C-B5959C634812@graduateinstitute.ch>
	(message from William Drake on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:14:22 +0200)
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>	<4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>,<AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org> <55F08BE1-0870-443A-A82C-B5959C634812@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20110329101538.50BCA15C0E6@quill.bollow.ch>

William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:

> On Mar 27, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> 
> > In other words, other than for the non-governmental stakeholders this
> > process was not really about IGF improvements, but about the IGF being a
> > stage for other plays.
> 
> Alas, this seems to say it all.  Is there any reason to think this
> will change?  If not, what alternatives should we begin to think
> about?

Organize a working-group consisting of everyone who truly wants to
improve the IGF, and have this working-group create a good WGIG-style
report.

The UN had the opportunity to do this, and failed. This creates the
opportunity for another actor to act as convenor of a significant
multistakeholder WG now.

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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Mar 29 06:52:11 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:52:11 +0900
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
  improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikoBwGYMgLH7SF8PMporcvgn466Qdoew8abdWeh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org>
 <55F08BE1-0870-443A-A82C-B5959C634812@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <4D90A6C2.2010505@wzb.eu>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC995A9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4D90B8C7.4070200@apc.org>
 <AANLkTikoBwGYMgLH7SF8PMporcvgn466Qdoew8abdWeh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240812c9b75d07d4b0@[192.168.1.160]>

Marilia, thank you very much for the assessment 
of the meeting.  Interesting and helpful.

Hope there will be an extension and further 
opportunity to build some consensus.  It will 
mean compromise.   Would be interesting to see 
where the areas of disagreement where, perhaps a 
matrix or (thanks GAC... ) a scorecard.

Couple of questions:

How were GAC and ICANN discussions a distraction? 
Not sure what that could have to do with the IGF, 
enhance cooperation perhaps (in that perhaps it's 
an example of it? Unclear.)

Interesting comment about splitting into separate 
stakeholder groups at the end of the day, then 
the useful dinner at the end.  Seem to remember 
WGIG members saying that being locked up together 
was helpful, broke down barriers. Perhaps if 
there's another WG meeting you need to go back to 
whichever castle (?) WGIG used.

And interesting about the Indian position and 
reaction to it and to them.  Was enhanced 
cooperation defined, was there agreement on what 
it is? (I know I don't know..)

III and "submit your proposal"
I've only worked for the IGF Secretariat during 
the main IGF meetings, not consultations, so this 
just an outsider's observation:  sounds like the 
WG needed a strong secretariat.  Avri and Markus 
have been able to pull together very helpful 
working documents in very quick time.  Needs 
people very knowledgeable of the issues, 
knowledgeable of the stakeholders and to be 
diplomatic.  Markus and Avri shared those skills, 
sounds like the CSTD lacked them.

Hope you all get a chance to reconcile the 
differences.  Thanks again, your notes much 
appreciated.

Adam


At 6:15 PM -0300 3/28/11, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Please find below my personal political assessment of the meeting.
>If you prefer to read it online, here is the 
>link: 
><http://observatoriodainternet.br/second-meeting-of-the-working-group-on-improvements-to-the-internet-governance-forum-ends-with-no-final-report>http://observatoriodainternet.br/second-meeting-of-the-working-group-on-improvements-to-the-internet-governance-forum-ends-with-no-final-report
>
>Second meeting of the Working Group on 
>improvements to the Internet Governance Forum 
>ends with no final report
>
>
>Marilia Maciel, Center for Technology and Society of FGV, Brazil
>
>
>Warning: This text reflects the author's 
>personal opinions and does not reflect the 
>position of civil society on the issue.
>
>Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful, 
>creative and positive force. But it never 
>achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it 
>is something that is constantly under 
>construction by collective effort, with 
>unclenching fists ands the true desire to build 
>trust
>
>
>After two meetings, the 
><http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/>working group 
>of the UN Commission of Science and Technology 
>for Development 
>(<http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839>CSTD) 
>on the enhancement of IGF failed to prepare its 
>final report. The WG was successful in 
>"collecting, compiling and reviewing the 
>contributions" received, but it was not able to 
>make "recommendations² for change, as envisaged 
>by the mandate. The chair, Frédéric Riehl, will 
>send to the next meeting of the CSTD his 
>personal report and a compilation of all 
>contributions. Probably he will ask for an 
>extension of the mandate of the WG, so the group 
>can complete its assignment.
>
>Now that the meeting is over, it is important 
>that the largest possible number of participants 
>in the WG makes a frank and critical analysis of 
>what happened, so the obstacles to build 
>consensus can be identified and dealt with. This 
>is fundamental to achieve better results in the 
>future, if the mandate is renewed by CSTD.
>
>
>Three major issues have prevented this small and 
>committed group to reach the expected goals:
>
>
>€ The reduced number of meetings and the 
>mismanagement of the little time that we had. 
>More meetings and a more efficient methodology 
>could have made much difference;
>
>€ The existence of conflicting and politically 
>sensitive themes on the Internet governance 
>agenda this year, as Enhanced Cooperation 
>(<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html>Tunis 
>Agenda, paragraph 69) and divergences between 
>the GAC and the ICANN Board, served as a 
>complicating background. Certainly, the 
>overwhelming majority of WG members recognized 
>the importance of IGF and genuinely made efforts 
>to propose constructive improvements, however, 
>the political context made convergences more 
>difficult to achieve. Most governmental and 
>nongovernmental actors acted within in the WG 
>according to their broader political strategies;
>
>
>€ The high degree of mistrust and poor quality 
>of dialogue between stakeholder groups, which 
>occurred during most of the time, being 
>interspersed by brief genuine attempts at 
>rapprochement that only palely reminded us of 
>the high level of dialogue we have built over 
>the past five years with the IGF.
>
>I - The lack of dialogue deadly injured the working group
>
>
>Perhaps it would be strategically interesting 
>for the non-governmental actors to 
><http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/03/25/cstdwg-collapse>put 
>the responsibility for the lack of dialogue 
>entirely on governments. After all, collectively 
>we could repeat the mantra that the 
>non-governmental share of "multistakeholderism² 
>is always constructively in agreement, thus 
>trying to strengthen our own participation in 
>the Internet governance regime.
>
>However, I believe this view is biased and 
>counterproductive, as it does not portray the 
>divisions that existed in the working group and 
>would not, therefore, contribute to the 
>overcoming of obstacles.
>
>
>
>There were honest divergences based on different 
>views on the IGF and the current system of 
>Internet governance, both among states and among 
>non-governmental actors, regarding the main 
>themes on the table, such as the discussion on 
>results (outcomes) of the IGF, on the 
>composition of the MAG and on funding.
>
>
>Most of these differences were not 
>irreconcilable, if there had been a frank 
>dialogue and attempt to reach a middle ground. 
>But that's not what happened, nor in plenary 
>sessions, or in corridors. In the corridors, 
>business sector representatives complained of 
>governments, governments complained about the 
>technical community and we, civil society, 
>complained of everyone else. After each long day 
>of discussion, each stakeholder group would 
>split into strategic meetings. The lack of 
>dialogue between the stakeholder groups rendered 
>the task at hand much more difficult.
>
>
>
>II - India, an actor in the spotlight
>
>
>Among all participants, India was the only one 
>to submit a detailed proposal on how to extract 
>more objective and concrete outcomes from the 
>discussions at the IGF, as early as the February 
>meeting in Montreux. This proposal was 
><http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/India.pdf>available 
>online in March 16. The text contributed much to 
>the debate (whether or not one agrees with its 
>substance), because it proposed a chorological 
>and rational approach to the issue.
>
>
>There was no other proposal as comprehensive as 
>that one the table in the beginning of the 
>second meeting, but Indian proposal was never 
>discussed. Throughout the process, India as an 
>actor (and never their proposals) was placed on 
>trial. The country is being criticized on the 
>grounds of being proactive, presenting their 
>views, and asking for their effective discussion.
>
>We, non-governmental actors, always complained 
>about the lack of government involvement, but we 
>were unable to be open to hear when such true 
>involvement was present in the WG.
>
>
>India is a leading advocate of Enhanced 
>Cooperation, and had the transparency and 
>coherence to re-affirm it at the meeting, even 
>though I consider that this move was unnecessary 
>and ultimately counterproductive.
>
>But Indian position in favor of enhanced 
>cooperation does not mean we should isolate it. 
>That would be a strategic mistake. We should not 
>push a government that represents one of the 
>largest democracies in the world, and has come 
>to defend multi-stakeholder participation in the 
>IGF arena, to entrench.
>
>Non-governmental actors need to strengthen 
>dialogue and negotiations with India and some of 
>the other countries that advocate for enhanced 
>cooperation, if not on the name of 
>understanding, then on our own strategic benefit.
>
>
>III - Submit your proposal and I will submit mine!
>
>
>Throughout the second day other proposals popped 
>up. First, on the composition of the MAG, 
>presented by India, the Technical Community and 
>Egypt. Then Egypt has made proposals on working 
>methods of the IGF and the format of the IGF 
>meetings. Civil society also had a procedural 
>proposal on how to conduct the discussion. 
>However, none of these proposals came to be 
>analyzed. We lost precious hours on the last day 
>of our meeting, under the baton of the chair, 
>aimless discussing question after question 
>listed in the questionnaire, without any 
>conclusions or sense of ³closure².
>
>
>Basically, presenting 
>proposals-and-counter-proposals became the main 
>game between the parties, to the point where 
>people could not know for sure who-proposed-what 
>or who-was-against-what. That was a pity, 
>because in fact there were excellent proposals 
>on the table and some of them showed 
>considerable degree of convergence between them, 
>which was never identified during the meeting.
>
>
>IV - The "consensus document" that would not fly
>
>
>The chair tried to grasp the consensus among the 
>parties on a document which was handed to us on 
>the second day. Despite the commendable 
>pro-activity, in my view, also expressed during 
>the meeting, the document could not be endorsed 
>as the result of the discussions within the 
>working group, mainly because:
>
>
>€ It expressed principles and practices that are 
>generally accepted and are commonplace in the 
>IGF. It was shallow and had contradictory parts. 
>Submit that document to the CSTD would not be 
>fair to the efforts of the members of the 
>working group because it was not consistent with 
>the depth and quality of contributions;
>
>€ The document presented by the chair was 
>extremely conservative regarding the 
>improvements in the IGF. It had no structural 
>changes but basically maintained the status quo;
>
>
>€ Therefore, the document did not seriously 
>represent a proposal for a consensus among the 
>diverging views, but translated much more 
>accurately the aspirations of groups that, for 
>their own legitimate considerations, want to 
>keep IGF without major changes. This rendered 
>consensus on the text very difficult.
>
>
>Each time a change was suggested, the paragraph 
>was placed in brackets. Of course, the decision 
>to use brackets can be interpreted in different 
>manners. In my view, it was a last attempt to 
>try to work with the text in hand, which turned 
>out to be unsuccessful, eventually. After every 
>comment, the chair reminded us that time was 
>running out and pressed us to accept the text as 
>it was. It was a very counterproductive 
>afternoon in an oppressive climate.
>
>
>Acknowledging the fact that there was no final 
>report was very disappointing for most of us. 
>Once the meeting ended, some people, from all 
>stakeholder groups approached the chair and the 
>Secretary and asked them to seek the renewal of 
>the mandate. That was the last move of the 
>actors of the WG, all united around a common 
>goal. Could this translate into greater future 
>cooperation?
>
>
>V - Some take-aways and an invitation
>
>
>On the night of our last day in Geneva, 
>something unprecedented (at least during the 
>process of the WG) happened: members of civil 
>society and the technical community had dinner 
>together. The conversation was not about 
>amenities, but remained focused on the WG. 
>Without strategic considerations or fear, we 
>exchanged views.
>
>
>Some differences are more difficult to 
>reconcile. Others just seem to be, because of 
>the efforts it takes to put oneself in othersZ 
>shoes. What fear lies behind the resistance to 
>more concrete results arising from the IGF? What 
>is the sentiment toward the current composition 
>and functioning of MAG? Do we "recognize 
>ourselves" in it? What are the reasons and fears 
>of governments that advocate for enhanced 
>cooperation? Do they all have the same agenda? 
>None of these issues was discussed openly in 
>recent months by WG members, and may not have 
>been sufficiently articulated even in the IGF.
>
>The multistakeholder nature of IGF made us 
>achieve something truly amazing over the past 
>years. Stakeholder groups can actually talk to 
>each other and engage in an open debate on 
>difficult issues, such as critical resources, 
>access, security and privacy. We left our 
>trenches. During these years, I witnessed 
>players being genuinely convinced after a fierce 
>debate, and also amicably "agreeing to disagree" 
>and to continue debating constructively in the 
>future. Unfortunately, we are stumbling to do 
>the same when we discuss the infrastructure of 
>our own regime, outside the "friendly" 
>environment of the IGF. How to deal with that?
>
>Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful, 
>creative and positive force. But it never 
>achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it 
>is something that is constantly under 
>construction by collective effort, with 
>unclenching fists and the true desire to build 
>trust.
>
>
>After our dinner, I probably understand better 
>the opinions of colleagues in the technical 
>community. While we do not share some views, I 
>feel more comfortable and more able to seek 
>converging positions.
>
>
>Perhaps we should establish this open and frank 
>dialogue on major political issues that will be 
>in the agenda of Internet governance this year. 
>A workshop? A collective dinner with good wine? 
>Here is an invitation... If the bill is shared, 
>of course!
>
>
>
>--
>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>FGV Direito Rio
>
>Center for Technology and Society
>Getulio Vargas Foundation
>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Mar 29 14:27:48 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:57:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net>

Dear All

I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what I 
think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements.

    "I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue.""

Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be constructed 
here. It is a predictable script with predictable villains - of course, 
those developing countries, who else. A UN meeting on any IG issue 
perhaps need not even happen for this 'result' and 'analysis' of it to 
be produced :) . I keep hoping however that we would open our minds to 
look beyond this predictable response that we seem to remain stuck in.

Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already 
predisposed to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note that 
developing countries had been seeking early and greater number of 
meetings of the WG since late last December, a request that was not 
heeded. Why would they want more meetings if they always wanted this WG 
to fail as it finally did?

Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if it, 
some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of that 
meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing countries wanted 
a multistakeholder drafting group to work between the two meetings to 
come up with a draft with which the second meeting could start. Everyone 
knew that was the only way to produce a report within the 2 days of the 
WG meeting that were left when the group reassembled. A 
multi-stakeholder drafting group was proposed with about the same ratio 
as the overall WG - 5 gov members and 5 non gov members. However, on 
civil society's prompting some developing countries (lead here by 
Brazil) proposed that civil society can have 3 members instead of the 
originally proposed one becuase they represent greater diversity of 
views, with one member of business, one of tech comminuty etc. Business 
and tech community, and then some major devloping countries, said a 
clear no to this proposal to expanded civil society membership of the 
proposed drafting group.

Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a 
drafting group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech 
community and major developed countries also seemed to be supporting 
this position (without their support it wont have carried). Here I will 
stop and pose this question to ourselves, as civil society, because this 
question is also important in terms of the most central substantive 
issue concerning IGF improvements that become the key point on which 
disagreement could not be closed out, whereby the WG failed to prepare 
any recs.

Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder working 
group based processes to produce key substantive documents in the IG 
space, or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an activity?

(If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we 
are vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding 
substantive improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and 
specific on this. I think the question is clear and direct enough.)

In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of 
the first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an 
incisive comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other 
(developing) government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder drafting 
group, some major non-government stakeholders were opposing it. No one 
responded, of course. Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to this paradox.

Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the real 
differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still think 
with some deft managing we could still have come out with something 
substantial, but on that later.)

There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes,  MAG 
selection (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding. Among 
these, the make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this issue could 
have been agreed upon we would have got a very good report, and that 
would really have been a substantial step forward for the IGF, and for 
global IG. Without looking throughly at what happened around this 
central issue we cannot get the right picture of the WG proceedings.

Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal ( 
enclosed ) made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was 
not acceptable to developed countries. This, in my view, was the real 
issue because of which the WG process broke down. So before we start 
assessing what really happened and who is at fault, let us, each of us, 
and if possible, collectively, form an opinion if this proposal is fine 
by us, and the right way to go ahead. If it is the right way to go 
ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be blamed for WG failure, 
not those who proposed it, and those who supported it.

There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on the 
table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times. I 
specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the way 
to get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of producing 
what is being called as 'messages', and also to explain how this process 
would be different from the Chairman's summary, and a shorter bulletted 
Chairman's summary, already being prepared at present. I never got a 
clear reply, which if it was put on table would have constituted a 
specific outcomes related proposal.

Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference 
across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary 
proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and 
the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the 
'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting 
the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with 
secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of 
multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder 
working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And 
depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the 
main contestation at the WG we are on. And then perhaps, if we really 
must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to 
suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose 
planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard 
work we could have got some good results from the WG.

It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG 
and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a 
multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff 
on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with 
relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an 
IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This 
process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for 
IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing 
background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the 
IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder 
workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF 
before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi 
stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on 
key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy 
paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my 
understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the 
only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making. 
And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's 
proposal.

Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who 
opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang 
when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on 
'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by 
this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.

I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more 
comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative 
multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear 
political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the 
moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat 
at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then 
change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or 
alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more 
clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put 
there by a particular country whose political positions we generally 
agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose 
political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical, 
put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation 
will greatly help make clear what I am driving at.

I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues 
that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF 
funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's 
and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was 
the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to 
determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting. 
Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of 
all be informed by this issue.

Parminder


On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.
>
> I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue."
>
> A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes  an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction.
>
> What are the options now for civil society?
>
> Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
>
> Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011.
>
> Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration".
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110329/19eb4cbe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: India's IGF outcomes proposal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 62700 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110329/19eb4cbe/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Mar 29 16:01:24 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:01:24 -0300
Subject: [governance] No concluding ending for CSTD WG to IGF
 improvement
In-Reply-To: <p06240812c9b75d07d4b0@192.168.1.160>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D8D98CA.3010707@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTikR_dOybGvXXPoaKB+=LxC39gNrwu+oh=Y3PA5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC99596@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4D8F87BA.80303@apc.org>
	<55F08BE1-0870-443A-A82C-B5959C634812@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<4D90A6C2.2010505@wzb.eu>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC995A9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4D90B8C7.4070200@apc.org>
	<AANLkTikoBwGYMgLH7SF8PMporcvgn466Qdoew8abdWeh@mail.gmail.com>
	<p06240812c9b75d07d4b0@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimrGM82_bnnrZoeE1oO86AKPMitemBRgac4Dh5+@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Adam,

Please, find some comments below

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Marilia, thank you very much for the assessment of the meeting.
>  Interesting and helpful.
>
> Hope there will be an extension and further opportunity to build some
> consensus.  It will mean compromise.   Would be interesting to see where the
> areas of disagreement where, perhaps a matrix or (thanks GAC... ) a
> scorecard.
>
> Couple of questions:
>
> How were GAC and ICANN discussions a distraction? Not sure what that could
> have to do with the IGF, enhance cooperation perhaps (in that perhaps it's
> an example of it? Unclear.)
>

Enhanced cooperation was certainly a much more palpable issue on the table
than ICANN related stuff. What I meant was that both enhanced cooperation
and the recent dispute GAC X Board has acerbated the moods and prepared to
the narrative that non-government actors are on one side and governmental
actors are on the other. As I explained, this reasoning is not true and
surely did not reflect the cleavages in the working group.


>
> Interesting comment about splitting into separate stakeholder groups at the
> end of the day, then the useful dinner at the end.  Seem to remember WGIG
> members saying that being locked up together was helpful, broke down
> barriers. Perhaps if there's another WG meeting you need to go back to
> whichever castle (?) WGIG used.
>
> The first meeting was in Montreux. We were not in a castle, but it was a
bit far from the excitements and distractions of Geneva :) But no one liked
that, actually.

The truth is, we may be all locked up in a room together, but if the spirits
are not open to dialogue, little will happen. Every group needs to make a
strong decision to reach out now.


> And interesting about the Indian position and reaction to it and to them.
>  Was enhanced cooperation defined, was there agreement on what it is? (I
> know I don't know..)
>
> No, enhanced cooperation was not put on the table as an issue, per see. It
appeared on the text of a chapeau that India proposed to the report. I do
agree that we need more clarity on what EC stands for and what does it mean
to say that this process is "complementary" to the IGF. It is one of the
topics that would require some frank and open multistakeholder discussion
this year. There are several possible occasions to do it, but maybe a
workshop could be proposed in the IGF about that, with wide representation
and counting on the presence of some government from IBSA.


> III and "submit your proposal"
> I've only worked for the IGF Secretariat during the main IGF meetings, not
> consultations, so this just an outsider's observation:  sounds like the WG
> needed a strong secretariat.  Avri and Markus have been able to pull
> together very helpful working documents in very quick time.  Needs people
> very knowledgeable of the issues, knowledgeable of the stakeholders and to
> be diplomatic.  Markus and Avri shared those skills, sounds like the CSTD
> lacked them.
>
> Totally agree with you! The conduction of the WG was not satisfactory. And
with such a difficult task at hand, I believe that the chair should have
sought advice from experienced people on this field, such as Markus, Nitin
and others. I heard that none of them was approached.


> Hope you all get a chance to reconcile the differences.  Thanks again, your
> notes much appreciated.
>
> Welcome


> Adam
>
>
>
> At 6:15 PM -0300 3/28/11, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Please find below my personal political assessment of the meeting.
>> If you prefer to read it online, here is the link: <
>> http://observatoriodainternet.br/second-meeting-of-the-working-group-on-improvements-to-the-internet-governance-forum-ends-with-no-final-report
>> >
>> http://observatoriodainternet.br/second-meeting-of-the-working-group-on-improvements-to-the-internet-governance-forum-ends-with-no-final-report
>>
>>
>> Second meeting of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet
>> Governance Forum ends with no final report
>>
>>
>> Marilia Maciel, Center for Technology and Society of FGV, Brazil
>>
>>
>> Warning: This text reflects the author's personal opinions and does not
>> reflect the position of civil society on the issue.
>>
>> Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful, creative and positive force.
>> But it never achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it is something
>> that is constantly under construction by collective effort, with unclenching
>> fists ands the true desire to build trust
>>
>>
>> After two meetings, the <http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/>working group
>> of the UN Commission of Science and Technology for Development (<
>> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839>CSTD) on the
>> enhancement of IGF failed to prepare its final report. The WG was successful
>> in "collecting, compiling and reviewing the contributions" received, but it
>> was not able to make "recommendations² for change, as envisaged by the
>> mandate. The chair, Frédéric Riehl, will send to the next meeting of the
>> CSTD his personal report and a compilation of all contributions. Probably he
>> will ask for an extension of the mandate of the WG, so the group can
>> complete its assignment.
>>
>>
>> Now that the meeting is over, it is important that the largest possible
>> number of participants in the WG makes a frank and critical analysis of what
>> happened, so the obstacles to build consensus can be identified and dealt
>> with. This is fundamental to achieve better results in the future, if the
>> mandate is renewed by CSTD.
>>
>>
>> Three major issues have prevented this small and committed group to reach
>> the expected goals:
>>
>>
>> € The reduced number of meetings and the mismanagement of the little time
>> that we had. More meetings and a more efficient methodology could have made
>> much difference;
>>
>> € The existence of conflicting and politically sensitive themes on the
>> Internet governance agenda this year, as Enhanced Cooperation (<
>> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html>Tunis Agenda,
>> paragraph 69) and divergences between the GAC and the ICANN Board, served as
>> a complicating background. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of WG
>> members recognized the importance of IGF and genuinely made efforts to
>> propose constructive improvements, however, the political context made
>> convergences more difficult to achieve. Most governmental and
>> nongovernmental actors acted within in the WG according to their broader
>> political strategies;
>>
>>
>>
>> € The high degree of mistrust and poor quality of dialogue between
>> stakeholder groups, which occurred during most of the time, being
>> interspersed by brief genuine attempts at rapprochement that only palely
>> reminded us of the high level of dialogue we have built over the past five
>> years with the IGF.
>>
>> I - The lack of dialogue deadly injured the working group
>>
>>
>> Perhaps it would be strategically interesting for the non-governmental
>> actors to <http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/03/25/cstdwg-collapse>put the
>> responsibility for the lack of dialogue entirely on governments. After all,
>> collectively we could repeat the mantra that the non-governmental share of
>> "multistakeholderism² is always constructively in agreement, thus trying to
>> strengthen our own participation in the Internet governance regime.
>>
>>
>> However, I believe this view is biased and counterproductive, as it does
>> not portray the divisions that existed in the working group and would not,
>> therefore, contribute to the overcoming of obstacles.
>>
>>
>>
>> There were honest divergences based on different views on the IGF and the
>> current system of Internet governance, both among states and among
>> non-governmental actors, regarding the main themes on the table, such as the
>> discussion on results (outcomes) of the IGF, on the composition of the MAG
>> and on funding.
>>
>>
>> Most of these differences were not irreconcilable, if there had been a
>> frank dialogue and attempt to reach a middle ground. But that's not what
>> happened, nor in plenary sessions, or in corridors. In the corridors,
>> business sector representatives complained of governments, governments
>> complained about the technical community and we, civil society, complained
>> of everyone else. After each long day of discussion, each stakeholder group
>> would split into strategic meetings. The lack of dialogue between the
>> stakeholder groups rendered the task at hand much more difficult.
>>
>>
>>
>> II - India, an actor in the spotlight
>>
>>
>> Among all participants, India was the only one to submit a detailed
>> proposal on how to extract more objective and concrete outcomes from the
>> discussions at the IGF, as early as the February meeting in Montreux. This
>> proposal was <
>> http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/India.pdf>available
>> online in March 16. The text contributed much to the debate (whether or not
>> one agrees with its substance), because it proposed a chorological and
>> rational approach to the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> There was no other proposal as comprehensive as that one the table in the
>> beginning of the second meeting, but Indian proposal was never discussed.
>> Throughout the process, India as an actor (and never their proposals) was
>> placed on trial. The country is being criticized on the grounds of being
>> proactive, presenting their views, and asking for their effective
>> discussion.
>>
>> We, non-governmental actors, always complained about the lack of
>> government involvement, but we were unable to be open to hear when such true
>> involvement was present in the WG.
>>
>>
>> India is a leading advocate of Enhanced Cooperation, and had the
>> transparency and coherence to re-affirm it at the meeting, even though I
>> consider that this move was unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive.
>>
>> But Indian position in favor of enhanced cooperation does not mean we
>> should isolate it. That would be a strategic mistake. We should not push a
>> government that represents one of the largest democracies in the world, and
>> has come to defend multi-stakeholder participation in the IGF arena, to
>> entrench.
>>
>> Non-governmental actors need to strengthen dialogue and negotiations with
>> India and some of the other countries that advocate for enhanced
>> cooperation, if not on the name of understanding, then on our own strategic
>> benefit.
>>
>>
>> III - Submit your proposal and I will submit mine!
>>
>>
>> Throughout the second day other proposals popped up. First, on the
>> composition of the MAG, presented by India, the Technical Community and
>> Egypt. Then Egypt has made proposals on working methods of the IGF and the
>> format of the IGF meetings. Civil society also had a procedural proposal on
>> how to conduct the discussion. However, none of these proposals came to be
>> analyzed. We lost precious hours on the last day of our meeting, under the
>> baton of the chair, aimless discussing question after question listed in the
>> questionnaire, without any conclusions or sense of ³closure².
>>
>>
>> Basically, presenting proposals-and-counter-proposals became the main game
>> between the parties, to the point where people could not know for sure
>> who-proposed-what or who-was-against-what. That was a pity, because in fact
>> there were excellent proposals on the table and some of them showed
>> considerable degree of convergence between them, which was never identified
>> during the meeting.
>>
>>
>> IV - The "consensus document" that would not fly
>>
>>
>> The chair tried to grasp the consensus among the parties on a document
>> which was handed to us on the second day. Despite the commendable
>> pro-activity, in my view, also expressed during the meeting, the document
>> could not be endorsed as the result of the discussions within the working
>> group, mainly because:
>>
>>
>> € It expressed principles and practices that are generally accepted and
>> are commonplace in the IGF. It was shallow and had contradictory parts.
>> Submit that document to the CSTD would not be fair to the efforts of the
>> members of the working group because it was not consistent with the depth
>> and quality of contributions;
>>
>> € The document presented by the chair was extremely conservative regarding
>> the improvements in the IGF. It had no structural changes but basically
>> maintained the status quo;
>>
>>
>> € Therefore, the document did not seriously represent a proposal for a
>> consensus among the diverging views, but translated much more accurately the
>> aspirations of groups that, for their own legitimate considerations, want to
>> keep IGF without major changes. This rendered consensus on the text very
>> difficult.
>>
>>
>> Each time a change was suggested, the paragraph was placed in brackets. Of
>> course, the decision to use brackets can be interpreted in different
>> manners. In my view, it was a last attempt to try to work with the text in
>> hand, which turned out to be unsuccessful, eventually. After every comment,
>> the chair reminded us that time was running out and pressed us to accept the
>> text as it was. It was a very counterproductive afternoon in an oppressive
>> climate.
>>
>>
>> Acknowledging the fact that there was no final report was very
>> disappointing for most of us. Once the meeting ended, some people, from all
>> stakeholder groups approached the chair and the Secretary and asked them to
>> seek the renewal of the mandate. That was the last move of the actors of the
>> WG, all united around a common goal. Could this translate into greater
>> future cooperation?
>>
>>
>> V - Some take-aways and an invitation
>>
>>
>> On the night of our last day in Geneva, something unprecedented (at least
>> during the process of the WG) happened: members of civil society and the
>> technical community had dinner together. The conversation was not about
>> amenities, but remained focused on the WG. Without strategic considerations
>> or fear, we exchanged views.
>>
>>
>> Some differences are more difficult to reconcile. Others just seem to be,
>> because of the efforts it takes to put oneself in othersZ shoes. What fear
>> lies behind the resistance to more concrete results arising from the IGF?
>> What is the sentiment toward the current composition and functioning of MAG?
>> Do we "recognize ourselves" in it? What are the reasons and fears of
>> governments that advocate for enhanced cooperation? Do they all have the
>> same agenda? None of these issues was discussed openly in recent months by
>> WG members, and may not have been sufficiently articulated even in the IGF.
>>
>>
>> The multistakeholder nature of IGF made us achieve something truly amazing
>> over the past years. Stakeholder groups can actually talk to each other and
>> engage in an open debate on difficult issues, such as critical resources,
>> access, security and privacy. We left our trenches. During these years, I
>> witnessed players being genuinely convinced after a fierce debate, and also
>> amicably "agreeing to disagree" and to continue debating constructively in
>> the future. Unfortunately, we are stumbling to do the same when we discuss
>> the infrastructure of our own regime, outside the "friendly" environment of
>> the IGF. How to deal with that?
>>
>> Multistakeholder collaboration is a powerful, creative and positive force.
>> But it never achieves an irreversible stage of "maturity"; it is something
>> that is constantly under construction by collective effort, with unclenching
>> fists and the true desire to build trust.
>>
>>
>> After our dinner, I probably understand better the opinions of colleagues
>> in the technical community. While we do not share some views, I feel more
>> comfortable and more able to seek converging positions.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps we should establish this open and frank dialogue on major
>> political issues that will be in the agenda of Internet governance this
>> year. A workshop? A collective dinner with good wine? Here is an
>> invitation... If the bill is shared, of course!
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110329/a6fca3b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 29 16:18:59 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:18:59 +0300
Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
In-Reply-To: <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikV9OtJsT+UyDd7AsVVP2nPsioF5KjMmT_q8OEe@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:27 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Dear All
>
> I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what I
> think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements.
>
>
>  "I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." "
>
>  Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be constructed
> here. It is a predictable script with predictable villains - of course,
> those developing countries, who else.
>

He said governments, not developing country governments.


<snip>


> Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder working
> group based processes to produce key substantive documents in the IG space,
> or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an activity?
>


Why must it be either/or?  That is no the way IG has traditionally been
done, so I don't see why we should encourage it as the way forward for IG
discussions.



>
> (If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we are
> vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding substantive
> improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and specific on this. I
> think the question is clear and direct enough.)
>

I reject the validity of any WG that I cannot be a part of and contribute to
in an open and transparent way..  I don't need nor do I want intermediaries
representing me.



>
> In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of the
> first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an incisive
> comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other (developing)
> government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder drafting group, some major
> non-government stakeholders were opposing it. No one responded, of course.
> Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to this paradox.
>

Yes, we don't have to agree to their rules about who can participate and how
they can do so.



>
>
> Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal ( enclosed )
> made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was not acceptable to
> developed countries. This, in my view, was the real issue because of which
> the WG process broke down. So before we start assessing what really happened
> and who is at fault, let us, each of us, and if possible, collectively, form
> an opinion if this proposal is fine by us, and the right way to go ahead.
>

I don't think it is the way forward because it is limited to MAG members and
some "experts".



>  If it is the right way to go ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs
> to be blamed for WG failure, not those who proposed it, and those who
> supported it.
>
> <snip>

>
> It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG and
> for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a
> multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff on
> policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with relatively
> clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an IGF process that
> is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This process starts from
> choosing clear and specific policy questions for IGF's consideration,
> forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing background material around
> each, WG then helps plan the process at the IGF through right format,
> speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder workshops, then arrange round
> tables on the chosen issue at the IGF before it goes to the plenary, and
> then the denouement, the multi stakeholder group brings out a document which
> could be 2 pages or 10 on key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with
> 'relatively' clear policy paths and options. Things may be difficult
> initially, but it is my understanding, and I would like to hear other views,
> that this is the only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on
> policy making.
>


If you want to have an influence on actual policy, you must engage in the
policy making bodies.




>  And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's
> proposal.
>
> Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who opposed
> it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang when your
> email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on 'friendly
> governments', I would like to really know what you mean by this term in the
> context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.
>
> I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more
> comfortable with secretariats rather accountable
>

Can you explain how they are accountable to me?


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110329/39771a71/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Mar 29 18:12:36 2011
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:12:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
In-Reply-To: <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4D925954.9000100@wzb.eu>




Hi Parminder,


> Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference
> across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary
> proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and
> the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the
> 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting
> the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with
> secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of
> multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder
> working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And
> depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the
> main contestation at the WG we are on.

Actually, I don't want to decide this question. I would prefer to look 
at these issues as a process rather than a binary decision. We have 
faced the issue of formal outcome versus no outcome at all over several 
years. Both options have support from strong groups. The way out of such 
constellations is evolution not an either/or constellation. What I would 
have liked to see is an experimental approach where each annual IGF 
meeting will try out new versions of reporting taking on board the 
experiences from regional and national IGFs.
In my view, it would have been sufficient if the CSTD WG would have 
endorsed such an open process.

jeanette




And then perhaps, if we really
> must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to
> suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose
> planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard
> work we could have got some good results from the WG.
>
> It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG
> and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a
> multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff
> on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with
> relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an
> IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This
> process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for
> IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing
> background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the
> IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder
> workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF
> before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi
> stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on
> key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy
> paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my
> understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the
> only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making.
> And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's
> proposal.
>
> Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who
> opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang
> when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on
> 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by
> this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.
>
> I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more
> comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative
> multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear
> political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the
> moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat
> at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then
> change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or
> alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more
> clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put
> there by a particular country whose political positions we generally
> agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose
> political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical,
> put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation
> will greatly help make clear what I am driving at.
>
> I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues
> that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF
> funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's
> and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was
> the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to
> determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting.
> Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of
> all be informed by this issue.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.
>>
>> I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue."
>>
>> A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes  an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction.
>>
>> What are the options now for civil society?
>>
>> Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
>>
>> Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011.
>>
>> Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration".
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Mar 30 03:07:16 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:07:16 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <4D925954.9000100@wzb.eu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCF7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Why to centralize the "drafting"? IG you havew 80 workshops there is no need that a centralized multistakeholder working group tries to summarize what happend there. If you nominate for each workshop a rapporteur and if you give her(him some clear guidelines how a message shoud look like then yu have a decentralized "drafting" which avoids capture by one group or fighting over kommas and brackets. I understand that this raises another question: Who nominates/selects the rapporteurs. Here we could have probably a quota system which would avoid that rapporteurs are coming from one stakeholder group only. 
 
w
 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
Gesendet: Mi 30.03.2011 00:12
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Betreff: Re: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?






Hi Parminder,


> Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference
> across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary
> proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and
> the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the
> 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting
> the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with
> secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of
> multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder
> working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And
> depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the
> main contestation at the WG we are on.

Actually, I don't want to decide this question. I would prefer to look
at these issues as a process rather than a binary decision. We have
faced the issue of formal outcome versus no outcome at all over several
years. Both options have support from strong groups. The way out of such
constellations is evolution not an either/or constellation. What I would
have liked to see is an experimental approach where each annual IGF
meeting will try out new versions of reporting taking on board the
experiences from regional and national IGFs.
In my view, it would have been sufficient if the CSTD WG would have
endorsed such an open process.

jeanette




And then perhaps, if we really
> must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to
> suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose
> planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard
> work we could have got some good results from the WG.
>
> It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG
> and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a
> multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff
> on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with
> relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an
> IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This
> process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for
> IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing
> background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the
> IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder
> workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF
> before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi
> stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on
> key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy
> paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my
> understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the
> only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making.
> And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's
> proposal.
>
> Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who
> opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang
> when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on
> 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by
> this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.
>
> I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more
> comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative
> multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear
> political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the
> moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat
> at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then
> change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or
> alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more
> clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put
> there by a particular country whose political positions we generally
> agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose
> political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical,
> put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation
> will greatly help make clear what I am driving at.
>
> I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues
> that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF
> funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's
> and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was
> the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to
> determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting.
> Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of
> all be informed by this issue.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.
>>
>> I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue."
>>
>> A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes  an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction.
>>
>> What are the options now for civil society?
>>
>> Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
>>
>> Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011.
>>
>> Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration".
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit 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 Mar 30 04:48:19 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:48:19 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCFA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi Parminder
 
I offered TWO options to explain the outcome of the Geneva meeting: a. "planned failure" and b. "stumbling forward". To be frank I do NOT believe in the many conspiracy theories. I always remembered what Tara Frankel a well respected law professor in the 1990s said when she described Internet Governance as a process of "meddling through". This is a journey into unknown terriotory and you know my argument which I used already in the High Level Panel in the 1st WSIS in Geneva, December 2003, when I argued in favour of a new 21st century diplomacy because it will be impossible to settle the new emerging (Internet) issues with the political and diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. What we need is more creativity and not new zero-sum-games. 
 
Insofar I am not too much frustrated with regard to the Geneva meeting. I see the good will of both (or nearly all) sides. But I see also the unability to find a common language and to look for the "doable things". If there would have been more time (as we had in WGIG), a number of misunderstandings could have been removed from the table so that only the real controversial issues remain on the table which need more (time consuming) in depth delibarations. With other words, for me the Geneva March 2011 meeting is another element in the long chain of "stumbling forward" events. 
 
As you and others explained at length there was nobody who really challenged the usefulness of the multistakeholder dialogue. This is good and brings us another small step forward. This is much better than the input which came from the government of the Peoples Republic of China which ignores in its one page statement both in the review section as well as in the reform section the word "multistakeholder". 
 
There are different ideas with reagrd to outcome, MAG and secretariat/funding. This is rather natural. If we first identify this as the three main open issues and seperate them from each other (so that we can handle it one by one) I see a chance to find a rough consensus based on good will. There is another controversial issue which is the interlikage of the IGF in the global Internet Governance ecosystem (the missing intergovernmental plattform, embedded into the multistakeholder environment, the need for "basic principles", the formal/informal interlinkage with the ICANN/GAC/ALAC mechanism). But this is a different story 
 
I just want to say something here to outcomes. Parminder, you create a binary situation in presenting this as an "either secretariat or multistakeholder drafting group problem".  You can be assured that in such a constellation I am in favour of a multistakeholder drafting group, if this is needed. But my proposal for "messages" goes beyond this "either or" of traditional text producing practices and introduces an innovative decentralized drafting mechanism, where the individual rapporteurs of the various sessions produce one to three (short) messages from their workshops/plenaries which than will be compiled (not redrafted) in the final "IGF Messages from Nairobi" etc. Such a decentralized drafting avoids capture by one group, bypasses endless wordsmithing battles around kommas and brackets and guarantees diversity. What you need, if you take this road, are clear guidelines for the rapporteurs and a procedure for the selection of the rapporteurs. This could be a task for a renewed MAG. The risk of a multistakeholder drafting group is that you just delegate the (sometimes ideologized) battle to a smaller circle with the risk that also this group can be blocked, paralyzed by infighting etc. 
 
To decentralize drafting for an IGF outcome, where recommendations, opinions, messages etc. do not have a binding nature but should serve as a source of inspiration, should give orientation and guidance for further actions is probably better than to open a new (smaller) battlefield which by nature would be exclusive and not inclusive. 
 
But lets continue the debate.
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Di 29.03.2011 20:27
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?


Dear All

I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what I think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements.



	"I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." "

Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be constructed here. It is a predictable script with predictable villains - of course, those developing countries, who else. A UN meeting on any IG issue perhaps need not even happen for this 'result' and 'analysis' of it to be produced :) . I keep hoping however that we would open our minds to look beyond this predictable response that we seem to remain stuck in.

Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already predisposed to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note that developing countries had been seeking early and greater number of meetings of the WG since late last December, a request that was not heeded. Why would they want more meetings if they always wanted this WG to fail as it finally did?

Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if it, some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of that meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing countries wanted a multistakeholder drafting group to work between the two meetings to come up with a draft with which the second meeting could start. Everyone knew that was the only way to produce a report within the 2 days of the WG meeting that were left when the group reassembled. A multi-stakeholder drafting group was proposed with about the same ratio as the overall WG - 5 gov members and 5 non gov members. However, on civil society's prompting some developing countries (lead here by Brazil) proposed that civil society can have 3 members instead of the originally proposed one becuase they represent greater diversity of views, with one member of business, one of tech comminuty etc. Business and tech community, and then some major devloping countries, said a clear no to this proposal to expanded civil society membership of the proposed drafting group. 

Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a drafting group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech community and major developed countries also seemed to be supporting this position (without their support it wont have carried). Here I will stop and pose this question to ourselves, as civil society, because this question is also important in terms of the most central substantive issue concerning IGF improvements that become the key point on which disagreement could not be closed out, whereby the WG failed to prepare any recs.

Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder working group based processes to produce key substantive documents in the IG space, or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an activity?

(If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we are vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding substantive improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and specific on this. I think the question is clear and direct enough.)

In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of the first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an incisive comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other (developing) government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder drafting group, some major non-government stakeholders were opposing it. No one responded, of course. Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to this paradox.   

Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the real differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still think with some deft managing we could still have come out with something substantial, but on that later.)

There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes,  MAG selection (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding. Among these, the make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this issue could have been agreed upon we would have got a very good report, and that would really have been a substantial step forward for the IGF, and for global IG. Without looking throughly at what happened around this central issue we cannot get the right picture of the WG proceedings. 

Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal ( enclosed ) made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was not acceptable to developed countries. This, in my view, was the real issue because of which the WG process broke down. So before we start assessing what really happened and who is at fault, let us, each of us, and if possible, collectively, form an opinion if this proposal is fine by us, and the right way to go ahead. If it is the right way to go ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be blamed for WG failure, not those who proposed it, and those who supported it. 

There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on the table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times. I specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the way to get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of producing what is being called as 'messages', and also to explain how this process would be different from the Chairman's summary, and a shorter bulletted Chairman's summary, already being prepared at present. I never got a clear reply, which if it was put on table would have constituted a specific outcomes related proposal.  

Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the main contestation at the WG we are on. And then perhaps, if we really must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard work we could have got some good results from the WG. 

It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making. And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's proposal.

Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF. 

I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put there by a particular country whose political positions we generally agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical, put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation will greatly help make clear what I am driving at. 

I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting. Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of all be informed by this issue. 

Parminder 


On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: 

	Dear all
	 
	I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question. 
	 
	I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." 
	 
	A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes  an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction. 
	 
	What are the options now for civil society?
	 
	Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
	 
	Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011.  
	 
	Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration".
	 
	Best wishes
	 
	wolfgang 
	 
	____________________________________________________________
	You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
	     governance at lists.cpsr.org
	To be removed from the list, visit:
	     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
	
	For all other list information and functions, see:
	     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
	To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
	     http://www.igcaucus.org/
	
	Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
	
	

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Mar 30 05:09:25 2011
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:09:25 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCFA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCFC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Sorry, there is a bad typo. I mean "muddling through" not "meddling through"

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Gesendet: Mi 30.03.2011 10:48
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Betreff: AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?



Hi Parminder

I offered TWO options to explain the outcome of the Geneva meeting: a. "planned failure" and b. "stumbling forward". To be frank I do NOT believe in the many conspiracy theories. I always remembered what Tara Frankel a well respected law professor in the 1990s said when she described Internet Governance as a process of "meddling through". This is a journey into unknown terriotory and you know my argument which I used already in the High Level Panel in the 1st WSIS in Geneva, December 2003, when I argued in favour of a new 21st century diplomacy because it will be impossible to settle the new emerging (Internet) issues with the political and diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. What we need is more creativity and not new zero-sum-games.

Insofar I am not too much frustrated with regard to the Geneva meeting. I see the good will of both (or nearly all) sides. But I see also the unability to find a common language and to look for the "doable things". If there would have been more time (as we had in WGIG), a number of misunderstandings could have been removed from the table so that only the real controversial issues remain on the table which need more (time consuming) in depth delibarations. With other words, for me the Geneva March 2011 meeting is another element in the long chain of "stumbling forward" events.

As you and others explained at length there was nobody who really challenged the usefulness of the multistakeholder dialogue. This is good and brings us another small step forward. This is much better than the input which came from the government of the Peoples Republic of China which ignores in its one page statement both in the review section as well as in the reform section the word "multistakeholder".

There are different ideas with reagrd to outcome, MAG and secretariat/funding. This is rather natural. If we first identify this as the three main open issues and seperate them from each other (so that we can handle it one by one) I see a chance to find a rough consensus based on good will. There is another controversial issue which is the interlikage of the IGF in the global Internet Governance ecosystem (the missing intergovernmental plattform, embedded into the multistakeholder environment, the need for "basic principles", the formal/informal interlinkage with the ICANN/GAC/ALAC mechanism). But this is a different story

I just want to say something here to outcomes. Parminder, you create a binary situation in presenting this as an "either secretariat or multistakeholder drafting group problem".  You can be assured that in such a constellation I am in favour of a multistakeholder drafting group, if this is needed. But my proposal for "messages" goes beyond this "either or" of traditional text producing practices and introduces an innovative decentralized drafting mechanism, where the individual rapporteurs of the various sessions produce one to three (short) messages from their workshops/plenaries which than will be compiled (not redrafted) in the final "IGF Messages from Nairobi" etc. Such a decentralized drafting avoids capture by one group, bypasses endless wordsmithing battles around kommas and brackets and guarantees diversity. What you need, if you take this road, are clear guidelines for the rapporteurs and a procedure for the selection of the rapporteurs. This could be a task for a renewed MAG. The risk of a multistakeholder drafting group is that you just delegate the (sometimes ideologized) battle to a smaller circle with the risk that also this group can be blocked, paralyzed by infighting etc.

To decentralize drafting for an IGF outcome, where recommendations, opinions, messages etc. do not have a binding nature but should serve as a source of inspiration, should give orientation and guidance for further actions is probably better than to open a new (smaller) battlefield which by nature would be exclusive and not inclusive.

But lets continue the debate.

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Di 29.03.2011 20:27
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?


Dear All

I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what I think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements.



        "I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration.. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." "

Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be constructed here. It is a predictable script with predictable villains - of course, those developing countries, who else. A UN meeting on any IG issue perhaps need not even happen for this 'result' and 'analysis' of it to be produced :) . I keep hoping however that we would open our minds to look beyond this predictable response that we seem to remain stuck in.

Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already predisposed to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note that developing countries had been seeking early and greater number of meetings of the WG since late last December, a request that was not heeded. Why would they want more meetings if they always wanted this WG to fail as it finally did?

Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if it, some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of that meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing countries wanted a multistakeholder drafting group to work between the two meetings to come up with a draft with which the second meeting could start. Everyone knew that was the only way to produce a report within the 2 days of the WG meeting that were left when the group reassembled. A multi-stakeholder drafting group was proposed with about the same ratio as the overall WG - 5 gov members and 5 non gov members. However, on civil society's prompting some developing countries (lead here by Brazil) proposed that civil society can have 3 members instead of the originally proposed one becuase they represent greater diversity of views, with one member of business, one of tech comminuty etc. Business and tech community, and then some major devloping countries, said a clear no to this proposal to expanded civil society membership of the proposed drafting group.

Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a drafting group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech community and major developed countries also seemed to be supporting this position (without their support it wont have carried). Here I will stop and pose this question to ourselves, as civil society, because this question is also important in terms of the most central substantive issue concerning IGF improvements that become the key point on which disagreement could not be closed out, whereby the WG failed to prepare any recs.

Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder working group based processes to produce key substantive documents in the IG space, or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an activity?

(If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we are vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding substantive improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and specific on this. I think the question is clear and direct enough.)

In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of the first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an incisive comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other (developing) government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder drafting group, some major non-government stakeholders were opposing it. No one responded, of course. Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to this paradox.  

Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the real differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still think with some deft managing we could still have come out with something substantial, but on that later.)

There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes,  MAG selection (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding. Among these, the make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this issue could have been agreed upon we would have got a very good report, and that would really have been a substantial step forward for the IGF, and for global IG. Without looking throughly at what happened around this central issue we cannot get the right picture of the WG proceedings.

Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal ( enclosed ) made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was not acceptable to developed countries. This, in my view, was the real issue because of which the WG process broke down. So before we start assessing what really happened and who is at fault, let us, each of us, and if possible, collectively, form an opinion if this proposal is fine by us, and the right way to go ahead. If it is the right way to go ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be blamed for WG failure, not those who proposed it, and those who supported it.

There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on the table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times. I specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the way to get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of producing what is being called as 'messages', and also to explain how this process would be different from the Chairman's summary, and a shorter bulletted Chairman's summary, already being prepared at present. I never got a clear reply, which if it was put on table would have constituted a specific outcomes related proposal. 

Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the main contestation at the WG we are on. And then perhaps, if we really must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard work we could have got some good results from the WG.

It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making. And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's proposal.

Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.

I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear political import.. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put there by a particular country whose political positions we generally agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical, put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation will greatly help make clear what I am driving at.

I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting. Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of all be informed by this issue.

Parminder


On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

        Dear all
        
        I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.
        
        I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue."
        
        A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes  an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction.
        
        What are the options now for civil society?
        
        Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
        
        Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011. 
        
        Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration".
        
        Best wishes
        
        wolfgang
        
        ____________________________________________________________
        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
             governance at lists.cpsr.org
        To be removed from the list, visit:
             http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
       
        For all other list information and functions, see:
             http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
        To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
             http://www.igcaucus.org/
       
        Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
       
       

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From froomkin at law.miami.edu  Wed Mar 30 14:42:01 2011
From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:42:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCFC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCFA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCFC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1103301441480.7313@localhost.localdomain>


I thought it was a lovely new coinage.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

> Sorry, there is a bad typo. I mean "muddling through" not "meddling through"
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> Gesendet: Mi 30.03.2011 10:48
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Betreff: AW: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
>
>
>
> Hi Parminder
>
> I offered TWO options to explain the outcome of the Geneva meeting: a. "planned failure" and b. "stumbling forward". To be frank I do NOT believe in the many conspiracy theories. I always remembered what Tara Frankel a well respected law professor in the 1990s said when she described Internet Governance as a process of "meddling through". This is a journey into unknown terriotory and you know my argument which I used already in the High Level Panel in the 1st WSIS in Geneva, December 2003, when I argued in favour of a new 21st century diplomacy because it will be impossible to settle the new emerging (Internet) issues with the political and diplomatic instruments of the 20th century. What we need is more creativity and not new zero-sum-games.
>
> Insofar I am not too much frustrated with regard to the Geneva meeting. I see the good will of both (or nearly all) sides. But I see also the unability to find a common language and to look for the "doable things". If there would have been more time (as we had in WGIG), a number of misunderstandings could have been removed from the table so that only the real controversial issues remain on the table which need more (time consuming) in depth delibarations. With other words, for me the Geneva March 2011 meeting is another element in the long chain of "stumbling forward" events.
>
> As you and others explained at length there was nobody who really challenged the usefulness of the multistakeholder dialogue. This is good and brings us another small step forward. This is much better than the input which came from the government of the Peoples Republic of China which ignores in its one page statement both in the review section as well as in the reform section the word "multistakeholder".
>
> There are different ideas with reagrd to outcome, MAG and secretariat/funding. This is rather natural. If we first identify this as the three main open issues and seperate them from each other (so that we can handle it one by one) I see a chance to find a rough consensus based on good will. There is another controversial issue which is the interlikage of the IGF in the global Internet Governance ecosystem (the missing intergovernmental plattform, embedded into the multistakeholder environment, the need for "basic principles", the formal/informal interlinkage with the ICANN/GAC/ALAC mechanism). But this is a different story
>
> I just want to say something here to outcomes. Parminder, you create a binary situation in presenting this as an "either secretariat or multistakeholder drafting group problem".  You can be assured that in such a constellation I am in favour of a multistakeholder drafting group, if this is needed. But my proposal for "messages" goes beyond this "either or" of traditional text producing practices and introduces an innovative decentralized drafting mechanism, where the individual rapporteurs of the various sessions produce one to three (short) messages from their workshops/plenaries which than will be compiled (not redrafted) in the final "IGF Messages from Nairobi" etc. Such a decentralized drafting avoids capture by one group, bypasses endless wordsmithing battles around kommas and brackets and guarantees diversity. What you need, if you take this road, are clear guidelines for the rapporteurs and a procedure for the selection of the rapporteurs. This could be a task for a renewed MAG. The risk of a multistakeholder drafting group is that you just delegate the (sometimes ideologized) battle to a smaller circle with the risk that also this group can be blocked, paralyzed by infighting etc.
>
> To decentralize drafting for an IGF outcome, where recommendations, opinions, messages etc. do not have a binding nature but should serve as a source of inspiration, should give orientation and guidance for further actions is probably better than to open a new (smaller) battlefield which by nature would be exclusive and not inclusive.
>
> But lets continue the debate.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Di 29.03.2011 20:27
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
>
>
> Dear All
>
> I will take the following para from Wolfgang's email to present what I think happened at the meeting of the WG on IGF improvements.
>
>
>
>        "I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration.. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue." "
>
> Excuse me to respectfully disagree with what is sought to be constructed here. It is a predictable script with predictable villains - of course, those developing countries, who else. A UN meeting on any IG issue perhaps need not even happen for this 'result' and 'analysis' of it to be produced :) . I keep hoping however that we would open our minds to look beyond this predictable response that we seem to remain stuck in.
>
> Why did the WG meeting break down? Were there countries already predisposed to the failure of the WG? It may be interesting to note that developing countries had been seeking early and greater number of meetings of the WG since late last December, a request that was not heeded. Why would they want more meetings if they always wanted this WG to fail as it finally did?
>
> Then when Montreux happened, and there was not much that came out if it, some very interesting things happened in the last hour or so of that meeting. Brazil, India, Egypt and some other developing countries wanted a multistakeholder drafting group to work between the two meetings to come up with a draft with which the second meeting could start. Everyone knew that was the only way to produce a report within the 2 days of the WG meeting that were left when the group reassembled. A multi-stakeholder drafting group was proposed with about the same ratio as the overall WG - 5 gov members and 5 non gov members. However, on civil society's prompting some developing countries (lead here by Brazil) proposed that civil society can have 3 members instead of the originally proposed one becuase they represent greater diversity of views, with one member of business, one of tech comminuty etc. Business and tech community, and then some major devloping countries, said a clear no to this proposal to expanded civil society membership of the proposed drafting group.
>
> Very soon thereafter, business said 'no' to the very proposal of a drafting group, they wanted the secretariat to prepare a draft. Tech community and major developed countries also seemed to be supporting this position (without their support it wont have carried). Here I will stop and pose this question to ourselves, as civil society, because this question is also important in terms of the most central substantive issue concerning IGF improvements that become the key point on which disagreement could not be closed out, whereby the WG failed to prepare any recs.
>
> Do we as civil society prefer representative/ multi-stakeholder working group based processes to produce key substantive documents in the IG space, or do we prefer secretariat based processes for such an activity?
>
> (If we can form a clear response to this poser, we will know where we are vis a vis 'the key' contestation at the WG meeting regarding substantive improvement to. the IGF. So lets be try and be clear and specific on this. I think the question is clear and direct enough.)
>
> In fact, when the drafting group proposal was shot down at the end of the first meeting of the WG in Montreux, the Brazilian rep made an incisive comment, pointing to the paradox how when he and some other (developing) government reps are proposing a multi-stakeholder drafting group, some major non-government stakeholders were opposing it. No one responded, of course. Do 'WE', as IGC, have an answer to this paradox.
>
> Since we are on a connected point, let me hurry to what were the real differences on which the WG process broke down (though I still think with some deft managing we could still have come out with something substantial, but on that later.)
>
> There were three key issues of disagreement - IGF outcomes,  MAG selection (especially of non-gov stakeholders), and IGF funding. Among these, the make-or-break issue was 'IGF outcomes'. If this issue could have been agreed upon we would have got a very good report, and that would really have been a substantial step forward for the IGF, and for global IG. Without looking throughly at what happened around this central issue we cannot get the right picture of the WG proceedings.
>
> Here, the only real proposal on the table was India's proposal ( enclosed ) made during the Montreux meeting itself. This proposal was not acceptable to developed countries. This, in my view, was the real issue because of which the WG process broke down. So before we start assessing what really happened and who is at fault, let us, each of us, and if possible, collectively, form an opinion if this proposal is fine by us, and the right way to go ahead. If it is the right way to go ahead, then whoever did not accept it needs to be blamed for WG failure, not those who proposed it, and those who supported it.
>
> There was no clear counter proposal (to India's) for IGF outcomes on the table. though the term 'messages' was thrown around a few times. I specifically asked the proposers of 'messages' from the IGF as the way to get outcomes to clearly put out the envisaged process of producing what is being called as 'messages', and also to explain how this process would be different from the Chairman's summary, and a shorter bulletted Chairman's summary, already being prepared at present. I never got a clear reply, which if it was put on table would have constituted a specific outcomes related proposal.
>
> Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the main contestation at the WG we are on. And then perhaps, if we really must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard work we could have got some good results from the WG.
>
> It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making. And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's proposal.
>
> Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.
>
> I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear political import.. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put there by a particular country whose political positions we generally agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical, put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation will greatly help make clear what I am driving at.
>
> I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting. Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of all be informed by this issue.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
>        Dear all
>
>        I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.
>
>        I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable environment which does not allow the production of anything which is meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening. Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international dialogue."
>
>        A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and if Nairobi becomes  an "outstanding success", this will make life much more difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA to change the direction.
>
>        What are the options now for civil society?
>
>        Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
>
>        Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA, which starts in early October 2011.
>
>        Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to improve multistakeholder collaboration".
>
>        Best wishes
>
>        wolfgang
>
>        ____________________________________________________________
>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>             governance at lists.cpsr.org
>        To be removed from the list, visit:
>             http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>        For all other list information and functions, see:
>             http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>        To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>             http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>        Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin, http://www.law.tm Blog: http://www.discourse.net
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
Coordinator of Faculty Research
Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots),  jotwell.com
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |    +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  froomkin at law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Mar 30 15:13:21 2011
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:13:21 -0300
Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
In-Reply-To: <4D925954.9000100@wzb.eu>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net>
	<4D925954.9000100@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikbGL5nK6fZh1Ztg_0B3-iVWPMjyupGYG9eCxuq@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jeanette and all,



Your e-mail is short, and yet, provides so much food for discussion. I envy
your conciseness! :)


Allow me to barge in the debate with Parminder and share some thoughts,
below:

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

>
>
> Actually, I don't want to decide this question. I would prefer to look at
> these issues as a process rather than a binary decision.


There are occasions we do need to make a decision. In the WG, either we
would take by the hand the task of writting the report or we would leave it
to the Secretariat. It is very difficult for me to understand why we should
prefer a Secretariat/chair with no experience on IG matters, with proved
lack of ability, to write such an important document. It was our
responsibility, and we should have worked online, in a smaller but
representative drafting group, right after the Feb meeting in Montreux.

In the context of the IGF, I agree with you that it does not have to be one
OR the other. The chair´s report can live side by side with "outcomes"
extracted from the IGF discussions. But both have different purposes. While
the chair produces a political summary of main highlights (that usually have
no real substance), the collection of outcomes from the discussions should
capture, preserve and do something useful (outreach) with the rich debate
that takes place in IGF.



> We have faced the issue of formal outcome versus no outcome at all over
> several years. Both options have support from strong groups. The way out of
> such constellations is evolution not an either/or constellation.


In my opinion we are not witnessing the same debate taking place over the
years. The debate has changed, in an evolutionary manner, I would say. Three
years ago there were those who would argue for strong recommendation from
the IGF, even binding. Today, this option is out of the table. No
stakeholder group defended anything like that in the WG. In general terms,
we are between "no change" and "outcomes that reflect converging views and
alternative policy options". There is no deliberation involved, as all
different views would be reflected.  This is change and evolution, in my
view. Shouldn´t the ones that want "no outcomes" take a step towards the
point of convergence and equilibrium?


What I would have liked to see is an experimental approach where each annual
> IGF meeting will try out new versions of reporting taking on board the
> experiences from regional and national IGFs.
>

Certainly, that would be interesting, I strongly support that idea as well.
But it does not exclude any of the approaches above.


> In my view, it would have been sufficient if the CSTD WG would have
> endorsed such an open process.
>

Honestly, I think that this would be quite little for an expert WG to
propose as the main improvement to the IGF, and this would not address the
concern expressed in the report of the Secretary-general, which served as
base for the convening of the WG in the first place.

>
> jeanette
>
>
> Best wishes,

Marília

>
>
> And then perhaps, if we really
>
>> must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to
>> suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose
>> planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard
>> work we could have got some good results from the WG.
>>
>> It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG
>> and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a
>> multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff
>> on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with
>> relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an
>> IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This
>> process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for
>> IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing
>> background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the
>> IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder
>> workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF
>> before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi
>> stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on
>> key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy
>> paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my
>> understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the
>> only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making.
>> And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's
>> proposal.
>>
>> Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who
>> opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang
>> when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on
>> 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by
>> this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.
>>
>> I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more
>> comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative
>> multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear
>> political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the
>> moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat
>> at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then
>> change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or
>> alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more
>> clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put
>> there by a particular country whose political positions we generally
>> agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose
>> political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical,
>> put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation
>> will greatly help make clear what I am driving at.
>>
>> I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues
>> that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF
>> funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's
>> and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was
>> the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to
>> determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting.
>> Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of
>> all be informed by this issue.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the
>>> Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result
>>> within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch
>>> and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.
>>>
>>> I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable
>>> environment which does not allow the production of anything which is
>>> meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening.
>>> Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole
>>> direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder
>>> collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the
>>> group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as
>>> governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone
>>> when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international
>>> dialogue."
>>>
>>> A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill
>>> Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a
>>> process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the
>>> Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals
>>> which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and
>>> if Nairobi becomes  an "outstanding success", this will make life much more
>>> difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA
>>> to change the direction.
>>>
>>> What are the options now for civil society?
>>>
>>> Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the
>>> failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
>>>
>>> Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in
>>> the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group
>>> until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim
>>> paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be
>>> discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA,
>>> which starts in early October 2011.
>>>
>>> Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an
>>> alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and
>>> friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via
>>> a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the
>>> eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open
>>> multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to
>>> improve multistakeholder collaboration".
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110330/934ed68c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Wed Mar 30 15:57:43 2011
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:57:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] What next with the IGF Improvement?
In-Reply-To: <4D925954.9000100@wzb.eu>
References: <AANLkTikE+6=Gf2JYUpjBB7r6aBfEC3FRwDLmh=2myx6q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2BCB8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4D9224A4.3060001@itforchange.net> <4D925954.9000100@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=W3F=gc+MifgbG4JN1_Xz=Djz=yxB_Ahaa5OGA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder,

You made, as usual, a very detailed, thoughtful and passionate statement. I
believe you raised very valid questions - at least in the eyes of a
non-participant in the WG exercise.

However, like Jeanette, I am always cautious when I spot the emergence of
too rigid either/or alternatives, that risk tending towards: "which side are
you on" ? and rapidly : "there is a right side and a wrong side, and
unfortunately my interlocutors happen to be on the wrong side" :-) We've
seen where this can lead in history. So let's pause for a second when doing
the post-mortem of the WG.

There is indeed an important issue regarding the concept of working groups
(multi-stakeholder) and the role of secretariats. But they are not
necessarily antagonistic: good secretariat is needed for efficient working
groups and secretariat without community input rapidly means capture. So the
debate can be a little bit more nuanced.

Marilia made a very balanced and useful analysis, highlighting weakness in
the chairmanship of the group (obvious and expected from the onset, I must
say) and distributing responsibilities quite evenly. In particular she
rightly pointed the absence of real direct and trustful interaction among
the participants and the resurgence of typical drafting practices (square
brackets). The fact that some participants may have come from the missions
in Geneva (instead of having been participants in the IGF) certainly made a
- not surprising - difference: same cause same effects as the PrepCom 1 of
the first phase of the WSIS, the CSTD meetings, and the recent ECOSOC
discussions.

In any case, the lines are moving among groups and homogeneity is not the
norm any more. That is one thing I take from Parminder's comments. We must
therefore all avoid keeping old frameworks of reference to interpret
proposals by one actor or the other according to the preconceived idea of
what they "naturally are going to propose", irrespective of what is actually
in their text. It would be interesting in that respect to use anonymous
contributions: some proposals by India would certainly have looked different
in the eyes of many participants if nobody had known where they came from.
Who would dare to try the exercise ?

The task ahead of us is not to reinforce oppositions or to hatch unbalanced
compromises, but to identify non-zero-sum solutions: I cannot believe there
is no way to move forward. The question now is: what is the right format to
produce constructive interaction ?

Best

Bertrand



On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

>
>
>
> Hi Parminder,
>
>
>
>  Let me try to focus further on what was the real point of difference
>> across the table. IGF already produces long and short summary of plenary
>> proceedings. So the essential difference between India's proposal and
>> the present practice (or the 'messages' proposal) is about who does the
>> 'summing up' and how. Back to the question that arose regarding drafting
>> the report of the WG on IGF improvements - are we more comfortable with
>> secretariats doing such stuff, or do we, we the evangelists of
>> multistakeholderism in policy shaping/ making, support multi stakeholder
>> working groups doing it. That is the core point we must decide. And
>> depending on which way we decide it we can then know which side of the
>> main contestation at the WG we are on.
>>
>
> Actually, I don't want to decide this question. I would prefer to look at
> these issues as a process rather than a binary decision. We have faced the
> issue of formal outcome versus no outcome at all over several years. Both
> options have support from strong groups. The way out of such constellations
> is evolution not an either/or constellation. What I would have liked to see
> is an experimental approach where each annual IGF meeting will try out new
> versions of reporting taking on board the experiences from regional and
> national IGFs.
> In my view, it would have been sufficient if the CSTD WG would have
> endorsed such an open process.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
>
>
> And then perhaps, if we really
>
>> must, we can choose our villains. And if we indeed are inclined to
>> suspect a 'planned failure' to use Wolfgang's term, then see whose
>> planning it could be. Though I suspect that with some more real hard
>> work we could have got some good results from the WG.
>>
>> It is for me a cardinal moment for IG, for civil society advocate on IG
>> and for multistakeholderism. We must decide and make up our mind. Can a
>> multistakeholder group cull out enough focused and well directed stuff
>> on policy inputs - areas of convergence, and divergences, but with
>> relatively clear alternative policy options as done by WGIG - from an
>> IGF process that is to be specifically designed to help it do so. This
>> process starts from choosing clear and specific policy questions for
>> IGF's consideration, forming WGs around each chosen issue, developing
>> background material around each, WG then helps plan the process at the
>> IGF through right format, speakers etc, help prepare appropriate feeder
>> workshops, then arrange round tables on the chosen issue at the IGF
>> before it goes to the plenary, and then the denouement, the multi
>> stakeholder group brings out a document which could be 2 pages or 10 on
>> key areas of convergence, divergence etc, with 'relatively' clear policy
>> paths and options. Things may be difficult initially, but it is my
>> understanding, and I would like to hear other views, that this is the
>> only real way to go for multi-stakeholder influence on policy making.
>> And the steps I have described here were essentially the gist of India's
>> proposal.
>>
>> Is this proposal more multistakeholder friendly, or can those who
>> opposed it could be considered multistakeholder friendly. So, Wolfgang
>> when your email, again somewhat predictably, comes to that part on
>> 'friendly governments', I would like to really know what you mean by
>> this term in the context of the happenings at the WG on IGF.
>>
>> I simply cannot understand how many of us even in IGC seem to be more
>> comfortable with secretariats rather accountable and representative
>> multistakeholder working groups writing key documents which have clear
>> political import. Can we not see that even if we seem to be at the
>> moment happy with some specific personnel who constitute the secretariat
>> at a particular time, this situation could easily reverse. Would we then
>> change our view on whether secretariat should do such stuff or
>> alternatively, a multistakeholder WG. To make what I am saying more
>> clear, just consider what if the key secretariat personnel were not put
>> there by a particular country whose political positions we generally
>> agreed with but by another country (which could happen any time) whose
>> political opinions we were much against. This is purely hypothetical,
>> put putting real countries and real people in this imagined situation
>> will greatly help make clear what I am driving at.
>>
>> I will discuss in a separate email tomorrow the two other main issues
>> that were contested that I have mentioned above (MAG composition and IGF
>> funding). Also will refer to some other issues mentioned in Annriette's
>> and Marilia's reports. However, it is the IGF outcomes issue which was
>> the real thing around which everything revolved, and which was to
>> determine if anything substantial could come out of the WG's meeting.
>> Our judgments about what happened at the WG, in my view, must most of
>> all be informed by this issue.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 26 March 2011 01:51 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> I am not surprised about the outcome. It was crystal clear after the
>>> Montreux meeting, that it will be impossible to reach a reasonable result
>>> within the given time frame. The whole planning and executing of the launch
>>> and the work of this UNCSTD WG raises a lot of question.
>>>
>>> I am not sure whether this was by intention. If I create an unworkable
>>> environment which does not allow the production of anything which is
>>> meaningful than nobody should be surprised that exactly this is happening.
>>> Such a "planned failure" can be used as a good argument to change the whole
>>> direction and to discredite the innovative forms of multistakeholder
>>> collaboration. It is easy now for governments, which were not members in the
>>> group, to argue: "Look, multistakeholderism does not work. We - as
>>> governments - are different and have other working methods. So let us alone
>>> when we try to translate our (national) agendas into an international
>>> dialogue."
>>>
>>> A second scenario could be, that this is another step in what Bill
>>> Clinton said in San Francisco when he defined "Internet Governance" as a
>>> process of "stumbling forward". In this case a lot will depend upon the
>>> Nairobi IGF. If Nairobi takes on board a number of reasonable proposals
>>> which has been made by various members of the UNCSTD IGF Working Group and
>>> if Nairobi becomes  an "outstanding success", this will make life much more
>>> difficult for the governmental negotiators in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA
>>> to change the direction.
>>>
>>> What are the options now for civil society?
>>>
>>> Option 1: General frustration. We leave it as it is, lamenting about the
>>> failure of the process and watch what the governments will do.
>>>
>>> Option 2: Working together with friendly governments who have a voice in
>>> the CSTD, to work towards an extension of the mandate of the existing group
>>> until May 2012 with the aim, to produce a more serious analytical interim
>>> paper with recommendations until September 2011 (the draft could be
>>> discussed in Nairobi) for presentation to the 2nd Committee of the UNGA,
>>> which starts in early October 2011.
>>>
>>> Option 3: IGC takes the lead and starts a open drafting procedure for an
>>> alternative report, inviting other non-govenrmental stakeholders and
>>> friendly governments to join the process. The report could be presented via
>>> a friendly government to the UNCSTD meeting in May 2011 in Geneva. On the
>>> eve of the UNCSTD meeting in Geneva we could have a half day open
>>> multistakeholder workshop under the title "The Future of the IGF: How to
>>> improve multistakeholder collaboration".
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110330/7154d9af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Mar 30 22:10:42 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:10:42 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGC-sponsored IGF workshop proposals
Message-ID: <2A6F0E1A-E205-481F-83D0-ABEAFC45B385@ciroap.org>

This thread is to discuss proposals for workshops for the Nairobi meeting for the IGF.

This year there are feeder workshops which are those relating to the main themes and sub-themes of the meeting, and other workshops.  The overall theme of the meeting is "Internet as a catalyst for change: access, development, freedoms and innovation", and the main themes under this are:

Internet governance for development (IG4D)
Emerging Issues
Managing critical Internet resources
Security, openness and privacy
Access and diversity
Taking stock and the way forward

The criteria for this year's workshops are listed here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2011.

IGC members may, of course, propose workshops without the imprimatur of the IGC and are encouraged to do so.  However, there may be workshops that would have extra value coming from the IGC as the main global civil society forum on Internet governance issues.

As a reminder of the workshops we held last year, they were "Innovative Internet Governance Ideas and Approaches - An Open Discussion Space," "Transnational (or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy", and "Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015".

For workshops to be proposed this year, we will need to identify one or more people who will be responsible for coordinating it, which will not necessarily be either of the IGC co-coordinators.

One workshop idea that I want to throw in for discussion is the rather straightforwardly (if not confrontingly) titled: "Planning for a new multi-stakeholder Internet governance council".  The idea behind it is to provide a session in which to discuss hypothetical new high-level multi-stakeholder arrangements for enhanced cooperation and for conducting exercises like the review of the IGF, as recently but unsuccessfully attempted by the CSTD working group.

Please post your suggestions here.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress

Twitter #CICongress

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110331/60b58209/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Mar 31 08:44:23 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:44:23 +0900
Subject: [governance] WSJ "U.S. Products Help Block Mideast Web"
Message-ID: <p06240876c9ba0ab10d19@[192.168.1.160]>


<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704438104576219190417124226.html>

These same issues discussed at the IGF in Athens.  One more time?

Nice quote:

"Web-filtering technology has roots in the 1990s, when U.S. 
companies, schools and libraries sought to prevent people from 
surfing porn, among other things.

Today, that U.S. technology is now among the tools used in the 
clampdowns on uprisings across the Middle East. In Egypt, Syria, 
Tunisia and elsewhere, bloggers have been jailed and even beaten as 
governments try to repress online expression."

Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t